Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ord 1067, 1068 and Res 04-42 Palm Desert County Club C/Z 04-01 TT 31836 PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 05-13-2004
REQUEST: 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 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. SUBMITTED BY: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development 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 and DA 04-01 DATE: May 13, 2004 CONTENTS: Recommendation Executive Summary Background Draft Ordinance No. 1067 , Draft Ordinance No. 1068 , and Draft Resolution No, 04-42 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 16, 2004 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2255 Planning Commission Minutes of March 16, 2004 Related Maps and Exhibits 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.10.68 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 lots 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 less 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 less 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 lots (the golf course Tots) 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 lots 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 PROPOSED PROPOSED R-1 9,000 LOTS PR-6 LOTS 10-15 feet 11-22 feet 5'+5' 18' 9,000 sq.ft.gross/ 5,000 sq.ft.net 20-37% 10-15 feet 5-20 feet 5'+5' 18' 4,691 sq.ft. 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 16, 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 light * 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 dots 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. CIZ 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 Tots 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 Tots 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 Tots 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 Toss 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 Tots 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 lots 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 Develont Services Approval: /49) Carlos L. 9 rte./ City Manager /tm (Wpdocs\tm\sr\tt31836.cc6) 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 (0.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 FRED WARING DR City of Palm Desert tt HOVLEY�, y,Y x *� . rrr.. nr �, Il� ,�9ua, NMI 0.s. \nth } P.R.-4 PR. 0 x' QnIN11� I IIIini t 1111 RIli b SN _t•c/.�x f ! - r '� ar5,. � �... o 0,s. sacra sla 4000,1 4000 EA0000-• IIIIIIi:. Proposed Zoning Changes O.S. O.S. To To R-1 9,000 P.R. -6 Case No. C/Z 04-01 CITY COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE EXHI 1> IT A i 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 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: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor SUBJECT TC REVISION WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: City Manager DISCUSSION DRAFT May 4, 2004 Fee Exempt - Govt. Code §27383] (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] C:\windows\TEMP14MQF04!.DOC SUBJECT TO REVISION 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 C:\wi ndows\TE M P14MQF04! . DOC -2- SUBJECT TC REVISION 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 Planning Director 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. C:\windows\TEMFMMQF041.DOC -3- SUBJECT TC REVISION 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: 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 Facsimile: (213) 623-8288 With a copy to: Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 C:1wi n d ows1T E M P14 M Q F 04! . D O C -4- SUBJECT T , REVISION San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Madeline Clark Cahill Telephone: (619) 233-4100 Facsimile: (619) 231-4372 (c) Either 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 "Golf Course Improvements", in the estimated amount of up to $3 million and certain "Club House Improvements", in an estimated amount of $2 million. The Golf Course Improvements and Club House Improvements are listed on Exhibit "C". Owner's and PDCC Development's performance of the Golf Course Improvements and Club House 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 all First Phase Residences (as that phrase is defined below) in the Project when either (a) all of the Club House Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert; or (b) Owner and PDCC Development post a bond for the benefit of the City equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the costs necessary to complete the remaining Club House 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 Club House Improvements, based on the percentage of completion of Club House 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 -5- C:\windows\TE MPI4MQF04!. DOC StiBiNT REVISION "Second Phase Residences") which are depicted on attached Exhibit "D". Certificates of Occupancy for the Second Phase Residences shall be issued when either (a) all of the Golf Course Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert; or (b) Owner and PDCC Development post a bond for the benefit of the City equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the costs necessary to complete the remaining Golf Course 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 Golf Course Improvements, based on the percentage of completion of Golf Course 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 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 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 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 C:\windows\TEMP14MQFO4LDOC -6- Ti FT- R Vt'SJ 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 "C" 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 C:1windows1TEMP14MQFO4!.DOC -7- SUBJECT T(. REVISION demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Development Approvals, except that minor modifications to the Development Agreement, as determined by the Planning Director to not be a substantial change in the proposed Project or conditions of approval, can be approved by the Planning Director. 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 as an administrative matter 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 -8- C:\windows\TEMP14MQF04!. DOC SUBJECT TC KVISION 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. C:\windows\TEM P\4MQF04! . DOC -9- Nara ISUBJECT It ® REVISION 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 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. C:1windows\TEMP14MQFO4LDOC -10- 1 SUBJECT IT REVISION 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) C:\windows\TEMR4MQF041.DOC -11- 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: SUBJECT IT REVISION C:\windows\TEMP\4MQF04LDOC -12- SUBJECT Tr REVISION 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: C:lwindows\TEMP14MQF041. DOC -13- SUBJECT rr REVFSION 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 C:\windows\TEMP14MQF04!.DOC -14- SUBJECT T(. REVISION 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 C:\windows\TEMP\4MQFOLILDOC -15 SUBJECT it REVISION 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 C:\windows\TEMM4MQF04LDOC DOC -16- EXHIBIT "A" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of Property [Attached behind this page] SUBJECT Ti REVISION C:\windows\TEMP\4MQFO4LDOC EXHIBIT "B" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [Attached behind this page] SUBJECT Tr" PEV1'S#ON C:\windows\TEMP14MQFO4LDOC EXHIBIT "C" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Description of Project and Existing Development Approvals — Golf Course Improvements [Attached behind this page] SUBJECT T( REVISION C:\windows\TEMP14MQFO4LDOC gaMTIft I is" REVISION SUBJECT Tr EXHIBIT "D" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Second Phase Residences (Depiction of Lots) [Attached behind this page] SUBJECT re REWSION Zoning Ordinance Zoning Modification R-1 9,000 TR-6 Minimum Proposed Side Setback Minimum 5 ft. as approved by with City 5 ft. Front Setback 20 As approved 10 Setback to Front of Garage 20 As approved 20 Rear Setback 15 As approved 5 Minimum Lot Width 70 As approved 50 Maximum Building Height 18 As approved 18 R-1 9,000 TR-6 9,000 4,691 Minimum Lot Area 9,000 sq.ft. As approved FT Club House and Golf Course Improvements SUBJECT IT. REVISION The following improvements will be made to both the existing 9 Hole Executive and 18 Hole Golf Courses as well as existing Club House facilities. CLUB HOUSE IMPROVEMENTS A. Clubhouse 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. GOLF COURSE 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. 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: DA 04-01 relating to 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 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 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 a zone change and tentative map to create 95 residential Tots in the Palm Desert Country Club area. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 lots, 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 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Member of the Palm Desert City Council FROM: Robert W. Hargreaves, Assistant City Attorney DATE: April 23, 2004 RE: Palm Desert Country Club I have been asked to respond to the principal issues raised in Mr. Fleischner's March 9, 2004 letter on behalf of the Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society. Mr. Fleischner's principal arguments are: (1) that recorded Declarations of Restrictions prevent the golf course lots from being converted to residential uses; and (2) that the changes proposed for the Country Club do not conform to the entitlements issued by Riverside County. As discussed more fully below, neither argument prevents the City from granting the entitlements sought by PDCC Development, LLC. Our response, in short, is: (1) the City does not enforce private restrictions; and (2) under appropriate circumstances, the City can amend the County's entitlements, just as it can amend its own. I. Declarations of Restrictions The golf course lots within PDCC are subject to "Declarations of Restrictions" ("Restrictions") which provide that the golf course lots are "restricted lots" to be used "solely for the purpose of maintaining a golf course and such improvements reasonably related thereto". The Restrictions were binding until 1992, at which time they were/are automatically extended for successive periods of 5 years unless changed or rescinded by duly recorded written instruments executed by 51 % of the owners of certain residential lots within the subdivision. As a preliminary matter, the Restrictions are a private matter, binding on the various lot owners and the owner of the golf course. The City is not a party to the Restrictions and is not subject to their limitations. The City typically does not get involved in enforcing private agreements, such as CC&Rs, because the City does not want to become embroiled in private disputes. Attorneys for PDCC Development, LLC argue that there are a number of issues regarding the enforceability of the Restrictions; that the overwhelming majority of the landowners approve PDCC's development plan; that the title insurance is available notwithstanding the Restrictions, etc. In any case, the validity of the Restrictions is a matter between PDCC Development and the homeowners, a dispute that we do not recommend that the City become involved in. II. Riverside County Entitlements When the PDCC project was entitled by the County in 1961, the County issued variance Case Number 409 which imposed a number of restrictions on the development, including minimum lot sizes, maximum dwelling size, and the requirement that the open space golf course lots be maintained. The Restrictions were recorded to implement the County's open space requirement. Provisions of the variance have not been uniformly enforced. Previous actions of the County do not necessarily bind the hands of the City. The City, C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT - (PDCC) Memo to City Council final.doc as successor local land use agency, can modify or rescind the County entitlements, just as it can its own, with respect to a particular project, at the request of the property owner and in the best interest of the community. RWH:dm C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaues\My Documents\PALM DESERT - (PDCC) Memo to City Council final.doc Law Offices of CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS ROBERT L. PIPPIN MICHAEL A. CRISTE IRWIN L. GOLDS HANS P. FLEISCHNER VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Madeline Clark Cahill, Attorney at Law Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, California 92101-3540 73-550 ALESSANDRO SUITE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 April 21, 2004 Re: Tentative Tract Map Number 31836 Dear Ms: Cahill: TELEPHONE: (760) 862-1111 FACSIMILE: (760) 776-4197 E-MAIL: ROBERTLPIPPIN@AOL.COM Of Counsel: E. LARRY BISHOP rV CJ e- • J--1 D 3:70 • r'f. 0 tV tri rii -o X Ili vn rn You will recall at the April 1, 2004 meeting between Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society ("PDCCPS") and PDCC Development, LLC ("PDCC Development"), PDCCPS proposed three potential resolutions to PDCCPS's concerns about the effects of the proposed development on the residents of the Palm Desert Country Club. The proposed resolutions were, 1) that the proposed development be abandoned, 2) that the proposed development be reconfigured to redistribute the most intrusive homes to other areas so that the entire community would share the burden of the development, or 3) that each burdened homeowner be financially compensated for the effects of the proposed development. You will further recall at that late afternoon meeting PDCC Development, LLC flatly rejected proposed resolution # 1, and promised to have PDCC Development staff seriously examine the viability of proposed resolution # 2 which was a specific proposal for relocation of particular lots together with a mechanism similar to the operative declaration which would protect the remaining golf course lots from building for another 30 year period. The very next day, less than 24 hours later, on April 2, 2004, PDCC Development, LLC flatly rejected proposed resolution # 2. Finally, during our April 1, 2004 meeting, PDCC Development asked PDCCPS for a dollar value per homeowner and for the number of homeowners which would have to be compensated to satisfy proposed resolution # 3 so that a total cost could be ascertained. When considering this request for a dollar amount, PDCCPS was mindful of PDCC Development, LLC's explanation that the viability of any resolution was purely a business decision which turned on the net, revenue generated after a particular resolution was implemented. PDCCPS -vas also mindful that, according to PDCC Development, the proposed relocation of 17 of the 24 Madeline Clark Cahill Tentative Tract Map 31836 April 21, 2004 Page 2 homes removed under proposed resolution # 2 to areas where homes had previously been slated did not leave an economically viable project. In fact, PDCC Development's website www.pdccdevelopment.com indicates that removal of even one lot will destroy the viability of the project.' PDCCPS was then able to reason that if the loss of one home did not leave an economically viable project, the number of homeowners requiring compensation would place to great a burden on the project, even at de minimus compensation for each homeowner. We regret to inform you that the only viable option PDCC Development has left available to PDCCPS is proposed resolution # 1. As a result, we will be filing suit. As a courtesy to you, we will withhold filing suit until Thursday, April 29, 2004 so that your client may reconsider its flat rejection of a compromise which would have allowed the proposed homes to be redistributed throughout the community so that the burden will be shared by the entire community rather than disproportionately borne by those homeowners surrounding the driving range. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions. Very truly yours, Hans P. Fleischner for CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS HPF/nga cc: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Department 1. "To generate the funds necessary to restore the Golf Course and Clubhouse a minimum development of 95 new single-family homes, is required." http:. www.pdccdevelopment.comPDCC%24City:o20Meetings%20V3.pdf, page 6, capture date April 20, 2004. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 C. Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01, and DA 04-01 PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC, Applicant Request for 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 R-2 4,000 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. Mr. Drell said that before Mr. Smith described the project, he wanted to give an introduction to explain some of the unique aspects of this project which has led to staffs recommendation of approval. He said it was typically unusual for staff to recommend approval of a change of zone of a golf course or any open space lands. Over the years various owners of this golf course have come to the Planning Department and suggested projects similar to this where certain pieces of the course were being changed to residential use. His typical first comment was that it would be difficult. They asked why and he told them that rezoning of a golf course in this valley was only less difficult then redesignation of a cemetery. It would take very compelling reasons to suggest such a thing and suggest it with the expectation that it would get approved. The reason he thought this project has gone as far as it has is that there are unique circumstances which apply to Palm Desert Country Club and the relationship between the golf course and the residential development, which is somewhat unusual. There might be a few examples of it in this valley, but typically golf courses are developed for the purpose of selling real estate. As soon as sufficient real estate is sold, developers of country clubs find a way to turn golf courses over to the homeowner's associations, or members of the club, or a non profit and try to get out of the golf business. The reason is because the golf business is not all that lucrative in itself. The City of Palm Desert owns two golf courses and he could tell them it wasn't that lucrative. We built our golf courses MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 to provide golf to our citizens, but also to attract real estate development as well. Palm Desert Country Club is a situation where the golf course is separately owned as a separate business. There is no direct relationship between the owners of the homes that benefit from their proximity to the golf course and the owners of the golf course. It has to support itself as a business independently of the values and connection with the residents. Given the economics of the goif business and the age of this course, that has created a problem over the years. Like any other business there comes a time when it needs reinvestment and the economics of the business golf in this valley over the last ten years has not allowed that reinvestment to be financially supported by revenues from the golf course alone. So as each successive owner has bought the course, learned the hardened lesson about valley golf economics, looked at similar sorts of proposals of converting parts of the golf course that are not necessary for the operation of play into other revenue generating activities. For whatever reason they have gotten discouraged and found some new optimistic buyer who goes through the same learning process. He said it was kind of like people who buy baseball franchises. It was more for love then something else and after a while the love gets tired. Typically when they look at changes of zone and land use issues they don't look at economics. Unfortunately in this case the land use of this piece of ground as a golf course and the economics of it are inextricably intertwined in that the preservation of this amenity which really 1,800 homes almost enjoy is depended upon the financial viability of this golf course and part of that is based on the ability of an owner to make the capital expenditure to do all the deferred maintenance which has accumulated over the years and to upgrade it to make it competitive with other courses so it can attract sufficient new members and charge sufficient fees so that it can support itself and be maintained over time. That connection between the economics of the business and the land use as it effects this neighborhood really created this unique connection between economics and land use which staff felt was relevant in making a determination for a change of zone which typically they look for a compelling reason. Especially when it is a change in land use that some property owners didn't necessarily anticipate when they bought their homes. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 The first thing they were looking for in terms of what this change would accomplish was if it would result in a concrete way and guarantee that if approved, the golf course would be upgraded. All the deferred maintenance would be done. This important neighborhood amenity would be preserved and enhanced. Secondly, once that happened would an operational proforma support the continued maintenance of it? So staff requested from the developer financial data both involving the cost of the renovations, the cost of future operations and proforma for the whole project and how much money was being generated from the sale of these Tots. And why that scope of this project was necessary in terms of the revenues generated to accomplish the economic goal of acquiring the golf course, upgrading it and then leaving it in a financial condition that it could then operate sufficiently to keep it at a high quality. What they saw from the proforma was that based on the operations of the course that the $5 million which was necessary to do the upgrade of both the course and the clubhouse, the capital cost could not be borne by the operations of the golf course. They have a banker and an accountant on the commission and he hoped they came to the same conclusion. In essence, the money that went into both buying the course and upgrading the course had to be debt free capital. The only way to generate debt free capital was to take a piece of the real estate and convert it into capital that could then be put back into the course. Staff's conclusion was that the debt free capital derived from this project was necessary to do what is required to preserve the quality and Tong -term maintenance of this golf course. Lastly, staff wanted to be assured, because in any land use decision there is an issue called windfalls and wipe outs. There are some property owners that benefit financially from land use decisions even though they have no stake in them and there are usually some who sometimes have a less positive benefit or a negative benefit. When the City decided to build the park at City Hall and put up fields and ballfields, there were property owners at Monterey Country Club who absolutely claimed that would destroy the property values of their homes. Ultimately it came down to a decision by the City to mitigate any negative impact of the land use decision as much as possible to the point of hopefully zero and 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 ultimately they make their decision on the broad benefit to the general public. One of the challenges to the developer was to demonstrate that this project would result in an overwhelming benefit to the neighborhood and that those property owners which were conceivably impacted by its development, their complaints were addressed to the greatest extent possible. To that end the City retained an appraiser. The report was received this afternoon, so the commission did not receive it in their packets. The appraiser was to look at the pure economic impact to certain properties that were most obviously impacted by the new development. While he cautioned to say that he could not put a value on the value a particular homeowner has in their home, in comparing comparable properties within Palm Desert Country Club to see if there is a difference in value based on differences in the nature of the view of the golf course and to see if that is reflected in different sales prices, he could not find any difference. In his view, in general in the market of houses below $300,000, whether or not they are on a golf course, the main difference he saw in house values had to do with the house, ones that were on a golf course and ones that weren't. He said certain characteristics of a view might have special value to a particular property owner and that may be why they bought that house, but he said he was unable to find in the market place a significant difference between one view and another. Staff's conclusion was, in going through the process, and the developer could describe it, those instances where they felt the impacts were most severe they tried to eliminate those units. So in general, staff's feeling was that the overall upgrade of value resulting from this project and the conclusion of the appraiser compensated for any diminution of value resulting from a change in the character of the golf course view. He said Mr. Smith would now give a description of the project. They would also have some comments and discussion of some of the conditions of approval that they will want to discuss changing or eliminating relative to some of the unique circumstances, but said they could get to that later. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 Mr. Smith deferred to the City Attorney at this point for his opinion relative to the letter which was received Friday morning. Mr. Hargreaves indicated that the commission may have had an opportunity to review the letter from the Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Association. Generally it raised two issues. One had to do with CC&R's and the other with a variance or variances granted by the Council. With respect to the CC&R's, Mr. Hargreaves stated that the City typically does not inject itself into the enforcement or. interpretation of CC&R's. CC&R's are private agreements among private property owners that may or may not coincide with the City's own goals and objectives with respect to land use. When the City makes a decision, it has it's own goals and objectives and acts pursuant to those and to the extent that there are disputes and disagreements with respect to CC&R's, we leave it to private property owners to sort those out. We didn't want to put ourselves into the position of being an arbiter of those legal documents because the City didn't have any enforcement authority or any enforceable rights in those, so we would rather not get into the CC&R issues, although certainly the commission is entitled to take CC&R's into consideration in judging the overall fairness between the different neighbors. But we don't want to get into technical issues with respect to enforcement of CC&R's. The other issue with variances, apparently the County issued several variances that to some extent effect the entitlements. The variances the County issued are not unlike the variances the City issues. You give them, you can take them away, you can change them, you can modify them assuming it fits within the land use criteria and that there aren't any particular invested rights attached to a particular variance. Typically when we issue a variance, a piece of property gets built out pursuant to that variance and you can't go back and take it away because the sticks are already there, but in a situation like this, if we go back and change the variances or entitlements relative to the variances, that is within our prerogative to do so. Mr. Smith displayed a map of the Palm Desert Country Club area and outlined the salient points of the staff report. On page 9 under "Development Agreement" he made a correction. In the last sentence of that section where it said "ten'' units would be held for completion of the clubhouse improvements, he said it should be changed to 11 units. He noted that the commission received in their packets the correspondence received up until that time. In addition, staff circulated more to them 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 earlier today and when they came in this evening. He referred the discussion back to Mr. Drell for any further comments. As described in the development agreement, Mr. Drell said that committed the developer to renovate the golf course. One of the conditions, Community Development Condition No. 17 dealing with the re-establishment of the open space covenant on the course, the applicant was committed to this, but for issues relating to the negotiations on the purchase of the golf course and other legal issues, the applicant requested that until certain of those negotiations and issues are resolved, he would prefer that this condition not be placed on the project. Hopefully by the time this gets to Council those issues would be resolved and it could be brought up and discussed at that time. The applicant was requesting that Condition 17 be deleted. He explained that there were also some conditions of approval that by virtue of the development agreement are inappropriate. Community Development Condition No. 3 relative to municipal ordinances, basically the standards are as defined by the project and the development agreement. He said there were some other issues that the applicant could bring up, but those were two that were the most significant. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was recommending the deletion of Conditions 3 and 17. Mr. Drell said modification of Condition 3. The development agreement didn't exempt them from state and federal statutes, but as it relates to those standards identified in the development agreement, those which supersede municipal ordinances since the development agreement is an ordinance. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Condition 3 would be modified and Condition 17 deleted. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that completed the staff report. Mr. Drell said yes, for now. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner Campbell asked if the fees that were paid to the homeowner's association went toward maintenance of the golf course at this time or if there weren't any fees. Mr. Smith explained that the golf course is privately owned. Mr. Drell clarified that there is no connection between the homeowner's association and the golf course. Commissioner 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 Campbell asked if this is an 18-hole golf course. Mr. Smith said it is 18 plus a nine. Commissioner Campbell noted that some holes were eliminated, but were replaced somewhere else. Mr. Smith concurred and explained .that the applicant would go through and describe the modifications to the golf course. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. The request is for R-2 4,000 for 9.68 acres and staff's recommendation would be PR-6. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez noted that the applicant had not agreed to do that, it was just staff's recommendation at this point. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a condition in the development agreement for a sinking fund for future improvements or things of that nature. He understood maintenance was in there, but wanted to know if there was a sinking fund for course improvements in the future. Mr. Smith said no, it wasn't addressed. Mr. Smith informed commission that one of the pieces of correspondence the commission received yesterday or today was from the Homeowner's Association in support of the project. Up until that point the City had not been formally advised. Secondly, the City's Project Area 4 Committee also considered this matter yesterday at its meeting and recommended approval. Chairperson Jonathan said the homeowner's association gave formal endorsement and asked how many of the 1800 homes they represented. Mr. Smith deferred to them for the exact number. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and explained that the applicant would get an opportunity to present their application to the commission, then they would open the discussion to the public for those that want to testify in favor of the application, then they would give those people who are opposed to the project an opportunity to speak. Following that the applicant had an opportunity to address the commission again. Then the public hearing would be closed. That is the process. When they get past the applicant's presentation, he would apprise the audience at that time what the requirements are in terms of the public hearing portion for the 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 public. Chairperson Jonathan asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LARRY KOSMOT, a partner in Palm Desert Development Company LLC, stated that he was at the meeting with his other two partners Randy Case and Sherrie Ryan. He stated that they are the primary applicants/proposers of the PDCC golf course and club house improvement project and the 95-home residential project. Mr. Sung Cho from Dajoon Investments, the owner of the property and part of their application at this point, was also present. He said they are here after nearly 18 months of hard work and a lot of thought, conversation and discussion. What they had come to know was a very fine community. As a developer and president of Kosmot Companies, he has a 30- year track record in development investment brokerage and consulting. But more important than that in terms of this project, he had the privilege of serving the public for 13 years as a city manager and planning and community development director in four communities so he could easily say as he reviewed this project in an efficient manner for the commission that when the house is packed, it's because it evidences the importance of land use and quality of life decisions. They understand that, and it's part of their credo to bring forward conclusions that really better the community, that revitalize the community and in this case, after a lot of hard work, discussion, analysis, study, changes and modifications, they are proposing a project that truly will protect and enhance the key asset which is the golf course and truly result in the improvement of the quality of life for the community. By way of background, because it had taken a long period of time and a lot of work, from his perspective he thought it was important to see and understand what the context of this project is. This is a very established community. It is so unusual because when many people think of the desert, they think new, but this is an established community built out over 40 years, there are approximately 1800 residents and 1500 live in single family homes. The focal point of the community undeniably is the golf course, the 27-hole golf course and the clubhouse which is approximately 10,000 square feet. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 Their initial observation as community developers when they came here, walked and looked around when Sherrie Ryan introduced them to this project, they had two questions. How can they accomplish the revitalization of the golf course and what would be the best solution to support that. They came to the point where in order to create a common vision for the golf course and the neighborhood improvement, they knew they had to share a lot of time with the community because they have been here a long time. And they did. It became evident to them very quickly that the golf course had to be restored, it was essential, and that in order to do that the golf course itself could not support that investment. So they had to identify the number of homes that would support that overall investment and effort. So they basically evaluated several residential programs. The program and project they submitted tonight is third. They came in with a 250 two-story town home concept and all that pretty much occurred near the clubhouse. They reduced it and fully redesigned a 1 12-home concept with three floor plans and after reviewing those with the residents, they ultimately reduced that to the project that was submitted, which was a minimum number of 95 homes with four floor plans. Those changes were significant to them because they learned a lot. They conducted over 100 community meetings, they had a town hall which was attended by approximately 300 residents and was quite a meeting --they could hardly fit everyone in. Then they scheduled weekly Thursday and Saturday meetings with over 100 residents and literally had dozen of one on one meetings. They had many meetings with the country club golf members, the men's club, the women's club, the niner's club, the social club, and they provided contacts as to websites with local toll free numbers. He went through that because that level of interaction to him really got them to these guiding principles. Because when they took a look at the challenge of this development, as Mr. Drell said there have been a lot of people who looked at possibly just buying the golf course. When they bought this golf course they quickly hit the reality that the course wouldn't support the investment required. For whatever reason over the 30-40 years this course has become 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 non competitive in the way it operates, so they knew in terms of their guiding principles that after this work with the community 1) an investment into the golf course and clubhouse would be needed and that it would cost in the neighborhood of $5 million. Their golf course team was present, Randy Case, his partner on the golf course side. They would go through those issues and conclusions with the commission. 2) The current operations won't support a $5 million level of investment required. 3) To get the support for that investment, they would have to build some quality single family homes. And if they built those homes and asked permission to do it, which is what they were asking for here, those homes would have to be compatible with the neighborhood. They would have to be designed and developed in a way that really worked and fits the neighborhood and meets the architectural pattern because in 40 years they can understand the diversity of architecture that exists there. So it was no small challenge to come to understand how to really make that work. But given that guiding set of principles, they also recognize there are alternatives, but they didn't think they were very attractive. The alternatives are status quo, do nothing, don't approve this project, and allow what he thought would happen which was the long-term deterioration of the course and the clubhouse. The City could buy, renovate and operate the course. They are in that business and own two. He didn't think the City had considered it and wouldn't make that conclusion on their behalf. They are the City and he respected that, but he didn't think it was an option that they wanted to proceed with in the past and wouldn't want to in the future. They could charge assessments. One way communities reinvigorate is they go ahead and charge assessments for things like street lights and street improvements and they could do it in this case with the golf course. It's just that there is such a diversity of interest there. Not everyone is a member of the golf course. Not everyone is on the golf course. And some people are golfers and some aren't. It would be unusual to get a consistent and predominate level of support for that. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 Finally, the proposal before the commission indicates the private sector alternative which they thought could work, knew could work and would have no financial assistance from the City. The project is a golf course and club house improvement project first. They understood that and it was the guiding principle number one. The golf course had to be improved. It is concurrently and secondly a residential development program of 95 new California style Spanish homes that they thought fit exactly the pattern of development and style that has evolved in that neighborhood over a period of time. And a neighborhood signage improvement program, way finding signs, attractive markers that really gave some integrity and cohesiveness to the community and with the housing and golf course together really bring an image and level of quality they thought would serve the community very well in the future. He said they have received some support for this project and the reason they have is because they worked hard in finding a project that would fit the perspective and conclusions of most of the people that live in the community. He stated there are 959 homes in the HOA and those are the people, the community residents, that have supported them with an overwhelming vote. Over 50% of the homeowners voted. He started out by saying he was a city manager and in some cities he ran, they were hard pressed to get 18% votes. Over 50% showed a level of interest. The HOA election showed nearly 70% in favor of the project. They have had the endorsement of just about every golf course group: the Board of Governors, and these were all groups that gave a lot of input on the golf course improvements. There was not a hole, literally not a square yard, out there that they weren't touching and improving. They got to learn how to do that through their conversations with these groups. The women's club, the men's club, the niner's club, the social club. They received written support from over 700 residents. Using a display board, he said they walked the neighborhood and identified every support letter, every house, and every signed petition, every card mailed. He knew the commission received a lot 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 of correspondence. They were out there and understood the correspondence and knew the issues and were proud to be here with their team, which is multi -faceted and broken down into two key components. Everything they did was geared toward this accomplishing and executing the best possible plan they could come up with for the community. They have the golf side, they have the residential side, and there was cross over. They are integrally tied. They believed this was an approach and was between their golf course operators and their architect. Their architect specializes in building golf courses. That is what he does. They have found the best. Their clubhouse architect is award winning. Using a display board, he pointed out the neighborhood, the driving range, the clubhouse area and the apartments that the City purchased. He said it was hard to see, but one thing he wanted to point out in terms of evolution of architectural styles was they would start to see a lot of redness and orange down in some of the later components. That is because the neighborhood started to move toward a Mediterranean, Spanish vernacular in their architecture in the later years. That's how they started to promote the same type of architecture. The important element is the phasing of this project based on the City's development agreement. They are absolutely putting in the improvements before and concurrently with the residential. They had heard a lot of comments and one thing that was so important to this neighborhood and this community was they made a commitment to make improvements to the golf course prior to or • in conjunction with the initial phase. That is exactly what they were doing. The schedule would show them that in fact, other than the entitlement period, phase one is the golf course improvement plan. All 27 holes. They started predesigning now to hopefully get City approval and then move toward the development of the homes. Only in conjunction with or post these initial improvements as they move forward. It was very important to them to try and get the improvements to the golf course done before the high season. So this schedule was tight, but they are ready to go and was why they had their golf course people in 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 particular start to get really detailed in the design of this course, which Randy would show them. The. second phase, after building out the initial improvements to the golf course, all 27 holes, then they would do the clubhouse remodel at the tail end of the first phase of the houses, but they couldn't finish or get that occupancy permit until they worked on and complete the final, they couldn't finish and get the occupancy on the 11 single family homes per the development agreement until they finish the clubhouse. So golf course improvements, then houses, then clubhouse, then houses. That's the way it should be and they were okay with it. They were also okay with the PR-6 zone. It wasn't a problem or an issue with them. They support that. They were just incredibly excited and enthusiastic to move forward. He said the commission would hear from two more people in this presentation. Randy Case, his partner in PDCC, and he would discuss the golf course improvements. They are the centerpiece to this whole project and they would have Frank Stulls, their architect, speak a little about the architecture and he would wrap up and then they would hear from a lot of different folks. MR. RANDY CASE, 601 S. Figueroa, addressed the commission and noted in response to one question that was asked earlier is the golf course is an 18-hole championship and 9-hole executive course. He went through a slide/power point presentation. He indicated they were fortunate to bring in to work on this project some very talented individuals in the golf business, one of them being Carey Bickler out of San Diego, one of the top 125 architects in the world and he specializes in remodeling golf courses, in particular Billy Bell Junior and Senior. He just finished La. Jolla Country Club, Del Mar Country Club, and a couple of others Billy Bell Junior and Senior had done. So he has some experience with the kind of golf course this is and that was really important to them. They weren't going to change the golf course a lot. They were going to improve it with an irrigation system, fix the greens and do things like that, but they weren't going to change the bones. The bones of the layout were outstanding. It 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 was designed back in the 1950's and they thought that was great and would keep it that way. He showed the 18-hole course on the outside and the executive course on the inside. As Mr. Smith talked about in the staff report, they were realigning two of the executive course holes. One would start at the clubhouse, two would go along the homes and three would go over Tennessee and then wrap around pretty much like it is now. When they were done, the championship course would maybe be 30 or 40 yards shorter, but the same par 72. The executive course would be shrunk by about 50 or 60 yards, but he thought the level of improvement to it would far exceed that difference. A couple of key things about their improvements is that they will improve every hole. They weren't improving the championship course and leaving the executive course out. They were improving every hole of both courses starting at the tees and working their way through the sand traps, the greens and basically they were redoing all the greens and tees, not realigning, but reshaping some of the fairways and redoing all the bunkers. He thought they were adding 15 new sand traps primarily on the championship course, but a couple on the executive course. There are three existing water features. One around the first hole, one by the 7th, and then one by the 13th hole. They were going to redo those three lakes and improve them. If they had been out there lately they are pretty dirty and sad looking. They needed some serious maintenance and attention. Then they were going to build a new water feature with sort of a three -tiered waterfall in between the 9th and 18th with a spectacular finish on both nines on the championship course. As part of the golf course team, they have the William Charles Group who specializes in renovation and natural construction. Part of their team worked for Jack Nichols for dozens of years and built most of his courses, so they were pleased they have the architect to design it and these folks to build it and see it through. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 He said they would renovate both courses, every hole, and wouldn't go into detail about it. There was detail in the development agreement they were negotiating with the staff that would tie them to specific things like the number of tees, greens, sand traps, all those things. One thing he wanted to point out that was really important is that this is one of two golf courses in the valley that is on a manual coupler system, meaning folks have to go out at night and put out sprinklers and that is the only way it operates. It doesn't go by itself. There are two left and they are real happy and proud to say they are going to put in an automated irrigation system for both courses. They have looked at the opportunity to do that. It isn't an inexpensive opportunity, but was necessary for the ongoing maintenance and capacity in being able to maintain the golf course and it would save hundreds of acre feet of water a year. So they were real happy about that part of their project. He showed a list that specified what they would do. There's two phases that Larry talked about. They have the golf course phase, which is the first phase which they would do before taking any C of O's on any of the homes. That's about $4 million roughly. About 40% of that is the irrigation system and the remainder is the golf course improvements and the relocation of the maintenance facility. They heard about the maintenance facility and he forgot to mention that and they would go back in a second, but he would talk about that later. The second part of the project, this year the plan is June 2004 to about October 2004 to do the golf course work during the low • season. Next year the clubhouse improvements would be done, June through October of 2005 and again that would be during the slow season. He showed a picture of the existing clubhouse. One of the final components of their team that he was proud to talk about was Richard Denzer of Denzer Associates, a renowned clubhouse architect and they were happy to have him on their team. He was going to create some exciting things for the clubhouse, not only from an entry perspective with a water feature and a new entrance, they were going to paint it, add some new landscaping, 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 and they were going to redo the inside of it. Primarily they were going to remodel the interior of the clubhouse. It vastly needed it, from the plumbing, to the locker rooms, to where the pro shop is, to the kitchen and dining facility. It needed a complete remodel to the clubhouse. He showed a plan view of the parking area and one of the things is that the parking area had been relocated. The parking now was on the sides and corner of the clubhouse. They were going to relocate the parking area to California and New York. It would be fully landscaped with a water feature. Ron Gregory from Ron Gregory Associates was the landscape architect and would take care of that part. Going back, he stated their proposal from the beginning has been to relocate the maintenance facility and the cart storage barn. They are now located on New York and were not real attractive looking. The idea was to tie the cart storage barn into the clubhouse and the maintenance facility to be relocated between holes 13 and 14, which is where it was many years ago. They had a sort of bubble diagram of where it would be and they were working with their architects to design that finally, but it would be fully landscaped and it would be between the holes where it used to be. He turned the discussion back to Mr. Kosmot. Mr. Kosmot said he wouldn't dwell on the zoning map since Mr. Smith covered that well. He pointed out the location of the 17 lots that were eliminated as a result of the hundreds of meetings they had to come up with the plan that was submitted. Another diagram he thought gave them a good sense of the clubhouse lots and some of the golf course Tots on New York, the readaptation of the golf holes•and the driving range that currently surrounds the clubhouse, and the overview of the clubhouse and the parking. He said they were really looking to improve these holes, put in a state of the art practice facility, and create golf course views. They understood there are adjustments and modifications, but still rather significant and important. This community is not gated and it is laid out in a way that both the Fire Department and Public Works Department have looked at. It is safe and allows for a sense of community, adequate parking with islands of parking, a nice little 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 clubhouse and a pool. One of the conditions really speaks to this clubhouse community adjoining the HOA and they were open to that as either a sub HOA or HOA direct depending on how the regulations work. At this point the most important thing for him to say, because he was going to introduce Frank Stulls, their architect, who would spend about a minute, they spent a lot of time looking at this neighborhood and the slides were really indicative of a lot of the newer homes. They are 18 feet high in many cases and have graduated slopes and setbacks. Tile is a statement for many. With that, he introduced their award winning architect who has over two dozen active projects in the desert area and who worked very hard at taking this project and giving them a residential concept that they think achieves the right identity, the right aesthetics and also will achieve a level of acceptance from buyers. MR. FRANK STULLS, a principal of South Coast Architects located in Newport Beach, California, addressed the commission. As Mr. Kosmot mentioned, he said they were asked by their client to develop a project within this community that would work in terms of size to the market, as well as to the existing community. What they designed was a series of four homes or plans. Those plans range from 1,750 square feet up to approximately 1,800. square feet. Working with home(s) on a golf course community, there were obvious things they had to design as components to those homes. He thought the biggest things that had to happen with homes like this is from an internal standpoint they had to create the right floor plan in terms of how it extends to the golf course. So that typically meant they create these large, big rooms that consist of a kitchen, family and dining area all open as one space that work their way in terms of viewing corridor to the course. The other component that is very traditional to a golf course product that buyers in today's market like to see is the master suite or owner's suite and that was also part of these homes in terms of what faces toward the course. The other key component in designing these homes was the front elevations, the style of 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 these homes in today's market, as well as trying to create something that is of interest. They followed a Spanish style of home. They could see from the conceptual street scene that they have a variety of elevations working to a condition where they have some vertical elements that are roughly at their highest point at 18 feet and some a little bit less and then the basic ridge lines which are at a smaller level, closer somewhere between the average of 15 to 16 feet. With these homes they also wanted to make sure there is a certain amount of sensitivity because of the density of these homes with 5,000 square foot lots and that they give these homes and the street scene the opportunity to have the garages deeper into the lots so what projects forward more is portions of the house like the entry, bedroom condition, office condition and with the elevations, they could see as they looked at the garages on the two dimensional street scene, they were actually set further than some of the other components. By doing that it gave a more appropriate street scene to the neighborhood and did not create a series of garages along the lanes. One thing he heard early into the presentation is they do have garages. These garages also have a greater depth then the front setback which allows additional parking in the driveway off the street, so they can accommodate up to four cars within their lot. He thought those were some of the key components that they are trying to recognize in terms of what they want to market as a good product. They do a lot of golf course product in the desert currently and this particular form seems to work very well. In conclusion, Mr. Kosmot said one of the things he wanted to underscore is the number of homes, 95 homes not only came after a lot of hard work and evaluation, but overall in terms of the overall community it is about 5% of the current existing product, so they think it is a reasonable level of reintroduction of new, quality homes that fit aesthetically. It wasn't overbearing. It is the number that works to support the golf course. In closing, he wanted to identify finally that it is not just their development and the course they'll buy that they want to take and work with, they see the community benefiting from an overall 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 aesthetic that could include signage and way signing and actually some safety signage in terms of the golf course and cart crossing. They were happy to work through these concepts with the community as they have in the past, but it is their idea that this is also an element of improvement when working with a cohesive community such as this, one with a sense of history and no real champion of getting a cohesive message and identity present and recognizably present. He said he appreciated the commission indulging them. It is an important consideration and wasn't a light matter. They didn't take it lightly and they are responsible community developers. They are committed to being out in the desert and in Palm Desert and would like to open an office here and stay here for the long run. This golf course and club house has been here a long time and they feel it is time to turn the corner. For the corner to be turned it would take significant monetary investment and they are prepared to do it at both levels in quality houses, but first in the golf course. The project is undoubtedly environmentally friendly and the integrity of the environment is not only improved because of the improved planting and operational quality they would bring, but they would actually save a significant amount of water by moving to an automated irrigation system, over 500-acre feet and their engineers were now telling them they may reach 700. That is how good this could be. They thought the project would clearly be aesthetically productive and would enhance the property values. They heard the analysis by an independent appraiser. They think it is better than that and not a sideways motion, but was clearly a forward motion in terms of value when this golf course comes back to its original luster and when these attractive, well -positioned homes are placed into the community. They thought that conclusion received the support and overwhelming endorsement of all the groups because it is well conceived and because the community has become their friends and they have become theirs and he thought they had a long standing partnership ready to get started and they requested approval of their project. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any questions for the applicant. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 As a point of clarification, Commissioner Lopez asked if the golf course would close for the initial remodeling and irrigation from June through October of 2004. Mr. Case said yes, their plan, assuming and hoping for approvals from the commission and council, was that they would start work sometime in June and the golf course experts tell him they can get it done by October of this year. All 27 holes, all irrigation, tee work, and all the golf course stuff. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that the Planning Commission wasn't that germane to economics, but when they bought the golf course (and he knew he was one of several owners in the last several years) he thought they must have some idea as to the improvements necessary for the course, and asked if they looked at other ways of paying for those improvements. He asked if the homes were part of the plan from the beginning. Mr. Case said that as pointed out in the beginning by Mr. Kosmot, Mr. Sung Sang Cho is the current owner of the golf course and one of their partners in the development. He deferred to Mr. Kosmot or to him. Mr. Kosmot said they are prepared and in the transaction to acquire the course, but what is necessary for them to acquire the course is the entitlements for the 95 homes. Because they went through this analysis, part of their due diligence and part of the concept development, they know they would not be buying this golf course without the ability to reinvigorate it and the only way to reinvigorate it and operate it at a level of integrity and competitiveness that can work out here is to improve it, which means they need the homes to be able to generate the contribution to improve the course. Mr. Case added that as Mr. Drell pointed out earlier, they had given him some information about how the current golf course runs and Mr. Kosmot indicated how the future golf course would run after the improvements. There has been a number of owners over the last ten years that probably came in and they could do things, but when looking at a $1 .5 million improvement to the 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 irrigation system, that started setting them back quickly and they couldn't catch up. That is what they found in the analysis. The improvements will allow that golf course to run on its own. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that he hadn't gone through in detail the proforma, but asked if there was a sinking fund for in the future when this irrigation system and other problems arise so the course can be upgraded in the future. Mr. Case said absolutely. One of the key components on that spread sheet on the bottom is the capital improvement fund, the capital improvement set aside fund. Normally for courses that need a fair amount of maintenance, and he could bring up his experts again, but he thought they usually put aside about 4% of the total revenue. Once it's fixed and they do all these improvements, he thought they had looked at 2-3%. They would set that aside every year so they wouldn't run into these problems. Commissioner Tschopp noted it was 2%. Mr. Case concurred that it was 2% at the bottom. That was because they put the $5 million into it. Normally it was around 4% if improvements haven't been done for a while. There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan said the commission would move on with the public hearing to get testimony from those in favor of the project, then from those opposed, and then the applicant would be given a final opportunity to address the commission. He noted that he had some Blue Request to Speak Cards and he would call up those people first. He asked everyone to please remember to keep their presentations preferably to under three minutes because they have so many people present, but if they had to they could go up to five minutes. He stated that each and every person that wanted to address the commission would have an opportunity to do so. If they weren't the first one up or he didn't read their name, he said not to worry, they would get their chance. That was what the commission was there for. He asked that they not be repetitive, stay on point, he knew there were a lot of things going on in their neighborhood and lives, but they were there to address specifically the application before them. He asked that they please try to contain their comments to the application 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 itself. He asked everyone to state their name and address for the record. Beginning with those in favor, he invited Mr. Gary Houtz to address the commission. MR. GARY HOUTZ, 77-370 Minnesota Avenue, addressed the commission. He said as they could see by the sea of green behind him (people wearing green T-shirts) and by the hundreds of signatures on the petitions that have been submitted, this project is very well supported throughout the community. However, in order to avoid or at least limit repetition and for the sake of brevity, they kind of organized a core of speakers and asked them to limit their speaking time. He stated that he is a resident of the city of Palm Desert and resides in Palm Desert Country Club. Most of his adult life was spent in the San Francisco Bay area but he chose to move here after visiting several times and basically falling in love with the area and the people. He meant that literally because he met his wife here and they were married at the flag pole on the first tee of Palm Desert Country Club. It was a beautiful wedding and a beautiful setting; however, this was several years ago and as they all knew, the condition of the golf course has deteriorated since that time and no longer has that appeal it once had. He and his wife own two homes on the golf course. They have no intentions of leaving the area and fully support this project. They recently completed a major overhaul remodel of their home with the cooperation and guidance of the City of Palm Desert, especially Mr. Phil Drell who didn't agree on all things, but when it ended up they parted friends and he was happy with his house and hopefully Mr. Drell was too. They were confident that the City will provide the same cooperation and guidance to the developers of this project and will keep them on course to improve their neighborhood. He said that many of the older houses would never be approved by the City today. If they played golf, they couldn't help but notice that dozens of these homes are in need of substantial rehabilitation. The California Spanish style of these proposed houses will fit right into the neighborhood. Down California there are dozens of Spanish and Mediterranean style homes that are 18-feet high, or 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 approaching 18 feet high. Most of the recent expansions are Mediterranean or Spanish in style. After many months of planning and meetings with property owners, the goals of the project developers were pretty clear to all of them. The developers have had many public group meetings and made themselves available for meetings with individuals to discuss the concerns of the homeowners. The number of proposed homes to be built have been decreased significantly after meetings because homeowners explained their concerns to the developers who were able to look beyond the bottom line and see that the concerns were genuine and real. This is an indication that the developers are willing to meet the high standards set by the City in order to improve their neighborhood and make it a better place to live. The developers met with them, walked their properties and made changes based on their input. They had been truly committed to working with the community insuring that this is a project that will work best for the neighborhood. The developers have committed to fixing lot line adjustments to help encroaching homes reestablish legal Tots. The neighborhood has been too lax on these matters and this is a way to fix it. He asked the Planning Commission to approve the zoning change and allow this project to proceed. He has faith in the commission and was confident the developers would follow its recommendations so that they the homeowners could enjoy the fruits of the commission's labors. He thanked them. MR. GEORGE BOAL, 76-739 Oklahoma in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he represents an eight -person group they call the Board of Governors and they get their noses into almost anything that goes on in the club. They try to take care of the problems that the members have that can't reach the owners, so they try to be the spokespersons to try and solve problems. For the last year or so they haven't been able to solve too many problems because they really haven't had too great a cooperation from the owner. They had to take his side a little bit because they have some real problems. Mr. Drell already said them 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 and took his thunder, but the big item as far as he is concerned is they can buy a lot in Palm Desert Country Club and it was probably the only place in the state of California that they can put a house right on the fairway, walk out without a fence, put a pool out in the back, take all of the advantages they have of being in a country club atmosphere, don't worry about maintenance because someone else will cut the grass and reseed it and so forth, and not contribute one plug nickel to the golf course. This has been a problem because they watch the finances as they come through for everything that goes on. There is just not enough money or revenue coming in from greens fees, and certainly not the tennis court, and now days not the restaurant, there was just not enough money to maintain a normal course, much less a 40-year old course that needs as much money as they need. So the LLC group came in and gave them the opportunity to raise themselves up by their own boot straps and they really appreciate it and hope it works. MS. RUTH DeGEORGE, 76-797 California Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She said her house was in one of the pictures shown and if she had known she would have closed her garage door. She said they don't come under the jurisdiction of the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowner's Association. They live outside that area. In order to save time, she wanted to address the commission on two issues. She was scheduled to speak again, but would rather speak once if they didn't mind. She was here to present a letter to the Planning Commission from the President of the Palm Desert Country Club Women's Golf Association who could not attend this meeting. It was addressed to the members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission (see attached Exhibit A) and the members unanimously supported the PDCC golf course improvements, clubhouse renovation and residential project upgrade. As a homeowner, she and her husband have lived at the aforementioned address for the past 15 years and as dues paying members of the PDCC, she and her husband completely support this project. They have a golf course winding through their community which if viable, enhances the area and increases property values so that everybody in the community gets the 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 benefits. None of the homeowners in the community are assessed for the upkeep and maintenance of the course. The income is derived from the country club membership and green fees from golf players from the public. Over the past 15 years they have become increasingly concerned over the deterioration of the course and the clubhouse resulting in a second class country club with declining membership. She admitted to being skeptical when first learning of the plans of the PDCC Development Incorporated having listened to the unfulfilled promises of many previous owners. But after viewing the project plans which includes the very important replacement of the integrated wasteful irrigation system and listening to and observing the actions of those in Kosmot responsible for implementing this project, they are confident they have the experience and expertise to finally make PDCC a first rate golf course. During the past month she polled her neighborhood and found the vast majority of residents welcome the improvements this project will bring. She asked the commission to please approve this project. MR. CHARLIE ASH, 77-130 New York Avenue in Palm Desert, said he was present this evening representing the Men's Club at the Golf Association at the Country Club. Over many many years, this course was one of the oldest courses in the valley. He was told from some very reliable sources that it was the home of many of the qualifying rounds for some of the lesser pro tournaments. They were somehow involved in the Bob Hope Classic tournaments, etc. He stated that. he has been a member for 13 years and it seemed there has been a steady deterioration in the course and the clubhouse over that period of time. Their membership in the Men's Golf Association has really hit rock bottom. They were having a tough time. And the course suffers when they don't have the cash paying members in there and people will not come out and join a course where the parking lot is all in shambles. They just look at it and no one wants to come around. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 The Men's Group really endorses this project and he has been involved in the redevelopment committee there and has seen a lot of the projects come and go. He thought these were the first people to come into PDCC that he really felt have made an honest effort to develop the course and the clubhouse and bring it back to its original splendor. He recommended that the commission approve the project. MS. CARMEN CARLO, 79-785 Camelback Drive in Bermuda Dunes, addressed the commission. Doing a little bit of history, she was noticing a world class tennis player, Alice Marble, she was a club champion three years at PalmDesert Country Club and Ms. Carlo hadn't realized that. She stated that she currently is the President of the Golfing Niners at the Palm Desert Country Club. The Nine Hole Group was started in 1967. It would play nine holes in the front for two weeks, then nine holes on the back for two weeks. In 1973 the executive course was opened. They currently have between 65 and 75 members. Many of the members have been active Niners since the early 1980's. Listening to them talk about how the course was, it was hard to believe it is the same course she has been playing for three years. The condition of the course and the ladies locker room has deteriorated so much it is barely usable. They are unable to have their lunches in there lately due to the insufficient staff. Their members are of an age where this location is probably going to be their last move. They are all looking forward to having a warm, friendly country club for all of them to enjoy. They want a country club they can be proud of, to enjoy, not to mention support. So they took this time to thank the commission for their consideration to vote for them, the people who have no choice but hope for a brighter future. MS. JUDY WILLETTS, 43-660 Elkhorn Trail in Palm Desert Country Club addressed the commission. She said she bought her home that was built in the 1960's. For the 60's it was considered to be a custom home. It was one of the first homes built on the golf course and it was a one owner home when she purchased it. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 The bones of the house were lovely and good, but she had to come in, gut it and completely renovate it, correct the plumbing, the electricity, roof and everything to bring it up to today's standards. She lives on the 7th hole and looks out at what could be a lovely scene which would be a lake amenity. What she sees out there is a muddy hole. There is absolutely no vegetation growing around it. Sometimes it has a water feature that sprays up, but most of the time it doesn't. She would not even want to take her out of town guests or her local friends, she's lived here 30 years, to the clubhouse for an evening out. It doesn't even equate to what anyone would classify as a dining experience. When this development came on board, she had heard rumors over the years about other people coming in and maybe taking part of the golf course away and building their homes and they are going to completely obliterate the golf course. She lived here listening to all of those rumors. So when this developer came on board, she thought, this is it. But she went to the meetings because prior to this no developer had ever opened community meetings, so she started going to the first meetings and listened to their presentation. That was some months back and their presentation to the homeowners was almost exactly what they presented to the commission. So she considered that they gave the residents a lot of respect and consideration. They have met with them individually, if not collectively, for their input and suggestions and have listened to them. She is not a golfer, could only see that this project with the revitalization of the community as a whole, this project will serve to benefit all of them as homeowners, the golf community, their older citizens and the newer young people moving into their community, she thought it would benefit everyone. MS. BARBARA POWERS, 76-918 Kentucky Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She stated that she and her husband have owned their home since 1983. They live in one of the Lusk homes and they are not in the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association area. They are for this Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC project and last fall she became involved in it because the country club area they lived in had a 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 terrible water pressure problem which had since been corrected by the Coachella Valley Water Department. But there were many other negative things that caused the golf course and the overall neighborhood to deteriorate from the past five owners. She was sure they were hearing from them all tonight. When she found out they wanted to build homes, she wanted to make sure they would all have water. She met with Sherrie Ryan, Larry Kosmot and Randy Case and they explained their project to a number of the members and neighbors. She was convinced it would be a great improvement for their club and all of their homeowners for the whole area. Some members of the club and herself decided to poll the residents and get signatures on petitions from the homeowners, and she was sure the commission had copies of them. Their petition committee obtained hundreds of signatures from their homeowners who are in favor of this project. If they met someone who wasn't sure about the project or was upset with the project, they notified Sherrie Ryan or Randy Case and they would meet with that person. In most cases they would work it out. This Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC has severely cut homes from the proposed project to accommodate the concerned homeowners. She asked the commission to please recommend this project to the Palm Desert City Council with a big yes because she truly believed it would be a great benefit to them all. MS. PHYLLIS HARKINS, 77-298 Missouri Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She stated that she was present representing the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association as their President. When this project first started coming out, like any homeowners association, homeowners associations play alone and no one really pays attention until something happens and then the first place to call is the homeowners association. So when the project first came out and information was being disseminated to the homeowners, at that time the board of directors of the association voted to take no position on the project until such time as the board was able to get a feeling from the 959 homeowners that are the association and 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 which are only a part of the entire Palm Desert Country Club community. They had an advisory ballot that was sent out in January of 2004. The ballot was in two parts. The first part asked the homeowners if they wanted the association to take a public position on the project. The second part of the ballot asked them if they wanted the association to take a position, what the position was. Out of the 959 ballots sent out, 538 ballots were received back. That is a 56.1 % return. For the number of ballots returned, 354 homeowners wanted the association to take a position on the project, which is 65.8% of the ballots received; 321 of the people were in favor of the project, 59.7% of the ballots; 106 homeowners did not want the homeowners association to take a position, 19.7% of the ballots received; and 154 homeowners were opposed to the project, 28.6% of the ballots received. The numbers were skewered because some people voted for one part of it, but not for the other. So they weren't all balanced. Based on the strength of the ballots received and the strength of the vote in favor of the project, at the March 8 board meeting of the Palm Desert Country Club Association, the Board of Directors unanimously, and she wanted the commission to know that there were a number of board members who were personally not in favor of the project, but because of the strength of the ballots, there was a unanimous vote to take a public position approving the project. The other thing the board also asked at that time was that any of these homes in Tracts 2137 and 2283 be included in the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association, which she knew was an issue down the road and was not something for discussion tonight. She thanked the commission for their time. MR. KEITH CAROSELLI, 76-896 New York Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he is a member of Palm Desert Country Club. He is also a member of the recently formed PDCC Social Committee. The function of this new committee is to create special, social and cultural events for both the members of the club and the residents of Palm Desert Country Club community and surrounding areas. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 To test the waters of the community, they have had a few special events since October of last year. They were received with considerable success. Many of their invited guests to these events expressed an interest or desire to see additional types of memberships added to this facility. The leading membership category was a new social membership. Part of any community is a necessity of not only economic growth, but social and cultural growth as well. Adding social memberships in Palm Desert Country Club will enhance the experience of visitors to this city and the valley. It will enable the ownership to develop the restaurant facility at the club into not only a economically viable facility, but a social and cultural center for the community. In informal discussions with the proposed new ownership, they discovered them to be in full agreement to adding not only social memberships, but the necessary amenities to both support and enhance all aspects of the club membership. By revamping both the golf course and clubhouse, a new attitude will prevail among the community, an attitude of pride in their community. A pride that would be reminiscent of years past when this club was host of the Hope for Tomorrow golf tournament, part of the Bob Hope tournament. A pride that . would allow even non members an opportunity to bring their guests to the club for dinner and special events. He personally supported the new development knowing that the developers and their staff are not only willing to put forth the effort, but are indeed capable of completing the project. This coupled with the checks and balances afforded the residents by the City of Palm Desert should keep this project in the positive direction to completion within the developer's time frame. He thanked the commission. MR. CHUCK POWERS, 76-918 Kentucky Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he wasn't speaking for himself this evening, he wanted to read a statement from Mr. John and Marian Rogerson of 77-039 Utah Circle in Palm Desert. He noted that Mr. Rogerson is a noted architect and general contractor for 40 years in So. California from Malibu to San Diego. "We have been homeowners in the abovementioned country club 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 since 1981. Full time residents since 1986. As such we have seen many changes in the club ownership and with each new owner the overall appearance and management has gone down. We believe it is now time for a complete change. We do approve of the plans that have been submitted by Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC. As an out dated country club surrounded by many newer residential golf course developments, it would seem prudent to make the changes submitted. We understand that some of the homeowners disapprove of the project; however, with the current ownership the clubhouse and golf course will only deteriorate further and property values will begin to decrease. It is our hope that the Planning Commission will seriously consider this project as being an upgrade to the community and give it full approval. Signed by John and Marian Rogerson." MR. SCOTT JOHNSON, 77-150 Florida Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he has been a homeowner for 11 years now. His parents have owned a house on Illinois for over 20 years and he has been playing golf at this club since the age of 13. He most recently has been the director of golf at Palm Desert Country Club for seven out of the last 10 years. He has now worked for five different owners at the country club and he could say without hesitation that they have all been similar. They buy this golf course and come in and then realize the high cost of running this golf course. They have a very unique watering system and electricity bills are skyrocketing during the summer time. They desperately need an irrigation system just to compete with the golf courses close to them. He said he was one of the first people to meet with Sherrie Ryan before even Larry and Randy came on board to talk about this project. He was most proud to say that he has seen other groups come in here and try to build on this golf course, but not one of them had come to the community like this group has and asked for input of what they want and what they don't want. He thought they should be applauded for that, for coming to them. Mr. Drell pretty much stole the rest of his speech because he touched on some of the things they would hear about the opposition wanting the City to buy the golf course instead of building a third one, which he knew they had plans for now which would cost millions 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 of dollars more to take over this project instead of just building one from scratch. The other solution they might hear is for the members to buy the golf course, which would be about $30,000 each in assessments. He couldn't even get them to pay $2.00 for closest to the pin and they want $30,000. He and his wife reside there, they are not going anywhere, they love their community and asked the commission to give this a loud yes to the City Council. MR. M.G. "BUTCH" WILSON, 77-195 Minnesota Avenue, said he belongs to the PDCC Association and Country Club. With the development being proposed, they are particularly pleased that the executive course will be kept and be restored. Although the driving range would be nice, it's substandard in its current condition and very unsafe. Additionally, there are a substantial number of premium driving ranges nearby, some even lit for night practice. Claims by some that this project worsens traffic conditions are absurd. Any traffic issues they have now are due to existing pass through travelers that drive through their wide residential streets too fast. He asked the commission to please approve the PDCC Development project. MS. LEE CAROSELLI, 42-465 Tennessee, said she wasn't wearing a green shirt, although she was offered one several times. She came here with more questions and wanted to see what the Planning Commission had to say. After being part of several other communities, she thought this was the most thorough job she had ever seen and they were all to be congratulated. She liked hearing that there was a caring about the amenity they have at Palm Desert Country Club. And she liked hearing that the City was even going so far as to address the economic needs. She also liked the results. She was for this project and came in for the project, her only question was if it would be carried through or if they would lose their enthusiasm again with another group. It looked like they had addressed that very well. One thing she wanted to ask again, was the continued maintenance. It was addressed, there was talk about a 2% capital fund being set aside. She knew they had certain conditions they have put on this project and knew they were really stringent from people were telling her that were being tied down with them, but she wanted to more about this capital improvement budget and the fact that it addresses the second 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 phase that was brought out for the whole project, and that was the continued maintenance. She felt sure with the job done already and the thoroughness that all of the problems that they may have had and all the questions they may have had have been addressed and will be addressed. She thanked them for the work and hoped they would approve it. Chairperson Jonathan called the next name, Tain Bodkin. There was no response. MR. STEVE MOORHEAD, 43-905 Milan Court in La Quinta, said he is a past member of the Board of Governor's for this country club and is also a past Men's Club officer. He was in support of this development for a couple of different reasons. One was, and hopefully they would touch on it with the homes that are being built, is the pricing of homes and how the values of homes are increasing even as they spoke. He's a realtor and has had three listings in the last three months, two in the last three weeks, that have sold for prices that are higher than they have seen as a norm. So he thought the bounce they were seeing was partially due to this project. Most of the folks he has talked with in doing his daily business within the country club have talked about the effect the new homes would have within the community. They think positively of it. Other people he has talked with that have purchased homes within the country club are looking forward to this enhancement of the country club itself as well as the golf course. He thanked the commission for their time. MR. STAN GREENE, 76-376 Poppy Lane, said he wanted to recommend his approval. He's a former City Councilman for the city of Reno, Nevada. He was one of the first members at Desert Willow and knows the City takes pride and has one of the finest public course in the world at Desert Willow and clubhouse. He couldn't see them stopping there and recommended approval. MR. RICHARD LANDIS, 43-325 Texas Avenue, said he and his wife moved to that location in 1989. Since then they have seen numerous proposals put on by different owners. As stated before, five different owners and each one came in with a grandiose plan. For a short period of time they've shown some improvement and 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 then revert right back to doing nothing. The plans for the improvements to the clubhouse facility and the golf course, with each change in ownership they see very short periods of time upgrades to the course. The proposed new owners of LLC are the first to submit a viable proposal with realistic capital and a sound method to recover their investment. Improvements to the clubhouse and golf course including automatic watering systems will enhance the golf course tremendously. The golf course has been in terrible shape and the irrigation systems are extremely inefficient. The enhancement and restoration necessary will not occur unless the Palm Desert Development project is approved. He said the representatives of the commission represent a very progressive city. They think their proposal is in direct concert with the city for the enhancement of the community. He urged them to vote in favor of the project. Chairperson Jonathan called the next name, James Neumann. There was no response. MR. ARTHUR IPPOLITO, 77-015 and 77-021 California Drive, said he has two homes in Palm Desert Country Club. He came down during the early 90's to the valley to look for a home. He looked at one end of the valley to the other end. He kept coming back to Palm Desert Country Club. Why? Nice Tots, golf course, and the main thing was the first year he went there the homes were in really bad shape. The next year he went there again to look and homes were being fixed up. The next year the same thing. So he and his wife bought their first home there and now live there full time. He just went through a remodel, went through the Architectural Review Board and they were pretty hard with all the things they wanted to see done. He told them he is excited and wanted to see this place improved because it is so great. And the commission now has the opportunity to change the golf course like the City is doing making all the homes who want anything done improved, not just improved but looking good, in comparison with other places. And now they have a chance for this golf course to finally get it done. Because that's the one thing in the neighborhood that has been going down hill steady every year. The golf course has gotten worse. The neighborhood is coming up, but the golf course was going down. They needed the commission to 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 approve this and get them back on track. It's part of our city and part of Palm Desert and they needed it to look good. They have a lot of things going on with half the place with wires underground and half the place with wires on top. He knew that was in the process of going underground, so they had a chance for Palm Desert to have a really super neat golf course and homes around it. He asked them to please approve it. ChairPerson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in FAVOR of this application. MR. FREDERICK LEAGIN, 43-215 Texas Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they are sitting in a little corner of the 8th green. It is really nice home, a Spanish hacienda as proposed by the architect here. He really felt there is a lot of merit to the concept of improving the golf course, that's all they hear about. He said he isn't Irish and he isn't a golfer. He happened to be an old fashioned tennis player. Besides that, he thought there was real merit to this and on the advice of Ms. Ryan, he signed the petition to go ahead with this particular product, but he had a few reservations. On behalf of some of his neighbors who weren't present, there are serious considerations for building in the second phase some homes in areas that are so called green zones or green land where there is a crossing of golf carts going across the street. In certain areas, even in his area, they are planning to put a $350,000 home on a piece of land that isn't suitable in his considered judgement to be built there. Aesthetically it didn't look good and he didn't think it helped the neighborhood by putting little lots all over the place. He thought the area that was mostly concerned for the development would be near the clubhouse and the improvements there. But plucking a whole bunch of homes all around the place aesthetically wouldn't be very nice. Besides that, he won't paint his house bright purple and City Hall people would allow him to do that, but by the same token they should not put a $350,000 house next to a $120,000 house on a single lot. That's his considered opinion. Also, the idea that there isn't going to be traffic congestion or density and traffic by adding another 300 + cars and another 500 people was not very realistic. They have enough traffic problems 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 and they should seriously consider the impact on traffic congestion in spite of all the through traffic that now goes on Warner Trail avoiding Washington and other streets. So there were some considerations he thought they should really look at seriously, but he thought the project deserved a chance. MR. JOHN RICE, 76-763 Oklahoma, stated that he's in favor of the project. He's been a homeowner there for three months and since he's been there he has seen a lot of pride of ownership in the neighborhood. Many people up and down the street are remodeling and there was some active interest in fixing up their places, which is good for him because he's a tile man and he'd love doing their houses. As far as this project is concerned, the people running this project are very well put together as far as their history in building and he had all the faith in the world in them. He thought this would bring a lot of wealth into the community and was only a good thing to do. He asked them to give their support to the project and thought Palm Desert would be a better place. There was no one else in favor. Chairperson Jonathan said they would move on to those that wanted to speak in OPPOSITION to the application and referring to the Blue Speaker Cards, asked Jerome Pineau to address the commission. MR. JEROME PINEAU, 77-510 California Drive in Tract 2137 of the Palm Desert Country Club, stated that he stood before them tonight as the founder of the Palm Desert Preservation Society whose members own property within the Palm Desert Country Club. At this point he wanted to respectfully notify the City of Palm Desert that: 1) their members have enforceable property rights which prohibit the creation of additional residential lots on the golf course lots at PDCC and that 2) the County of Riverside Planning Commission Variance Case 409 as amended imposed certain restrictions upon the 560-acre area that became PDCC which the Tentative Tract 31836, which they are considering and which the proposed development would violate, he wished to inform the City that all members of the Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society intend to enforce their rights under the law. Instrument No. 31032 recorded on April 12, 1961 is a declaration 43 MINUTES MARCH 16, 2004 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION of restrictions which established the golf course Tots within Tract 2137 as "restricted lots" to be used "solely for the prurpose of maintaining a golf course and such improve mentsly related thereto" and "imposed on each restricted lot a servitude in favor of each and every lot in said tract as the dominant tenement or tenements which shall be enforceable against the restricted Tots and each of them by the then owner or owners, lessee or lessees of any other lot or lots or interests therein is said tract." The members of the Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society own Tots within Tract 2137 and intend to enforce these rights as the creation of the proposed additional residential Tots on the golf course lots of Tract 2137 at PDCC would violate the declaration. He informed them that there is an identical document for Tract 2283. When the Palm Desert Country Club was initially developed 40 years ago its creators recognized and understood the value of open space and they were wise enough to establish legal protections for this resource and insure open spaces would exist well into the future no matter what the circumstances might be. Now once again this valuable open space, a fragile resource needing protection, is threatened with disappearance for no compelling reason. If they approved this project, cluster homes would quickly replace wide open spaces, they would be allowing in essence this golf course to be broken up and become filled in, a unique decision in the history of the city of Palm Desert. Variance Case 409 provided that "a change of zone of any or all of the property involved in this variance shall not relieve the permittee or his successors in interest of any of the requirements of these conditions." Variance Case 409 also required protective covenants to insure conformance with the intent and purpose of this variance. Those protective covenants were recorded in 1961 and 1963. A change in zoning of the open space golf course lots to residential zoning did not relieve the successors of the obligation to conform with the intent and purposes of Variance 409 which were to preserve open space in a dense residential zone as embodied in and set forth in the respective covenants. If this project is approved open spaces will disappear and existing view corridors will be forever be blocked and denied to many 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 residents of the golf course and to anyone traveling the roads surrounding their community. On October 1, 1985 prior to the PDCC being annexed by the City of Palm Desert, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny a similar request by the then owner of the golf course to add additional single family home sites as proposed by the proposed request for Variance and Tentative Tract Map No. 20589 as amended, based in part on findings and conclusions that A) the proposed project was not consistent with the then current development standard of an R-1 zone, B) the approval of the variance request would encourage small lots in the R-1 zone where there were other areas with zoning which would accommodate the proposed smaller lot sizes, and C) the approval of the tract would be the equivalent of changing the declaration without the consent of the property owners which would expose the County and now unfortunately the City of Palm Desert to potential suits from the residents. He said this wasn't his personal opinion, it is the opinion of Ms. Corky Patricia Larson, the Riverside County Commissioner who issued this finding in 1985 which is part of the documents the commission was considering in their staff report. Copies of all the abovementioned documents were provided to the City of Palm Desert and to the Palm Desert Planning Board on March 12, 2004. In closing, he said the Preservation Society was obviously adamantly opposed to this project for the reasons mentioned. The importance and relevance of the documents submitted was evidenced by the fact that their very own Planning Commission Resolution item number 17 is requesting a similar mechanism to protect what may remain of the golf course as a condition of this development proceeding. Surely then such documents must be important and very relevant to the commission. He didn't believe they could recommend the project based on the vast amount of factual and legal information they would now surely possess after this meeting is over. He thanked the commission. He stated that one person who was going to read a statement had a medical emergency and asked Chairperson Jonathan if someone could replace her and read her statement in her place. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan said yes. When he got the point of asking if anyone wished to speak, that would be the time. MS. LISA THEODORATUS, 77-040 Utah Circle, stated that her homes is one of the most effected in the entire development area. They purchased their home three years ago and decided to buy it before ever going inside. The reason for this is because the lot their home sits on is 9,500 square feet and has 140 feet of golf course frontage and a panoramic view of the mountains, four fairways, the clubhouse and driving range. It is also very private, especially at night when they could sit in their backyard and not see other homeowners inside their yards or homes. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Smith to put the picture up to see where the home is located. Ms. Theodoratus said that what the developers propose would take all of this away and would leave them with nothing but a house facing a wall of new homes so close together that they might as well be one. She disagreed with the findings of the Planning Department that the "location and design of the proposed homes do not unreasonably detract from the overall value or enjoyment for surrounding property owners." She knew for a fact that if this development is allowed to proceed, her home and her community will not be the open vista community that the Riverside County Planning Commission wished to keep in perpetuity by means of Variance 409 and the accompanying declaration of restrictions. She asked each of the ones who came to the meeting tonight in support of the developers several questions. If their homes were effected in the way if they would feel the same way. And to those that complained to the developers about a lot in their existing view corridor and it was removed, remember, they have had no relief and are awake at night fearing this project. Also, the remodel of the clubhouse as per the plan before the Planning Commission included the parking lot and exterior paint up to a maximum expenditure of $1 million. There is no provision in the staff report for the 1,800 square foot pro shop expansion, bathroom remodel, new kitchen equipment, or dining room remodel. And most 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 importantly, no provision for the highly expensive underground cart barn that was to be done under the clubhouse. Where will the 60 or so carts and other course equipment be kept when this project is finished? The Planning Department didn't know yesterday, do you? More importantly, does anyone? It is true that this course has sunk to a horrible 'condition. She did believe that Dahoon Investment knew what they were getting into when they purchased it in 2001. She presented a Desert Sun article from May 4, 2001 to show this knowledge and their intent at that time to do the improvement now being presented. She said she isn't a financial expert, but does have questions. In reviewing the financial information provided in the staff report, she wanted to bring the following points to their attention. Dahoon Investments paid $4,075,000 for the property in 2001 and the proforma shows a debt service of $5 million of capital improvement from 1999 to 2003. If Dahoon paid $4,075,000 for the property in 2001, how could there have been debt service on $5 million of capital improvements listed for those years? There is no monthly cash flow prior to June 2003. The informal information provided in the staff report only pertains to potential post development years. Additionally, it seemed to her that financial information provided in the staff report should be based on actual PDCC golf course historical performance data and not based on golf market information supplied by the Price Waterhouse Coopers Corporation. Consequently, she believed the City needed to look further into the proforma of this property and this transaction and request real certified documents from Dahoon's accountants in order to produce a more complete financial picture of this property to justify a compelling reason toapprove this project on a financial basis. Lastly, based on legal information they presented tonight and other documents contained in the staff report, they believed that the advisory ballot and subsequent position taken by the homeowners association in Palm Desert Country Club as indicated in the document provided in their packet is not supported by the sound 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 legal basis of their CC&R's and they challenge its results. She thanked the commission. MS. KERSTEEN ANDERS, 77-005 New York Avenue, said she would like to address an item in the staff report, Section C, background evaluation criteria. It states the following, "The location and design of the proposed homes do not unreasonably detract from the overall value and enjoyment for surrounding property owners." She had been advised by the Planning Department that the City is paying for a professional assessor to perform a before and after analysis on her home. She saw no such document in the staff report as of yesterday and consequently, no conclusions can be reached at the moment with respect to property value impact from this project. She also reserved the right to have her own analysis performed in the future on her home. She thanked the commission. MR. JAMES EVANS, 76-827 Oklahoma Avenue, said he was against the change of zoning at the country club. The reason is that it sets a precedent that he thought was very bad. Five years from now the present people might run out of money and what would they do? Come back and go through the same song and dance. The next thing that was left was the smaller course and that is where he lives, by the executive, course. So now based on this if they are out of money they get the zone changed and put houses where the golf course used to be. He would also disagree with the appraiser over there. When he sits and looks out his window and sees a scene like that, it was worth more than looking at someone's back yard that is ten feet from his back door. He thanked the commission for giving the chance to talk. MS. SUZANNE TRACY, 77-020 Utah Circle in Palm Desert Country Club, said she has been a resident of Palm Desert since 1968 and has lived at 77-020 Utah Circle since 1970. She completed purchase of this property in 1972. She was fully aware of the declaration of restrictions when she purchased her home. She was told that this would protect her view in perpetuity. Her plan is to retire here and where else could she get such a beautiful view? She and her neighbors have often remarked how lucky they 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 are to have such gorgeous views. She planned to stay here for one reason and that was because of the view. The plan to develop the driving range by placing 65 homes on the driving range will remove her view. She is opposed to the entire project and in particular to Lots 47 and 48 which are located in a line drawn from her home to the clubhouse. She wanted to maintain the existing view corridor that she has had since 1970. Because her home sits at the end of the driving range she will be impacted. She will be looking at these homes every time she looks out her patio door and kitchen window. She does a lot of gardening and every time she's out in her backyard she'll be denied the view she has come to love. She felt the proposed Spanish Mediterranean style is not appropriate to this area. If they looked around they would see that all of their homes are ranch style homes. The roof line height of the proposed homes is at approximately 17.5 feet. None of their homes have this height. This difference in height will significantly reduce her view. Besides losing her view, she would be impacted at night by the increase in the noise level and the light pollution that would occur. These are things that could not be eliminated if the project goes through. She urged them to think about all of them who are being negatively impacted and to not set a precedent that would be bad for the city of Palm Desert. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Jonathan called the next name, Kayla Cruce. Mr. Pineau explained that was the person who had to leave and her letter would be read later. MS. EVE KANE, 43-380 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert, said she was about to commit political suicide in front of her golfing friends and bridge friends. This is the 25th years she has lived on the perimeter of the driving range at Palm Desert Country Club. She has been an active member of the Women's Club 18 Hole Group for 20 years, and for the last five years she has been a member of the Niners. She has survived four owners of this golf club. All four planned to build houses on the ingress and egress of 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 every lot on every hole of both golf courses. None were successful. She wanted a new club and a golf course for her golfing friends and herself. What she didn't want were 64 houses in her backyard. Building a nucleus of 64 houses on the driving range will devaluate her property at her expense. Incidentally, she couldn't imagine a country club without a driving range. What she didn't want was a city street coming from California Avenue through the golf course and intersecting Tennessee Avenue at an already dangerous spot where a sharp bend is located. She has almost been hit backing out of her driveway. She didn't want 128 cars, if there are two -car families residing in those homes entering and exiting two doors from her house. More cars add up to more hazards for their traveling golf carts. She didn't want all the extra traffic. They selected their home because they fell in love with the location. Real estate value is location location location. This proposed housing project will destroy her location. Mr. Kane passed away last October, but they have six kids who will inherit this location. They all say vote no. She thanked them. MS. CLAUDETTE WHISTON, 77-160 Indiana Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She knew that some of the other residents would be impacted the most, but if they looked at the map, her home would be 130 feet of the 65 homes. They did take out one lot which was one home. The rest would be right in front of her home. She came here in 1998, rented the house she's in and later on the owner wanted to sell it. She bought it in an "as is" condition, but she did pay a premium price because she knew it was on the golf course with the most beautiful view. Everyone that comes into her home remarks about that. It is tranquil and serene and she enjoys it so much. It is beautiful with the trees and the grass. She didn't care if it is a golf course or a park. With those homes, she understood that Lots 39 and 40 will have windows looking right into her home. She lives next door, which was just built two years ago, to the Villas on the Green and those homes will be looking right into the other homes. She didn't know 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 if that owner knows that or not or the residents there, but she went through the construction of those homes. She tried to find out how many were there, there's quite a few. She had the construction that went on and the construction workers came onto her property. She didn't have a six-foot fence there. She had a six- foot fence between the Villas and the green and herself. She had a packet that she gave them. She took colored pictures of her view and they would have that in their file. With the people that are here that spoke, they are not living on the golf course. They don't have the view. It isn't going to impact them. They don't understand what is being taken away from the ones living there. She fully agreed that the golf course needs renovating and the clubhouse and many of the homes in the country club need renovating. She wished the City of Palm Desert would give grants to some of them that can't fix their homes up. That is what she did. She got a low interest loan from the City of Palm Desert. She put in new air conditioning, a new roof, she painted it and it is a beautiful home. She receives compliments on it all the time. So if the City of Palm Desert could do that, let some of the people improve their homes, maybe give the owner of the country club and the golf course some money to fix it up because she thought that even though they will do a great job redoing it, they don't have enough members to keep up the revenue on it. There aren't that many people who have a lot of money there in the Palm Desert Country Club. She didn't believe it was going to bring people from outside to come in even though they redo it. She called one of the partners and he came out and he acted like she would be thrilled that the home that they were going to build. She could speak to him in a normal voice and then he said they would probably have a sand trap in front of her home because they were going to have more of a drought resistant golf course. That meant she would have a tractor at 5:00 a.m. in her backyard smoothing out the sand. She sympathized with the golfers that they don't have a nice golf course and she knew Palm Desert really wanted to improve. She loves Palm Desert and anything they could do to improve it, but she didn't believe building 65 homes in a beautiful open space area would do it because in her opinion they are just looking to make money on the homes and say they 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 are going to fix the golf course. She asked why they couldn't just fix the golf course, redo it, and make money doing that if they are so interested in it. She talked with the Planning Department when this first came about and she didn't hear about it until the very last when someone put a flyer in her mail box because she works all the time and Mr. Drell said, "Don't worry about it. Changing a zoning from a golf course or open space is like making it into a cemetery." What he said tonight. Well, she would rather have a cemetery than all the people with the impact of noise, traffic, pollution, and the construction. They were going to take down beautiful trees where there are ravens that come back every year to these trees. All those trees will be gone. As far as saying she won't lose value, if she said she lived on a fairway she increased her value. If she said she lives on a lot looking where she's looking into 65 homes, what would that take away from her value? She planned to leave her home to her children and plans to live there the rest of her life. She will have nothing. It will go down in value. If this proposal does go through, in all the decency if they looked into their hearts they will not approval it, she wants to build a six-foot fence just like in the picture for her safety and privacy because those homes will be looking right into her window. She wants permission to do that if it's approved. She hoped it wouldn't be approved. For all the residents wearing the green shirts, she hoped they could find another golf course to go to. MR. JIM DIETERICH, 77-105 Michigan Drive, stated that he is opposed to rezoning any open space any where in the city. To him it's like a park. He knew it wasn't exactly a park because they couldn't go play on it, but the view amenity is his, it's all of theirs. It shouldn't be for sale. Developers shouldn't be able to just buy an open space and develop it. When he bought his house, he looked into it to make sure this was zoned open space and that there were restrictions about it ever being developed. Only then did he purchase the house. And now they are going to put a row of houses blocking his view amenity which he didn't think was right or legal. He thought the City has been doing very good 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 adding open space within the city limits. Fred Waring is beautiful. They removed homes and put in this open space. It's very nice. He thought the traffic will be terrible. There will be at least 1,000 additional car trips each day. It's going to be unsafe. He is against it and hoped the City didn't remove the open space. It should belong to the citizens of the city. He thanked the commission. MR. JOHN GREY, 76-963 New York Avenue, stated that in reviewing the staff plan prepared for this commission pertaining to the project, he disagreed with his position on the aesthetic impact this project will have on Palm Desert Country Club. Specifically he referred to Section 1, aesthetics, and the documents stating that existing vistas, as restricted which is not correct, the trees referred to in this item are not a hindrance to the view. On the contrary, they are a special part of their views and constantly enhance them without restricting them. Removal of these existing large trees will not improve their views, but will only serve to diminish them, especially with the addition of the new cluster homes. New smaller trees will not improve the scenic vistas. The staff report also assesses a lack of historical building on the project site. In fact, the original tract homes in this community were designed by William Bray. While not one of the most renowned mid-century architects, he and his works still serve a place in history. The historical value of their community is also enhanced by the fact that Palm Desert Country Club was the first such community in this area. As such, it is indeed original and is surely worthy of consideration of preservation based on this historical fact. He also asked the commission to take into consideration the character of these people who are proposing this project and should do thorough background checks on all of them. Personally they have handed out promises like they are free candy and when they came around to his home next door, they went to his tenants and promised a new golf course and got him to sign a petition, but never once said they were going to build 65 homes directly across from his backyard. He thanked the commission. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 MR. JACQUE BECKER, 77-620 California Drive, addressed the commission. He said that three or four hours ago he was sitting at home getting ready to watch the tennis. As a former general manager of the Shadow Mountain, which he still to this day thought was a nucleus for the growth of Palm Desert if they looked back at the history. He came to the desert in 1947, so he's been around for a long time. The reason he is here is because he had a knock on the door by a neighbor and she was very distraught and she wondered if he knew what was going on tonight. She told him there was going to be a meeting regarding the development here at the Palm Desert Country Club and he said as far as he was concerned, he didn't have any objection to the development. He is involved in a lot of developments himself and knew what they were going through. But she asked if he knew they planned to move their maintenance facility to their backyard. Well, that raised a red flag and that is why he was at the meeting. He was very concerned because up until now he hasn't gone to any meetings, but relied specifically on the mailings. and the newspaper reports that he got. He had never once seen No. 10 on the improvement list about moving the maintenance facilities between the 13th and 14th fairway, which is a double fairway, and he lives on the 14th fairway. So does his neighbors. All of a sudden they could envision the loss of all the greenery, the trees, the mountains, etc., and he is very concerned. He also owns a residence at Bermuda Dunes on the 6th fairway parallel with the 5th. He has a beautiful double fairway there with a lake. There's also a lake on the number 13th hole. The only difference is about a million dollars in value. But that's a lot of taxes they enjoy. He said he was being facetious, but it's true. He is concerned how they all of a sudden slipped in like a little non plus thing that type of an improvement without any formal notification to him and people living on that fairway. He would like to know those answers and he resented them doing that until he can see and now exactly if they are going to approve it. He owned a lot of property in Section 29. He owned 40% of 330 acres next to Florine long before it was the city of La Quinta and he owned the homes in Palm Desert in 1965 before they ever incorporated. Seems like every time he gets involved with property the city 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 comes along and creates waves and many times it's good. It wasn't all negative. He owned the corner where the IMAX theater is, but they took that away from him by eminent domain. So city, city, city has been his nemesis. Now this project tonight, he was asking them right now if they ever had this on an agenda prior to tonight or if they just slipped it in. They have been dealing with it now for a long time. Chairperson Jonathan explained that the commission would get to its discussion when all the public testimony was done. It was possible the applicant might respond to his concerns. He was serious. It is a very important thing. If they owned a very beautiful home on a fairway and all of a sudden there was going to built a maintenance shack, he didn't know, it might be an improvement, but he didn't know how and he was concerned. He asked if Chairperson Jonathan said there would be a follow up on this and he would get a response. Chairperson Jonathan said he hoped so. Mr. Becker said he didn't want to see them in court. He knew that once he made that statement here, it gave him that privilege. He said that could be put into the minutes because he was making that statement right now. He made a joke and then apologized for his sense of humor. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him for his comments and asked Lola Green to address the commission. MS. LOLA GREEN, 42-025 Tennessee Avenue, said that she submitted a letter which they had already received. It was submitted for reference purposes. She said she had a discussion with Dick Oliphant on November 13 shortly after this was announced. His comments to her were that at the Planning Commission hearing, subsequent hearings with Riverside County, there was a guarantee of the open space on the golf course in perpetuity and that was a condition of approval on this project. The land was dedicated to open space forever. That meant for all 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 residents then and in the future. The primary reason was because of the value. The owners on the golf course paid a premium for this land and that was never to be taken away. She said there was also a little bit of fear that has come up that the City may be responsible somehow if this golf course doesn't take a hold. That was not at all an issue. The City has no responsibility on this whatsoever. This is one man, one private enterprise that is trying to create a financially good situation for himself. It isn't the City's responsibility. In fact, this is actually a very popular course, but a big part of the attractiveness of it is the quality course with moderate fees, which is very difficult to find in Palm Desert. She doubted very much after the improvements are made that the moderate fees would remain in place. The traffic from the 54 homes would go onto California and Tennessee streets. Typically half would go one way and they would go where the exit was closest. That meant that 27 homes, which represent 270 traffic trips a day coming onto Tennessee. Where those homes come onto Tennessee, the street has zero visibility. In addition, Tennessee Avenue for the most part has no sidewalks. So they have people walking in the road, and families walk with their dogs, the garbage cans are in the road and garbage trucks come through. They have visitors that park on the street and even have a couple of motorized wheelchairs and one that is hand held. And these people take nightly or morning walks every single day and in the hot weather it is very early. But this is a very serious impact on their area and she wanted them to take note of it. It is a 31 % increase in traffic which is a lot. It isn't just the safety aspect of it, it is the noise aspect. One of the things done when purchasing a home or renting is buying the quiet enjoyment of their homes and that would be disrupted. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. JAMES ELLIS, 43-340 Illinois Avenue, said he has lived there for 40 years. He bought the home new. He just wanted to bring to their attention that he is definitely opposed to developing any 56. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 open space. He personally went around in his car in the last few days and checked out all the lots that they proposed to develop. For their information, a lot of those lots they're going to develop there will be consequential rebuff from the surrounding owners around there because they would be opposed to it. Out of the 30 some lots they are going to develop on the open space lots for the streets (41) he would judge that there are no more than around 15 lots that there would be no opposition to, but the commission, before they made a decision, the lots surrounding those lots that they would like to develop on those property owners should be contacted because there could be a lot of lawsuits. From what he understood now, the open space was in perpetuity and that was good. It was the way it should be and that is what he would like to give his opinion on. He thanked them. MS. TRACY readdressed the commission and requested permission to read a letter on behalf of her neighbor, Udi Raise, who could not be here due to illness. Chairperson Jonathan granted permission. She stated that Mr. Udi Raise's home is at 76-995 New York Avenue, right next door. Udi could not be here with us tonight because he under went surgery Monday to remove several cancerous tumors, as well as a kidney. Udi has been instrumental in helping Lisa Theodoratus with the document search and even after he became aware of his illness several weeks ago he wanted to continue working to defeat this project and asked her to speak on his family's behalf. Udi and his family purchased their home many years ago and plan to stay there. They are devastated by the prospect of development in their backyard, especially now that he will be undergoing cancer treatment in the foreseeable future. Udi wanted her to tell them that he is opposed to this project and believes that our Planning Commission and City Council will see that what is proposed by the developers is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The residents bordering the driving range should not be told they must bear the burden for the whole community. He hopes the elected officials will turn down this proposal and look for an alternate that is fair to 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 all residents of Palm Desert Country Club. On his behalf, she thanked them. MR. PINEAU readdressed the commission to read a letter from Kayla Cruce of 77-405 Michigan Drive, who had to leave. "In reviewing the staff report, several items were brought to my mind which I believe this committee should consider carefully before making its decision on approval. Issue one, traffic. Although there has been a traffic report prepared to gauge the impact on traffic from this project, the report concludes that no significant impact will occur in light of the overall growth likely to effect the area in the coming years. In other words, it states that the impact of this particular development in the grand scheme of Palm Desert Project Area 4 growth is negligible. Such a conclusion makes little sense unless a sudden massive growth spurt is expected in our community in the near future. Police and Fire Services. The police report regarding this project as part of your staff report obviously as you can see addresses concerns about public safety. A traffic light and left turn pocket is recommended at the intersection of Tennessee and Fred Waring by the police department. Similarly, the police express concern about additional staffing needed to patrol and serve the new development areas and request mitigation cost participation from the project. I have concerns about the narrowness of the streets inhibiting fire truck access. After all, if a serious blaze or public safety problem should happen to effect that area, which is in our midst and therefore a potential concern of everyone in this community, should we not have a much better idea of how emergency services will be able to access and rescue impacted residents? And lastly, trash removal. I see no documentation supporting a reasonable solution to trash pickup in the new cluster homes (Mr. Pineau noted that he should probably call it the island homes at this point since the names have changed) given the narrowness of the streets in that cluster which do not support off street parking. How will the garbage trucks negotiate the roadways to pick up all this trash? Thank you ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Chairman." 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 MS. THERESA PAULY, 77-670 California Drive, said that she's not generally opposed to construction and has worked in construction management and construction consulting since 1980. Her experience includes the building of Grand Champion's Resort at Indian Wells and Spanish Bay at Pebble Beach. As a long time resident since 1967 of Palm Desert Country Club, she absolutely opposed the relocation of the golf course maintenance facility into their backyards on fairway 13 and 14. The developer failed to notify property owners in the impacted area of their plans to compromise their property. She learned this morning at 6:30 a.m. in Spanish from a grounds keeper of the developer's intention to relocate the maintenance facility. She and her neighbors have paid premium prices to live on the fairway with mountain views. Not to look at and deal with 24/7 maintenance operations of crews and equipment. It has taken over 40 years of landscape growth to disguise. an existing walled structure in this area. Their concerns also include noise 24/7, lack of privacy, loss of view, property value and also the access for this area is a little narrow alleyway easement between the park and the first house, Bob Peterson's home. It is a little, very narrow entryway which they were told would never be used except in emergency cases. One of the issues with using this little alleyway for access is that's how the children get to the pool and to the park. They ride their skateboards, they roller blade, run and play with their balls on the sidewalk going to the park not realizing maintenance vehicles coming out of there could do great damage to them. Both the parents and the children have always felt that was a safe area for the children to access the park and the school. Their neighborhood is quietly adjusting to the people and auto noise late into the evening created by the recent lovely city park. They have never complained because the park serves the greater good. They do not feel the maintenance facility is for the greater good. The neighborhood needs to be notified so that they can have their opinion heard. She thanked the commission. 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 MS. HOLLY ESCOBEDO, 76-983 New York Avenue, said 14 years ago when she bought, this was her retirement home, she was told at the time by the realtor and escrow that nothing could change what was happening out her house now. She would now have ten houses looking right into her house. She was told that the law says there will be no houses. There would be nothing built there. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan offered the applicant the opportunity to give rebuttal comments. Mr. Randy Case, using some slides, showed the island and clubhouse lots. The issue of view came up a number of times. He wanted to talk about distances and relative distances to other places around the golf course. In particular, a number of folks spoke on New York. They talked about how someone would be right straight in their backyards. He said this is 220 feet. They went around and measured golf course and typical distances across fairways and they ranged from 200 to 260 feet in the average. Some were bigger some were smaller. But this view now that they were proposing was no different than a majority of the homes out there and 220 feet is not looking out their bedroom window at a house. There was an opponent who spoke about a distance (Lisa Theodoratus) from a lot to the homes and it is 160 feet to the lot line. To the house it is about 175 feet. It isn't 220 feet, but it is a sufficient distance. It has a hole in between it that would be completely renovated and irrigated. An important point is that the finished lot, the finished pad elevations of the homes are eight feet in distance. So they wouldn't see an 18-foot house in front of them. He said they had artist renderings of the view without the houses on New York, without the houses on Utah and then with them. The actual elevations of the actual Tots. He said it would be 160 feet to the nearest property line and if they looked at the horizon, there wasn't a difference in horizon because the finished pad elevations are eight or nine feet higher. It isn't that they were going to look out their back yard right straight into a house and it is 160 feet away that's over 50 yards and is a pretty substantial distance. He said there are probably 100 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 locations around the existing golf course where golf course view Tots are 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 feet from houses that were built over the last 40 years. So this wasn't untypical of another view lot in the golf course, especially with the elevation difference. (Someone in the audience asked what the distance was from her home. Mr. Case indicated it hadn't been specifically measured.) He indicated another view is from the second home and a number of opponents spoke and it is 220 feet to the nearest property line. The elevation of their pads versus these are about two feet difference. So they wouldn't see an 18-foot house. He didn't think they would be looking in someone's back bedroom because 220 is a substantial distance and is the same distance that many of the homes that were built out there. They would have to be telling everyone in the audience that their view is insufficient if in fact what they said was correct. The maintenance facility came up a couple of times. They regretted that the information that has been out there for some time from them, in fact their first plans were to take the maintenance facility and the cart storage barn, they were now located along New York and then there were a bunch of dilapidated tennis courts. If they drive along New York and look at the maintenance facility, it's open, it's dirty and it's messy. It was not a good location for the maintenance facility. From day one from their first set of plans with their golf course designers and architects, they had always been planning to move the golf course maintenance facility out between 13 and 14. That's where it originated. When they first built the course with three holes and then nine holes, that's where it was. Clearly on this map it is a blob. They weren't intending nor ever thought to put it right up against their fence and block their view. In fact, one of the opponents spoke that there is an existing 50 foot by 100 foot structure out there, not a structure but a pump house that has a cylinder block wall that is landscaped. That is what their maintenance facility would look like once it is finished. It will be in between the two fairways. There's sufficient distance between the two holes to put the maintenance facility. They would be moving 13 and there is an open area that is about 25 acres that is a dust bowl back there, they would extend the 13th green and they 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 would relocate the lake and there would be sufficient area between those two holes to put that maintenance facility. It would not block their view any more than the existing pump house. In fact, they would landscape it better and it would be nicer than what they see now. The other point that came up was about the 'financing. One was about the clubhouse and one was about financing and whether or not when they looked at the City's staff report that the proforma showed a debt service of $5 million. Unfortunately, that proforma was mistakenly read. There was one that showed at the bottom a debt service on $5 million. He said what they were showing was the existing situation of the golf course and what it's net operating income was and to say could this golf course owner or any over the last ten years take on $5 million in debt. It's net operating was around $300,000 and the debt service on $5 million is $400,000 to $500,000, so obviously they couldn't take on the debt service. It isn't that he was doing it and it isn't that they were putting in $5 million in capital improvements here, it was a comparison to the existing golf course's proforma as to whether or not he could do that. He thought that was a legitimate question for the commission and one they went over many times with the staff. Regarding the clubhouse, they do not plan and didn't hire Richard Denzer who they think is one of the best in the business to paint and do just a little bit of work on the clubhouse. They deal with numbers a lot and when they put $1 million or $1.25 or whatever the number ended up being somewhere around there into the interior and exterior of the clubhouse, that is a substantial improvement to that clubhouse or any other clubhouse. It isn't going to build a brand new one, but their plans are to redo the interior of the clubhouse. The cart storage came up as well in that same discussion. The cart storage barn as he said early on, is located along New York. The cart storage barn and maintenance facility are both fallen down, terrible looking facilities that anybody would want replaced. The plan they proposed that he think Steve showed briefly is that they will incorporate into the existing clubhouse the cart storage facility. They aren't building it underground. They are incorporating 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 it into the existing clubhouse facility, take what they took from the old cart storage barn and add a dining area, so in effect, there's no net building area. They are taking down an old dilapidated cart storage barn and utilizing a better structure of the clubhouse for part of it and expanding the dining and seating features of the clubhouse in addition to all the components for the residents and members, the locker rooms and all those things. They are investing substantial money into the golf course, not just the .irrigation, not just the golf course to fix it, but in the clubhouse as well. They worked hard with staff to try to figure out the phasing of how they were going to do that and believed they had the plan. They have the expertise on their team to design it, manage it and build it. They believe that the plan they presented, they heard the testimony, there's good and there's bad. He thought they heard the plan and they believed the good clearly overall rides the bad'. He thanked them for their time. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp thanked everyone for coming out tonight and expressing their views and opinions because it is very helpful. He thought it was a great community where everyone would come out in support. It said a whole lot about that area. When he thinks of the Palm Desert Country Club area, he doesn't think of the homes out there or just the golf course, he thinks of the both of them together. The two entities, the homes and golf course, are not distinct and separate areas. They are viewed as one entity, one area, so what happens to one impacts the other. There has been a trend in the last ten years with a lot of the homes being improved and a lot of capital going into the homes and the values of the homes increasing. The community is improving its looks. In order to continue that trend and to encourage that trend, he thought they also needed to do something with the golf course. The golf course is linked integrally into the homes and vice versa. He was also very sympathetic to the people who are opposed and to their losing some of their perceived views. He was also very sympathetic to CC&R's and to rights that exist under CC&R's, but that wasn't an issue of the Planning Commission, that was another area and the homeowners have redress through that. 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 In looking at the whole plan, he thought the developer had been very sensitive to the homeowners. He is trying to improve it, he is making a financial commitment now and also in the future to protect the values. It is an infill to some degree. The areas the houses are going into in his mind the real estate wasn't being used to its best utilization at this time. This might do that. The reports he has seen showed that traffic would not significantly increase or have a major impact. He thought the architecture was very good and would actually compliment the community and what's happening in there right now. He was in favor of the project. The one concern he had or condition he would like to add would be that they are granting a variance which would then increase value for the golf course. Some of that value they are creating needed to then be put aside for the future to assure that the golf course has the means to sustain itself improvements wise in the future. He would be in favor of the project, but would also like to have the reserve fund be established that is appropriate and conforms to industry standards. He didn't know if that was 2% or 4%, but something that would insure in 10 years, 20 years and 30 years from now the golf course can be improved, enhanced and continued. He assumed the maintenance shed would come back to Architectural Review and be given its due course. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was very impressed with the applicant for the tremendous job they did listening to the home owners and being up front with them with all the meetings they held with them and on a one-to-one basis answering their questions. She has been to some homes there in the Palm Desert Country Club and they do have a wonderful view, but actually what's there in front of them, she doesn't • play golf, but some of the golf courses she sees are nice, luscious and green and these just have brown spots in the grass. What these people are proposing to do with the open space with the driving range, she didn't think all the golf courses had driving ranges, and in order to maintain the golf course and be able to go ahead and be playing golf and have a great community there, she didn't see any objections in adding these homes in the area where they are being added. She was very impressed with the floor plans and the architecture and from the pictures they had seen of the other homes that are being remodeled. The community is actually getting better and real estate is 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 going to be better with the addition of the homes that would be built and all the improvements that would be made. Driving through there, there could be a gorgeous home next to them and then one that needs a lot of help. So it isn't that these new additional homes would be built, actually they would increase the value of the homes because more and more people would hopefully fix up their present homes. She was in favor of the project also. Commissioner Lopez thanked everyone for coming out. This has been a high profile and an intense campaign by those dressed in green and he knew that hopefully this wouldn't cause a problem within the association or the homes that are in that particular area because overall he thought they wanted to make this a better place to live. They wanted Palm Desert Country Club to be a better place to live. He struggled with this in the beginning because he isn't one to take open space and perhaps compromise that situation. But as he began to learn more about the project and having lived here for twenty -something years, he saw Palm Desert Country Club and remembered the golf course being a very good golf course. When he was working at Rancho Las Palmas Country Club, the American Association of Left -Handed Golfers held their national tournament at their place and at Palm Desert Country Club. They had nothing but great things to say about it. Over the years it has taken its share of beatings, whether through the five owners that the director of golf had to deal with, but it did need help. He thought it was a jewel and is something that could be great. But he thought it would take something different than has been going on for the last 20 years and that was going to take money. In order to do that, obviously they were going to have to develop some homes there. Not all the home locations would be perfect and would impact some individuals. Then the island would create some hardships, but he thought they could mitigate those in the future. Basically this is the future of Palm Desert, the residents are here and this is what it's all about. In the long run, this is going to be a positive thing for this particular location and something they could all be proud of. He concurred that there needs to be assurances that they are not having the same conversation in 15 or 20 years from now about the condition of the golf course and the woes of the country club. He thought they needed to have a plan, a good plan, as it pertains to how they are going to maintain the look of this particular project. Having the shortcomings of taking open space he thought is difficult, but an 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 improved golf course on 27 holes, automated irrigation systems, enhancement to the club house, all of those things are vital to the success of Palm Desert Country Club. Whether a golfer or not, once this is all completed, he thought everyone would be very proud to live in that location. He felt very strongly that this is a good thing for the community. Chairperson Jonathan also thanked everyone for being at the meeting. He complimented them because the commission has had large crowds and they haven't always been as nice and respectful as they were and it spoke very highly of them and their community that they were all willing to listen and respect other viewpoints, whether they mirrored their own or whether they were in opposition, so that was good and he complimented them for that. He first saw Palm Desert Country Club 25 years ago when he and his wife were looking for their first home and they needed an affordable home. They lived in Palm Springs at the time and drove and drove and drove. Finally they got to Palm Desert Country Club and he said to his wife, no one is ever going to move out this way. They turned around and went back to Palm Springs. He thought the residents made a better decision than he did back in 1979. He had some really major concerns. The rezoning of open space to anything is anathema to him. He thought that open space is a priceless commodity and he would like to see more rather than less. He thought most people here would agree with that, so he had an issue with that. Once something was built on open space, it's gone. Impacting the views of those that bought their homes and have lived there for years with the rightful expectation that their views would be preserved, he was very sensitive to that and he wished they could avoid that situation. But when they sit there, they are never going to make everybody happy. If they vote yes, they are going to make some people happy. If they vote no, they are going to make some people happy. Their job is to look at the overall application and make a determination as to what is best for the community with as little damage to any individuals involved. And that is a challenging and formidable task. In this case in particular. As he listened to his fellow commissioners and as he listened to the public testimony, he had these two particular issues and that is the cost of this project and the benefits are the improved golf course and he thought the Tong -term positive consequences that the improved golf course and the enhanced new homes will grace the neighborhood. He guessed in his 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 mind this is not a perfect situation, but the benefits in his mind outweigh, in this particular instance, the detriments. So with those concerns, he would nevertheless be in favor of the project. He complimented the applicant as well. They had done their homework and more importantly, he perceived a sincere concern about the needs and desires of the existing residents, the neighbors. He thought that came through loud and clear and he applauded them for that. He noted that Commissioner Tschopp mentioned a reserve and he had to say, he had some disagreement there. He thought a reserve was appropriate and would hope as a private, free enterprise property owner that the applicant would choose to fund a reserve and to maintain it. He thought the forces of the free market place will encourage him to do so and to maintain the property. He respectfully disagreed and had a fundamental issue with them as the government coming in and telling a private property owner how he should handle his finances. But in all other respects, he concurred with his fellow commissioners. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to respond. One of the things that sold him on this project was the possibility of getting the golf course out there improved for the present owners and insuring that it remains improved for future owners and the people who live out there in the future. It is a private enterprise, but at the same time the City, by granting these variances, are creating value that is going to be put into the golf course and hopefully then down the road there would still be money to put into the golf course because they've run out of land out there to take and develop. So he would like to insure that they have reserve funds set aside in the future to make capital improvements for their giving the variances tonight. Chairperson Jonathan said he would concur. He didn't have a problem with stating that as a goal or even in some broad terms as a condition of approval. He thought where government goes wrong is in trying to micro manage private business and saying this is how much they should put away. Commissioner Tschopp clarified he wasn't saying either, he was saying it should be an industry standard, that it conforms to industry standards for golf courses which the applicant said was between 2-4% and someone could make that determination. Mr. Drell said that since they are defining the improvement to the golf course as part of the project and then as part of the project they are requiring, especially for 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 the golf course and the club house which are going to be staying in private hands, not the homes which become a different issue, they are requiring the execution of a maintenance agreement. So they do have a legal remedy now that clearly says if the City sees a deterioration of the golf course, they can enforce. The other problem would be how to enforce that without getting into their business on an annual basis and would almost have to audit them to determine how much they are putting away. They have an obligation to perform in terms of maintenance and one of the things they could do in terms of that maintenance agreement is to require an annual maintenance program which is something the City Landscape Manager would approve. The issue on these projects is the early warning system. They didn't want to wait until it's awful to suddenly say they have to do something. It is something that allows on a yearly basis if they see that through the annual maintenance program that the trees aren't being pruned properly, that the irrigation system isn't working, they have the ability on an annual basis to say they have a problem. It's performance based, not a dollar based. It was probably as good as they could do short of auditing them every year. Chairperson Jonathan thought that was consistent with what they have required other applicants to do in terms of maintaining landscaping. Commissioner Lopez asked if that would be part of the development agreement. Mr. Drell explained that it's a condition of approval. It's one of the standard ones. Since they were defining the golf course as part of the project, the maintenance agreement applies to the golf course, not just to the homes or the clubhouse. Chairperson Jonathan said he would entertain a motion. Commissioner Lopez said he would move for approval incorporating the amendments they discussed this evening. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Action: it was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2255, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. CIZ 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - No meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - No meeting. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - Heard earlier in the meeting. Xl. COMMENTS Mr. Drell said he didn't think he would be at the next meeting to update the commission on the action of the Council on the General Plan. Chairperson Jonathan said they could defer it or what he was looking for was the final map. Mr. Drell said they could be given to them, although a lot of things required an explanation. Chairperson Jonathan requested the map and then they could defer the discussion to when he could be present. Mr. Drell concurred. In general he thought they achieved 90% of what the commission recommended. The Council on the high density was not willing to give them high density as a matter of right. They created an overlay zone which had criteria which would have been the criteria they would have applied anyway. It's actually criteria they had out of their community design element that we would have applied to a project no matter what in terms of recommending whether it should be approved or not. He reluctantly accepted it, but he thought there was a commitment in the plan to still achieve the housing goals that the Planning Commission adopted. He thought the property owners didn't get the amount of certainty they wished, but he thought the Council significantly adopted what the Planning Commission recommended. 69 DOZIER APPRAISAL COMPANY Resort and Urban Property Appraisers Valuation and Financial Consultants 73-255 EL PASEO, SUITE 17 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 RAYMOND L. DOZIER, MAI CER1 IHED GENERAL APPRAISER LICENSE # AG004590 March 15, 2004 City of Palm Desert Attn: Mr. Phil Drell, Dir. of Community Development. 73-510 Fred Warring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 TEL. (760) 776-4200 FAX (760) 776-4977 E- Mail: dozierappraisal@dc.rr.com RE: Palm Desert Country Club appraisal of five homes "before" and "after" market values due to re -development of the country club. Mr. Drell: Enclosed are "before" and "after" appraisals regarding five separate single family dwelling appraisals. The subject properties are located in the Palm Desert Country Club, Palm Desert, California at 42320 Kansas; 43350 Tennessee; 77044 Utah Circle; 43635 Elkhorn; and 77005 New York. The purpose of the appraisals is to individually value the "before" and "after" market values of each property as of the appraiser's date of inspection, March 9, 2004. The "before" market values will be each properties "as is" condition. The "after" market values will be each properties market value "as if" proposed Palm Desert Country Club improvements and new houses are hypothetically 100% developed as of the same March 9, 2004 date of value. The function or use of the appraisals is to determine if any diminution in value has impacted the dwellings after the proposed Country Club improvements and new dwellings are complete. The estimated market value are as follows: "BEFORE". "AFTER" 1. 42320 Kansas $210,000 $210,000 2. 43350 Tennessee $291,000 $291,000 3. 77044 Utah Circle $241,000 $241,000 Page 2 of 2 "BEFORE" "AFTER" 4. 43635 Elkhorn $279,000 $279,000 5. 77005 New York $249,000 $249,000 The reader will note that there was no evidence of any diminution in value to existing dwellings that have view changes when club improvements are made together with new finished lots and dwellings. In the "after" market value analysis, sales of existing dwellings and lots were compared to each subject. These existing sales had similar views in comparison to the computer renderings of each subject property's view after club improvements are complete. Plus and minus dollar adjustments were made in comparing sales to each subject property. Results indicated no difference in value whether proposed club improvements were made or not. Explanations for no change in the "before" and "after values as follows: . Computer renderings of view changes to affected subject dwellings are not considered obtrusive by the market in this demographic price range. 2 There is a positive overall value impact to all homes in the Palm Desert Country Club neighborhood due to the proposed improvements. Any decline in value to dwellings directly affected by the improvements is offset by the value increase caused by the anticipation of the improvements. 3. The price range of the new proposed dwellings is significantly higher than the typical price range of existing dwelling in the neighborhood. This too has a positive impact on existing values due to the appraisal principal of conformity. This value increase also offsets any decline in value to dwellings directly affected by the improvements. Call me if you have any questions concerning the appraisal assignment. Very truly =+rs, Ra ;on. Dozes- ATM ._.. . RLD:rr encl. letter7. 8f1'13 AUi.NAO3 1113S3O VflVd it' 43 1, w W N Y = ss -0c'iG "WA/ 4.1N Palm Desert Country Club DATE EVENT / REQUIREMENT REALITY / ACTUAL August 17, 1960 Variance 409 was granted by Riverside County Planning Commission which: a) Restricted lots to a minimum size of 6,000 SF b) Restricted size of dwelling units to a maximum of 1,300 SF In practice, the following was actually developed: a) 46 existing Tots, of less than 6,0.00 SF in size, were developed. The homes on these 46 lots were built between 1961 and 1985 b) Between 1960 through 1964, there were 320 dwelling units built exceeding 1,300 SF in size November 18, 1964 Variance 656 was granted by Riverside County, which amended the size allowed for dwelling units to a maximum size of 1,800 SF From 1965 to 2001, 104 dwelling units were built exceeding 1,800 SF in size April 3, 1994 Palm Desert Country Club area was annexed into the City of Palm Desert Proposed development within the City's boundaries is subject to the City's zoning regulations and General Plan Compiled by Susan Perry, Esq. of Kosmont Partners, based upon title records provided by Chicago Title Company. Chicago Title Company bases their information on Riverside County Recorder records. PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB 9-HOLE EXECUTIVE COURSE March 2004 SCORE CARD HOLE YARDAGE PAR 1 113 3 2 132 3 3 93 3 4 302 4 5 102 3 6 103 3 7 215 3 8 161 3 9 127 3 OUT 1,348 28 PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB 18-HOT.F, CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE March 2004 SCORE CARD HOLE YARDAGE PAR HOLE YARDAGE PAR 1 420 4 10 550 5 2 392 4 12 475 5 3 357 4 13 179 3 4 215 3 14 490 5 5 490 5 15 345 4 6 433 4 16 357 4 7 188 3 17 167 3 8 420 4 18 318 4 9 405 4 IN 402 4 OUT 3,320 35 OUT 3,283 36 TOTAL 3,320 36 BACK TEES 6,603 72 Law Offices of CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS ROBE tT L. PIPPIN MICHAEL A. CRISTE IRWIN L. GOLDS HANS P. FLEISCHNER VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Madeline Clark Cahill, Attorney at Law Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, California 92101-3540 73-550 ALESSANDRO SUITE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 April 21, 2004 Re: Tentative Tract Map Number 31836 Dear Ms: Cahill: TELEPHONE: (760) 862-1111 FACSIMILE: (760) 776-4197 E-MAIL: ROBERTLPIPPIN©AOL.COM Of Counsel: E. LARRY BISHOP r.1 C- - --L C) ,af— re, N 0 rrir). -v zt tri m -4oQ u? C) n Ns v- a —•f r*, You will recall at the April 1, 2004 meeting between Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society ("PDCCPS") and PDCC Development, LLC ("PDCC Development"), PDCCPS proposed three potential resolutions to PDCCPS's concerns about the effects of the proposed development on the residents of the Palm Desert Country Club. The proposed resolutions were, 1) that the proposed development be abandoned, 2) that the proposed development be reconfigured to redistribute the most intrusive homes to other areas so that the entire community would share the burden of the development, or 3) that each burdened homeowner be financially compensated for the effects of the proposed development. You will further recall at that late afternoon meeting PDCC Development, LLC flatly rejected proposed resolution # 1, and promised to have PDCC Development staff seriously examine the viability of proposed resolution # 2 which was a specific proposal for relocation of particular lots together with a mechanism similar to the operative declaration which would protect the remaining golf course lots from building for another 30 year period. The very next day, less than 24 hours later, on April 2, 2004, PDCC Development, LLC flatly rejected proposed resolution # 2. Finally, during our April 1, 2004 meeting, PDCC Development asked PDCCPS for a dollar value per homeowner and for the number of homeowners which would have to be compensated to satisfy proposed resolution # 3 so that a total cost could be ascertained. When considering this request for a dollar amount, PDCCPS was mindful of PDCC Development, LLC's explanation that the viability of any resolution was purely a business decision which turned on the net revenue generated after a particular resolution was implemented. PDCCPS was also mindful that, according to PDCC Development, the proposed relocation of 17 of the 24 Madeline Clark Cahill Tentative Tract Map 31836 April 21, 2004 Page 2 homes removed under proposed resolution # 2 to areas where homes had previously been slated did not leave an economically viable project. In fact, PDCC Development's website www.pdccdevelopment.com indicates that removal of even one lot will destroy the viability of the project.' PDCCPS was then able to reason that if the loss of one home did not leave an economically viable project, the number of homeowners requiring compensation would place to great a burden on the project, even at de minimus compensation for each homeowner. We regret to inform you that the only viable option PDCC Development has left available to PDCCPS is proposed resolution # 1. As a result, we will be filing suit. As a courtesy to you, we will withhold filing suit until Thursday, April 29, 2004 so that your client may reconsider its flat rejection of a compromise which would have allowed the proposed homes to be redistributed throughout the community so that the burden will be shared by the entire community rather than disproportionately borne by those homeowners surrounding the driving range. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions. Very truly yours, Hans P. Fleischner for CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS HPF/nga cc: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Department I. "To generate the funds necessary to restore the Golf Course and Clubhouse a minimum development of 95 new single-family homes, is required." linpliWWW.pdccdevelopment.com/PDCC%20City%20Meetings%20V3.pdf, w.pdccdevelopment.convPDCC%20City%20Meetings%20V3.pdf, page-6,-capture date April 20, 2004. Karele Smith 42700 Wisconsin Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 USA Phone: 760-200-0363 Thursday, March 11, 2004 City of Palm Desert Planning Commision Regarding: CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 RECEIVED �3v r ie III I ? OQ4 9:t4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • CITY OF PALM DESERT I am a 4-year resident at the Palm Desert Country Club. When I decided to relocate to Palm Desert from Los Angeles, I chose this area for various reasons and after careful evaluation of properties. 1 choose PDCC not only for its appealing neighborhood feeling, but also for the gorgeous views, reasonable pricing, very little traffic, wide open spaces and many other aspects. I'm unable to attend the March 16th public hearing and therefore, I need to express my opposition to the future housing development at the PDCC in writing. I don't think that additional 95 and 41 homes will add any quality of living here at the PDCC. Adding homes will crowd the exciting residences and cut views, add people and noise and much traffic. PDCC asked all residents to vote on that issue some time ago and I feel that whatever the outcome (we did not yet get the results) the PDCC Association should represent the residents at the hearing on the 16th of March. Sin .er ' ly, 2/7 re a am't : Mar 16 04 04:42p THOMAS WOODS 310 827 2774 p.1 PAULINE THOMAS PO BOX 10457 MARINA DEL REY CA 90295 March 16, 2004 FAO Tanya Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert To whom it may concern RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. RECEIVED 'Ad I b 2004 ''!MMUN;TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • "TY :i'r PALM DESERT Via fax (760) 341 7098 I am the new owner of the property located at 43350 Tennessee Ave in Palm Desert. I purchased the house on February 27th 2004 from the previous owner Mr. Cho whom I have had the pleasure of meeting at the property the last three weekends where we discussed several items relating to the sale of the house and the proposed development around the golf course. On various occasions we, my partner Paul and 1 have talked to Mr. Cho about the houses being built and at no time were either of us informed that the houses would start a mere 15 feet away from the back of our house!!! Prior to buying the house, 1 was informed that we would have a parking lot next to our house and we commented "we are okay with that as long as we do not have houses at our back door" Under no circumstances would we have purchased the house had we known that the houses would be built so close to our property and that in fact the height would block out the view we currently see of not only the gold course but the mountains. I am somewhat displeased, to say the least, that it has taken a neighbor, Lisa to come over on Sunday to explain all of this to us. Mr. Cho assured us several times that what he proposed to do would increase the value of our property, that the houses would not be near our property and that we would still have a beautiful view. He even commented that the other house he owned near the golf course, which he intends on selling at sometime, was "not as good as this one as it has no view" We have -started remodeling the house and to date have spend -close to $20,000 with plans to invest more in the property including repainting the exterior and Received Mar-16-2004 15:16 From-310 827 2774 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 Mar 16 04 04:42p THOMAS WOODS 310 827 2774 p.2 extensive landscaping work. This, at the moment, will be put on hold. 1 absolutely refuse to spend another dime on the project knowing what I know now. Both my partner and 1 oppose the planned development and should the plans be passed, we shall not hesitate to seek legal council. We spend a year shopping for the right property in the desert, which we believed we found on. Tennessee Ave however if the development goes thru, we may as well have stayed in the concrete jungle of LA and invested our money elsewhere since everything we bought the house for, will be gone. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at (310) 729-2212. Than u, Pau ine homes Received Mar-16-2004 15:16 From-310 827 2774 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 February 19, 2004 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Members: At a recent meeting the PDCC Women's Golf Association members unanimously supported the proposed PDCC Golf Course improvement Clubhouse renovation and Residential Project upgrade. We believe these improvements should be made and are pleased to advise the Commission of our enthusiastic endorsement. Sincerely, Li✓Ceti.( `✓GEC? Linda Tucker President 77-200 i/f;21Whi e i1ir Ic � �/ ni44; miii March 16, 2004 Members of the Planning Commission, Officials of the City of Palm Desert and Ladies and Gentleman. My name is Barbara Powers. I live at 76918 Kentucky Ave, Palm Desert. My husband and I have owned our home at PDCC since 1983. We live in one of the Lusk Homes and we are not in the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association. We are for the Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC Project. Last fall we became involved because our area of the country club had a water pressure problem which has since been corrected by CVWD. There are many other negative things that have caused our golf course, Club and and over all neighborhood to deteriorate under the past 5 owners . I am sure you have heard them all. When we found out they wanted to build homes we wanted to make sure we would all have plenty of water. I met with Sherry Ryan, Larry Kosmont and Randy Case. They explained their project to a number of our PDCC Members and neighbors. We were convinced this would be a very great improvement for our club and all of the homeowners in the area of Palm Desert Country Club. Some members of our club and myself decided to poll residents and get signatures on petitions from homeowners or renters. Our petition committee obtained hundreds of signatures from our homeowners who are in favor of the project. If we met someone that was not sure or was upset with the project we notified Sherry Ryan and Randy Case. They would meet with that person and in most cases they worked it out. As you know , PDCC Development LLC has severely cut homes from the project to accommodate concerned homeowners. PLEASE RECOMMEND THIS PROJECT TO THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL WITH A BIG "YES", as I truly believe the majority of all of our homeowners are for the project. Thank you, 77370 Minnesota Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Subject: Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 Attention: Palm Desert Planning Commission To whom it may Concern: I am a resident of the City of Palm Desert and reside in the Palm Desert Country Club Area. My address is 77370 Minnesota Ave. Most of my adult life was spent in the San Francisco Bay Area but I chose to move here after visiting several times and basically falling in love with the area and the people. I mean that literally because I met my wife here and we were married at the flagpole on the first tee of Palm Desert Country Club. It was a beautiful wedding in a beautiful setting. Of course, this was several years ago and as we all know, the condition of the golf course has deteriorated since that time and no longer has the appeal it once had. My wife and I own two homes on the golf course. We have no intentions of leaving the area and fully support this project. We recently completed a major remodel of our home with the cooperation and guidance of the City of Palm Desert. We are confident the City will provide the same cooperation and guidance to the developers of this project and will keep them on course to improve our neighborhood. After many months of planning and meetings with property owners, the goals of the project developers are clear. The developers have held many public group meetings and made themselves available for meetings with individuals to discuss the concerns of the homeowners. The number of proposed homes to be built has been decreased significantly after those meetings because homeowners explained their concerns to the developers who were able to look beyond the bottom line and see that the concerns were genuine and real. This an indication that the developers are willing to meet the high standards set by the City in order to improve our neighborhood and make it a better plane to live. I ask the Planning Commission to approve this zoning change and allow this project to proceed. I have faith in the Commission and I am confident the developers will follow its recommendations so that we, the homeowners, may enjoy the fruits of your labor. Respectfully, dm 4;Jert 4favzfr (91lloi 77-200 California Dr. Palm I>eser1('/1.9 2211 (760) 345- 25 25 March 16, 2004 Dear Planning Board Members, ine7 Hello, my name is Carmen Carlo and I am currently the President of the golfing niners at Palm Desert Country Club. The nine holes group was started in 1967, and would play nine holes on the front and back sides alternating weeks. In 1973, the executive course was opened and we currently have 65-70. Many of our members have been active in the niners since the early 1980', and listening to them talk about how the course was it is hard to believe that it is the same place today. The condition of the golf course has deteriorated so much it has affected our weekly play and we are unable to have our luncheons at the club due to insufficient staff. Our members are at the age where this location is probably going to be their last move. We are all looking forware to having a warm and friendly country club for all of us to enjoy. We want a country club we can be proud of and enjoy, not to mention that we can support. So we take this time to thank you for your consideration to vote for us, the people, who have no choice but to hope for a brighter future! Sincerely, Carmen Carlo President, PDCC Golfing Niners HUNTINGTON BEACH MORTGAGE, INC. 324 Pomona Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 March 9, 2004 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RECEIVED t sPi la 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Beverly Butters Compton (562) 433-4333 Fax (562) 439-0925 E-MAIL: HALCOMPTON(C�AOL.COM Re: Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 We are owners of three properties in the Palm Desert Country Club and we highly favor the change of zone from Open Space to residential. This will improve the development and raise property values. Sincerely, Beverly Butters Compton March 15, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: PDCC DEVELOPMENT MARTHA PEREZ LAURN 76-842 NEW YORK AVENUE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 PHONE: (760) 345-1696 .RECEIVED MJA t 1 b 2004 D rV LOPMENT DEPARTMENT Q PALM DESERT Dear Palm Desert Planning Commission, As a home owner in Palm Desert Country Club I am vehemently opposed to PDCC Development expansion. The developers lack of regard for my existing view corridors is unacceptable. Palm Desert Country Club is a charming quiet community. I and many of my neighbors would like to preserve the "specialness" of our community. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, YNAkt 19Q)ste, 3 Martha Perez Laum To: Mr. Philip Drell, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca 92260 From: Dr. and Mrs. Mario Baccari 76-907 Oklahoma Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 Re: Case numbers: C/Z 04-01, TT31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Mr. Drell: We would like to express our strong opposition to the proposal put forth by the PDCC Development LLC to change the zoning on the Palm Desert Country Club from "Open Space" to residential. As you are no doubt aware, Oklahoma Avenue abuts the executive golf course. It is a course upon which seniors such as we can play golf without a cart. While I am not in an area where homes are planned at this time, it appears that the Kosmont Group is attempting a "land grab", one that will certainly be the beginning of the end of the executive nine hole golf course. The present owner of the course has been allowed by the City of Palm Desert to nearly destroy the executive course and render it unplayable. Lousy greens, clods of clover, under seeding and under watering have all contributed to the demise of the once enjoyable course, and there are no guarantees that the Kosmont Group has any intention of doing any better. As a matter of fact, it appears to us that once they find out that the executive course does not make the kind of money they need, they will be back before you, threatening bankruptcy in order to convince you to re -zone the whole executive course to R-1. Such has been the fate of the Stallion Mountain Country Club in Las Vegas which at one time had 1,200 homes and three beautiful golf courses. The owner recently went before the Las Vegas City Council to plead impending bankruptcy if he could not abandon two of the courses and build another 2,000 homes on the sites. This is an old trick that many developers use to extract the dollars that they want and I see this occurring again right here in Palm Desert. From what we can gather, there are no guarantees the club house will be rebuilt nor are there any guarantees the executive course will remain and be maintained. I would strongly urge you to force the Kosmont Group to put money in escrow for rebuilding the clubhouse, for maintaining the executive golf course and to put large fines in place if the Kosmont Group decides to return to the Palm Desert City Council for further rezoning. This must be done_before they dig a single hole for the first home! PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION • March 15, 2004 Phil Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Phil: 77-800 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIF. 92211-8008 TELEPHONE (760) 345-2331 FAX (760) 345-7413 RECEIVED m4N 2004 )'.IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,7ITY OF PALM DESERT Re: Palm Desert Country Club LLC On March 8, 2004, the Palm Desert Country Club Association Board of Directors voted in favor of the Palm Desert Country Club LLC project. The vote was unanimous. At the same meeting, there was a unanimous vote to request that all homes built within tracts 2137 and 2283 become part of the Palm Desert Country Club Association. Sincerely, Phyllis arkins, President Palm Desert Country Club Assn. PH/na March 16, 2004 Palm Desert City Council and Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ladies and Gentleman: RECEIVED Mgt I b 2004 :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT I waited until this morning to write this letter because' I wanted to see the staff report from the planning department before doing so. I sit at my desk in the living room of what was to be my retirement home watching the sunrise and the shadows of light hit the beautiful mountains behind the clubhouse. My home sits at the end of a cul-de-sac at 77-040 Utah Circle to the left of the driving range. From my home there are also views of four fairways, the fountain at the first tee, large mature trees (of which we have so few left), and what amounts to a double fairway in distance of open space. The development plan before you would take all this away from my husband and myself and leave nothing but a virtual wall of homes with only 5 feet between them, the closest being within 150 feet of our property line, facing directly into our backyard. Many of my neighbors sold their homes in the last few months saying they had to get out before this project began. Indeed even the current owner of the golf course has sold his home at the end of the driving range. We felt that we had to try to save our dream home, which we decided to purchase three years ago before ever going inside based on the existing view corridor and yard. I believe there are many obvious problems with the developers' proposal. One of which is that according to the developers, promised improvements to the clubhouse have been a major selling point for this project since its inception. Yet it seems that there is no provision in the staff report for the 1800 square foot addition to the pro -shop or the new cart and equipment facility to be dug underneath the existing clubhouse structure (it simply say relocation of cart storage). The only items senior planning staff were aware of at the clubhouse facility were the new parking lot for cars and an exterior paint job. As the staff report notes that the clubhouse will have a_maximum of one $1 million in renovations how will any of these items actually be funded'r And in looking at this plan can someone please indicate to me where the storage space for the equipment can possibly be located after the homes are built if not under the clubhouse! We wish to find a way to restore the Palm Desert County Club Golf Course to its original condition. We do not believe that the plan before you will make this the kind of golf course that will be attractive to visiting players. Have you ever played at a facility without a driving range or with residential homes 70 feet in front of the clubhouse? How about sitting in the bar after a round and again looking into a home instead of the first tee and view of the mountains. This overcrowding of the area near the clubhouse will certainly turn off many players. I also can't imagine living under the public address loudspeaker that wakes me up every morning 700 feet further away. My suggestion to the Planning Commission and City Council is to turn this facility into a city managed golf course. With the many land use options at your disposal and funding from RDA Project Area 4 and participation from the home owners in Palm Desert Country Club we could revitalize this area while keeping it the "open vista community" that the original developers visualized and the Riverside County Council Members approved in 1961. On Friday March 12 documents were presented to the Planning Department supporting the legal reasons that should give you reservations about approving this proposal. We hope and pray that the City Council and Planning Commission will do the right thing and reject this proposal in favor of a plan that will be fair to all and preserve our open space, trees, and open vista community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lisa Theodoratus & Max Williams 77-040 Utah Circle 200-8980 March 13, 2004 Palm Desert Country Club, LLC 77-200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 Gentlemen: RECEIVED CEIVED MAR 16 2004 OMM UN' Ty DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT As you know from our many conversations I am opposed to your proposed development in our community I am particularly opposed to lots 41 and 42 which are within 150 feet of my back property line and directly face my backyard. The proposed homes 1) destroy my husband's and my privacy, 2) take away our view of the mountains because the height of the homes and the distance from our property, and 3) would likely require removal of the large mature tree that would act as a buffer between our home and the new development. Your proposed tee box for the 2nd hole of the executive course is approximately 50 feet from our property line and is angled so that golfers would be in many cases hitting the ball near the point of our yard towards the green. This is a very dangerous situation as any player hitting incorrectly could injure someone in my yard or break a window. We would not be satisfied with a barrier or net as a solution. It would seem that the obvious solution to this dilemma would be to remove lots 37 thru 42 from your plan thereby opening up the 1st and 2nd holes of the executive course to a more normal and acceptable fairway size and moving the tee box further away from my property. I do not believe that any other homeowner in the vicinity would disagree with this solution. We paid a premium of tens of thousands of dollars for our home with 140 feet of golf course frontage relative to other homes in the area. We love our home and would like to find a solution that works for everyone. Please contact me to that we may discuss the above concerns. Sincerely, Lisa Theodoratus 77-040 Utah Circle 200-8980 CC: Palm Desert Planning Department & Palm Desert City Council L fVfv. Tr-uf3 3 Ls-1 ,) c,v- t\N fc tIrn (3 g.iNis) -A\ GS" 3 \ \\LS gtOr \ g NisC• -a\ S 4.\\ u•C 'k\‘ k\VI 14:1\u -TEIVED 2004 'NT ?.r6.e.e. • DEPARTMENT PALM D,7SRRT 1140/1") CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 16, 2004 CASE NOS: C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 REQUEST: 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 R-2 4,000 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. APPLICANT: PDCC Development LLC 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Dahoon Investment Company, Inc. 77-200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 I. BACKGROUND: At a meeting of the parties held on Friday, March 12, 2004, a letter was submitted from Hans Fleischner, an attorney representing one of the parties (copy enclosed). The letter, among other matters, discusses a "declaration of restrictions" which was placed on the subject property in 1961 and 1963. The letter was forwarded to City Attorney Bob Hargreaves. As of the writing of this report we have not had the benefit of his opinion on the "declarations of restrictions." it is our intention to proceed with the matter and possibly attach a condition requiring that the election required to change the "declaration" be held before recordation of the tentative map. Whether we can proceed in this manner will depend on the opinion of the City Attorney. 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, STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 declining membership and generally deteriorating conditions. It is the project applicant's position that golf revenues are not sufficient to adequately finance capital investment and maintenance 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 proposed renovation of the golf course and clubhouse will cost $5 million. The improvements include a new irrigation system (potential to save 500 acre feet per year) and reconstruct and relocate certain golf holes (see attached golf course improvement summary). Current course revenues will not support these improvements hence the applicant proposes to rezone from Open Space to Residential part of the golf course to facilitate approval of a 95-lot tentative tract map and construction of single story dwellings on those Tots. 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. Evaluation Criteria 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 95 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. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 General Plan The entire 523-acre PDCC area is designated low density residential 3-5 units per acre in the general plan which would permit up to 2,615 units (i.e., 523 acres times five upa). 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. ZONING R-1 9.000 Square Foot Lots The request is to change the zone from Open Space (O.S.) to Residential (R-1 9,000) for 41 lots dispersed around the perimeter of the golf course. In each case these lots are adjacent to or across the street from exiting R-1 9,000 zoned lots. If the zoning change is to be approved, R-1 9,000 is the appropriate zone category as it will be compatible with nearby and adjacent lots. Throughout the PDCC area, minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet are common even though the area was and is zoned R-1 9,000. These existing lots were established pursuant to a "master variance" approved by the County. The "master variance" applied to all lots, even those not adjacent to the golf course. Our intention would be to zone the 41 lots R-1 9,000 to be consistent with the existing zoning and then allow minimum 5,000 square foot net lot areas, but only allow the reduced size for lots adjacent to the golf course. The reduced lot dimensions (lot area 5,000 square feet and lot width 50 feet) would be permitted through the associated development agreement. The proposed R-1 9,000 zoning is consistent with the general plan land use designation of low density residential (3-5 du/ac). Driving Range Area Zone Change In the area of the existing driving range, the applicant proposes to change the zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-2 4,000 and create 54 single family lots. The R-2 4,000 zoning would be consistent with the existing R-2 4,000 located to the east on California Drive (i.e., the existing Troll apartments and older apartments on the east side of California). 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. CIZ 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 If this change of zone is to be approved, staff would recommend that the change be to PR-6 (Planned Residential six units per gross acre maximum). This would allow for greater flexibility in development than the R-2 zone and the PR zone specifically allows Planning Commission/City Council to approve lot areas, dimensions and setbacks consistent with the design of an acceptable development. A zone change to PR-6 to create 54 lots would be consistent with the general plan low density land use designation. The PR zone is the zoning used on most, if not all, other country club developments in the city. It is appropriate in that the density is based on "gross" area in that it takes into account surrounding open space (golf course and other recreation facilities). II. PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-1 9,000 for 41 lots dispersed around the perimeter of the golf course (see location map enclosed) and a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-2 4,000 for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range. Secondly the applicant seeks approval of a tentative tract map to create a total of 95 single family Tots (41 9,000 square foot Tots dispersed around the perimeter of the golf course and 54 lots with minimum size of 4,749 square feet in the area of the existing driving range). Item three is the precise plan which includes relocation of the parking lot around the clubhouse and other matters. The 41 R-1 9,000 lots dispersed around the golf course range in size from 8,945 gross square feet to 9,176 gross square feet. These lots back onto the golf course and as such will grant irrevocable open space easements to the golf course from part of the rear yard. The net lot sizes then will range from 5,000 square feet to 6,855 square feet. The 41 lots will be located on existing streets and with driveways similar to existing dwellings on those streets. The 54 lots in the area of the existing driving range vary in size from 4,691 square feet to 6,779 square feet. These are net lot areas as these Tots will not be granting 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 open space easements to the golf course. The average lot size is 7,808 square feet when you add in the open space at the entries and recreation facility property. This "island" of 54 single family lots will have its own street system which will connect to Tennessee Avenue and California Drive. There will be mix of one and two way streets with widths of 20 feet and 25 feet. The circulation system is acceptable to serve the 54 lots and eliminates pass through traffic movements. PARKING 41 Dispersed Lots These conventional Tots will each be provided with a two car garage, driveway parking and street parking. 54 "Island" 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 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 Max. Site Coverage DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CODE REQUIREMENT R-1 9,000 / PR 20'/as approved 15'/as approved 14' total, 5' minimum/ as approved 18'/24' 9,000/as approved 35%/40% 5 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% PR-6 LOTS 10-15 feet 5-20 feet 5'+5' 18' 4,691 sq.ft. 38.7% STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 III. ANALYSIS: APPLICANT'S GOLF COURSE PROFORMA REPORT The golf course renovation and clubhouse remodel are estimated to cost $5 million. The attached Golf Course Proforma demonstrates that once the golf course is remodeled, revenues will be increased sufficiently to allow for a high quality of long term ongoing maintenance. There is not a sufficient revenue stream to retire any debt associated with the golf course renovation. Therefore, another means of financing the initial golf course improvements is needed. The proposed 95 single family lots and construction of homes on these Tots is the proposed mechanism. PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES. TENTATIVE MAP AND PRECISE PLAN APPROVAL R-1 9,000 Square Foot Lots The request is to change the zone from Open Space (O.S.) to Residential (R-1 9,000) for 41 lots dispersed around the perimeter of the golf course. In each case these Tots are adjacent to or across the street from exiting R-1 9,000 zoned lots. If the zoning change is to be approved, R-1 9,000 is the appropriate zone category as it will be compatible with nearby and adjacent lots. The reduced lot dimensions (net lot area 5,000 square feet and lot width 50 feet) would be permitted through the associated development agreement. The proposed R-1 9,000 zoning is consistent with the general plan land use designation of low density residential (3-5 du/ac). 54 "Island" Lots In the area of the existing driving range, the applicant proposes to change the zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-2 4,000 and create 54 single family lots. The R-2 4,000 zoning would be consistent with the existing R-2 4,000 located to the east on California Drive (i.e., the existing Troll apartments and older apartments on the east side of California). 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. CIZ 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 If this change of zone is to be approved, staff would recommend that the change be to PR-6 (Planned Residential six units per gross acre maximum). This would allow for greater flexibility in development than the R-2 zone and the PR zone specifically allows Planning Commission/City Council to approve lot areas, dimensions and setbacks consistent with the design of an acceptable development. A zone change to PR-6 to create 54 lots would be consistent with the general plan low density land use designation. Pursuant to the criteria described previously, the question becomes would the location of the proposed zone changes and design of improvements unreasonably detract from the overall value or enjoyment of surrounding property owners. The proposed PR-6 zoned area (9.68 acres) is to be located on the existing driving range which is surrounded by existing residences. This is the area where most of the criticism of the project has been focused. Existing residents currently have an unimpeded view across the driving range. The question is whether the location of the zone change/new dwelling units will unreasonably detract from the overall value or enjoyment for surrounding property owners. The "island" of zone change will be surrounded by the remodeled golf course. On the east side adjacent to the two-story "Troll" apartment project will be a golf hole and connector cart path. Separation width ranges from 300 feet to 30 feet measured property line to property line. Relative to the existing residences on the south side of New York Avenue, the minimum separation will be 215 feet of golf course. At the southwest, the minimum separation will vary from 125 feet from the nearest unit on Indiana Avenue to 160 feet to the nearest unit on Utah Circle. Relative to the Tots on Tennessee Avenue, the separation area ranges from 250 feet to zero. At the entry from Tennessee the zone change will be adjacent to two existing R-1 9,000 zoned lots. SEPARATION PROVIDED PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY RESIDENCES LINE SEPARATION 1. California to East (Troll two-story apartments) 300 feet to 30 feet 2. New York Avenue to North 215 feet minimum 3. Indiana Avenue to South 125 feet minimum STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 RESIDENCES 4. Utah Circle to Southwest 5. Tennessee Avenue to West GRADE DIFFERENCE PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE SEPARATION 160 feet minimum 250 feet to zero feet The dwellings on Utah Circle are elevated relative to the "island" of zone change to the north. According to the tentative map the lot at the end of Utah Circle closest to the project lots has a pad elevation of 195.9. Pad elevations on Lots 41 through 46 across from the lots on Utah Circle range from 188 to 190. Therefore, the proposed lots will be minimum of six feet below the existing units which are at least 160 feet away. 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. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. CIZ 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 The ARC on February 10, 2004 on a 5-0-1 vote granted preliminary approval to the architecture subject to conditions requiring that all front windows be inset a minimum of 12 inches and that details be carried around to all four sides. Relative to landscaping, ARC required that the redone clubhouse parking lot comply with code minimum planter sizes and that a tree removal plan be provided and approved prior to removal of any significant trees. DRIVING RANGE LIABILITY ISSUES The applicant's golf course consultant advises that a standard driving range has dimensions of 500 feet (166 yards) by 1,000 feet (333 yards). The existing driving range area is substandard in its size. Its length varies from 222 to 255 yards. Given the improvements in golf equipment (clubs and balls) even duffers are driving the balls further. If the driving range were to remain as a driving range, it is likely that in order to limit his liability the owner will need to install screening to shield homes on Utah Circle and Tennessee Avenue. This has occurred at several courses in the city (i.e., Shadow Mountain) where a 30-40 foot high screen was installed to prevent stray balls from going into residential yards. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The project includes a draft development agreement which grants to the applicant certain modified development standards which are consistent with existing standards in the neighborhood. In return the development agreement prescribes the golf course improvements to be undertaken and requires that they be completed prior to the City issuing any certificates of occupancy for any of the 95 new homes and that the last ten units be held for completion of the clubhouse improvements. 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. 9 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED Letters of support for the application were received from: The Greenes, 42-360 Warner Trail The Christians, 43-760 Elkhorn Trail The Vonwienkens, 77-380 California Drive The Powers, 76-918 Kentucky Avenue The Rogersons, 77-039 Utah Circle The Lewahans, 42-650 Tennessee Avenue The Podojils, Alabama and Minnesota George Boal, 76-739 Oklahoma Copies of letters are enclosed. Basically the letters cite the need for improvements to the golf course, the positive impact of saving up to 500 acre feet of water per year, the outstanding support from the neighborhood, a fear of likely further deterioration of the golf course if something isn't done very soon as reasons for supporting the project. Letters of opposition to the application were received from: Claudette Whiston, 77-160 Indiana Avenue The Tomkins, 76-580 California Drive Suzanne Tracy, 77-020 Utah Circle Jerome Pineau, 77-510 California Drive The Grands, 42-955 Tennessee The Barnetts, 42-675 Wisconsin Street Li Li, 77-912 Michigan Drive, #A6 Tim Slavens, 77-386 Indiana Avenue Copies of letters are enclosed. Basically the letters cite the following concerns: Damage to or elimination of views Too many units being proposed Negatively impacting the ambiance and property values by adding more noise, traffic, people and light Inappropriate architectural style 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 * Excessive population density Loss of open space Two other persons, Lisa Theodoratus of 77-040 Utah and Udi Raise of 76-995 New York, while they have not submitted written comments have met with staff and did appear before ARC and expressed opposition to the project in general and the architecture specifically. Karl Berg of 42-905 Texas Avenue requested that if the project proceeds that we be very careful with our process. CONCLUSION * The golf courses at PDCC are in need of renovation, upgrade and modernization (i.e., water supply and irrigation). * The applicant proposes $5 million in improvements to the golf course and the clubhouse. * The proforma for the golf course after it is renovated indicates that a high quality of ongoing maintenance can be achieved but does not provide for retirement of any debt associated with the golf course remodel. * The applicant proposes to finance the golf course remodel through the creation of 95 additional lots on property on the golf course and driving range. * The proposed change of zone from O.S. (Open Space) to R-1 9,000 for 41 lots around the perimeter of the golf course will be consistent with the existing R-1 9,000 zoning in the area and consistent with the general plan. * The proposed 41 lots around the perimeter of the golf course will be similar in size and dimension as existing lots in the community in general. * The proposed modified setbacks and unit sizes are consistent with existing setbacks in the area. * The proposed change of zone from O.S. (Open Space) to PR-6 (Planned Residential, six units per acre) in the area of the existing driving range is consistent with other golf course developments in the city and is consistent with the general plan. * The proposed 54 lots in the area of the existing driving range will be surrounded by the remodeled golf course, provide significant separation from existing residences to the north and southwest and be at least six feet lower than existing residences on Utah Circle and 4.5 feet lower than closest residences on Indiana. 11 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 16, 2004 The proposed modified setbacks and unit sizes will be consistent with existing setbacks in the general area. At least five existing lots in the community have substandard setbacks and/or encroachments across property lines. Applicant has agreed to process parcel maps to adjust the property lines to eliminate encroachments and provide for complying setbacks and distances between dwellings. A traffic analysis was prepared by George Dunn and Associates which concluded that the project will not have a significant impact on traffic in the area. Based on all of the above staff recommends that Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01, and DA 04-01 be recommended for approval to the City Council. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the findings and. adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01, subject to conditions. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Proforma E. Traffic Report F. Plans and exhibits Prepared by: Steve Smith Planning Manager Approve Homer Croy ACM for Development ervices /tm 12 Approved. by: Phil Drell Director of Community Developmen PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL 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 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, 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. CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 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, 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 Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of the change of zone application, tentative tract map and precise plan: ZONE CHANGES 1. The proposed zone changes are consistent with the land use and densities prescribed in the general plan. 2. The proposed lots will be compatible in size with existing Tots in the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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. 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. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and with the findings contained in the staff report dated March 16, 2004, constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Change of Zone 04-01 as shown on Exhibit "B" attached, Tentative Tract 31836 and Precise Plan 04-01 are hereby recommended for approval to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, is recommended for certification. 4. That approval of the Development Agreement 04-01, Exhibit "C" attached, is hereby recommended for approval to City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of March, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 3 SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 AND DA 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 shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION 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 lots not presently within the Home Owner Association area shall be annexed into the Home Owner Association area. 17. That with the consultation of the City Attorney a mechanism be established to dedicate to open space purposes the remaining golf course area for a minimum of 30 years. 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. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. • Along the west side of Elkhorn Trail in area #6. • Along the north side of California 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 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. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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. 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 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 Tess 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION 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, PP 04-01 and DA 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, a precise plan, a tentative tract map to create 95 residential Tots, 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. 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. March 16, 2004 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11 P.R.-4 P..R•4 �F^ P.R.5 end --/ P. P.-5 C. L .. GW HOVLEY LN E t muzzarar-`-. amps x-irczc P.R. 4 0 _m ._. P.R.-4 P.R-4 '^z aY+ ,i P.R..4 1�Y Sd. r, R•1_900D 0.S. 14kh70NA DIN !). .i P.R-4 HOVL-EYLN: R-3 200G R 1_9000 w�. - P.0 8 o a ¢ e¢ R-190Cu O.S 9000 t �` _.--•o"._•CALLEORN/A'DR. - P.0 2, P.0 - rR'T 900 _ R 90 - — — •a �t73i�c(uTnF A s Mvrauvnr_. _.. — 9's'V }°oQa' c _ R•19000`_—e u 4�00 OS R.'s%s.?- .,, O.S. _ R-1 90CG y rc�na*r P.R.-4 P.R.-4 VFW Yn/y,4 VT c1.900� .� O.S. R-t9000 � R — R•E40000 �- iL;V p ST R-1 9000 O.S. O.S — ✓' p r�$ iG 1 p—_._CAw rE -ora—Ph— 3 MUNZA1 cvlr4 'R-E 40000 J Z-4WART PZ o o o--R•E40000 R•E40000- oukh IN V1fY R E 40000 oo • -RA•�� 19'� XLF O.S. — ri na P-4'-iY.� - T 9oOP R.4 rc cE- Pc7 O.S. 19 f i VE oR.E 40000 R CAI%TORN/- 9000 LALf� °° = �m P.R e xnrcrn �:�ti _�h P.R..4 -tiy R-1 9000-¢_ o _1 S_3 m — R•19000 O.S. R•19000 _ T �' FLarmzAVr - R-19000 TI✓ri Ai7 — , amr: Q. —* 1 R- 9000 R•19000 — F7_a i FRED WARING DR Proposed Zoning Changes O.S. To R-1 9,000 O.S. To P.R. -6 City of Palm Desert Case No. C/Z 04-01 CHANGE OF ZONE EXI-II IT 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Date: CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: TT 31836 Palm Desert Country Club, LLC DATE: February 11, 2004 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above -referenced project: (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 priorto start of construction. Project is required to retain on -site 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. (1) Along the south side of New York Avenue east to California in area #'s 2 & 8. (2) On both sides of Tennessee Avenue at the project entrance in area # 1. (3) Along the west side of Elkhorn Trail in Area #6. (4) Along the north side of California 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 to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of 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 priorto 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. (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. Mark Greenwood, P.E. G: IPubWorkslConditions of Approval1TMAPSITT 31836 PDCC. wpd Tom Tisdale Fire Chief Proudly serving the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and the cities of: Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio Lake Elsinore La Ouinta Moreno Valley e• Palm Desert s• Perris Rancho Mirage San Jacinto Temecula Board of Supervisors Bob Buster District 1 John Tavaglione District 2 Jim Venable District 3 Roy Wilson District 4 Tom Mullen District 5 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT In Cnoperatitul'virh thy C _alilbrni_1 Derartm •nt r11. f 11rv.,Iry ;Ind Fire 210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 - ono) 9,10.6900 • FAX f<1f ,) ll• 1'43910 Cove Fire Marshal's Office 737I0 Fred Waring Drive I/222 Palm Desert CA 92260 -1 (760) 346870 TO: REF: 77- / j • ./ 1 ', if circled, conditions apply to project DATE: With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. h1 A lire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing, a gpm flow of: (3) 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings 5 3000 2nm for commercial buildings The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4"x 2 Y2" x 2'/", located not less than 25' nor more than: 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 8. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway C 9.) Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. I0. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 11. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applie\ in all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. Tile l 'ir•e Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator \ aivc, :tittl fire department connections. All valves and cnnnecticrnwit lie less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an a ppr•crvctl hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 12. Alt valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UI3C Chapter 9. 13. Install a fire alarm system as required by the IIIIC Chapter 14. Install portable fire extinguishers per NITA 10, but n-ot less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' 'v a ll,itt ; distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 15. Install a Llood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per N I•'1' \ 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-fantil� residential usage. 16. Install a dust collecting system per UFC Chapter 7G if conclric•tiit;, an operation that produces airborne particles. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway e t rictittg to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width :Ind 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required nit both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' «;dc with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall he provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial developments. Whenever access into private property is tout rillled t h r ottr,lt tt :t• ()I. gates, barriers or other means provisions shall he made to intit:ill "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency yenirp access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a ininirnrtirt vertical clearance of 13'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a .cconcl:tr•\ :irri':s. sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Vine Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 13(1u' I,.• accepted. Gy Ltv . t 20. 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. 21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and • occupancy type. 22. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 23. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. (-72-b Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, - laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. • J t• All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should he referred to the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870 in Paim Desert. Location: 73710 Fred Waring Drive #222, Palm Desert CA 92260 Other: s e Sincerely, David A. Avila Fire Marshal ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX i76C, 396-371 JOHN lY McFADOEN PPESIOEPST -TEP SSE . K!TAHA^-. February 17, 2004 Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: Subject: Tentative Tract Map No. 31836 File: 0163.1 0421.1 0721.1 This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need to review drainage design further. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 53 and 80 of the District for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert -2 February 17, 2004 If you have any questions please call Dan Charlton, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2316. Yours very truly, Dan Farris Director of Engineering cc: Jeff Johnson Riverside County Department of Public Health 82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209 Indio, California 92201 DC: j 1\eng\sw\feb\ttm-31836 050613-1 050613-3 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM City of Palm Desert TO: STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, MANAGEMENT ANALYST SUBJECT: PP 04-01, C/Z 04-01 & TT31836 PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB RENOVATION DATE: MARCH 3, 2004 The submitted plan has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location. Since this project is not located within or on an approved SunLine Transit Bus Route; a bus shelter/stop will not be conditioned as part of this project. Trash Enclosures: The plan does not address trash enclosures. Therefore, plans must be submitted that address trash enclosures. Also, Waste Management of the Desert must review and approve the plans prior to final approval by the City, as it is their vehicles that will be servicing the complex and who determine trash capacity for the complex. Developer must consider the location, circulation needs of disposal (waste) trucks, and number of enclosures required for complex. They should contact Jennifer at Waste Management of the Desert at (760) 340-6445. Construction of trash enclosures shall be consistent with PDMC, Chapter 8.12 and identified disposal needs, if required. However, if this project is strictly a single-family residential project with no central dumpsters planned, then the above is not required. FRANKIE RIDDLE MANAGEMENT ANALYST PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT Served by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department Bob Doyle, Sheriff -Coroner 73520 Fred Warring Drive Palm Desert. CA 92260 (760) 836-1600 Fax (760) 836-1616 February 10, 2004 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Steve Smith, Planning Manager RE: PP04-01, C12 04-01 + TT 31836 Dear Mr. Steve Smith, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the change of zone and the tentative tract map for the development of 95 single-family residences within the Palm Desert Country Club Community. The property is located on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, west of Washington Street. Pre -Construction & Construction Phases: 1. Current Planned Design: The proposed design presents several issues, which should be discussed for security reasons, and issues of public safety: A. Exterior Lighting Plan: (Refer to Post -Construction Comments) B. Fred Waring Drive Access: Due to the existing heavy traffic on Fred Waring Drive, a traffic control signal device should control the access to the tract. The access into the tract for eastbound Fred Waring Drive traffic should be via a left turn pocket, also controlled by the aforementioned signal device. C. Landscaping: The landscape design should be based on the use of planted items, which will not Overgrow any areas near the residences or on the retention areas. For example, trees or shrubs should not be planted directly adjacent to the residences, nor should they be planted in a manner, which will obstruct observation into or out of the residences. Cacti are recommended for placement near the residences, due to their security and low maintenance advantages. They may also be used along the exterior facings of perimeter block walls, as a deterrent to graffiti. 2. Construction Site: Prior to construction on any structure, a material storage area should be established and enclosed by a six (6) foot chain link fence to minimize theft of materials and/or equipment. It is recommended that a list of serial and/or license numbers of equipment stored at the location be maintained both, at the site and any off -site main office. The public and non -essential employees should be restricted in access to the construction areas. Current emergency contact information for the project. Page 2 Should be kept on file with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, Palm Desert Station. The developer and/or builder's name, address and phone number should be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Visibility into the construction site should not be intentionally hampered. Areas actually under construction should be lit during hours of darkness. All entrances and exits should be clearly marked. The construction site should have a clearly designated point of contact, such as a construction trailer or office. Post the emergency and non -emergency phone numbers for the fire department (CDF), ambulance service (AMR) and, the Palm Desert Police Department near any local site phone. The address for the facility should be posted near the above phones at the site. Any phones at the site that is blocked for outgoing calls should not be blocked from dialing 9-1-1. The parking areas and commercial areas on the premises should be accessible to emergency vehicles at all times with paved pathways of sufficient width to accommodate such vehicles. Post Construction & Project Completion: 1. Lighting: The current proposal does not include an exterior lighting plan for the tract or the individual residences. All exterior lighting standards and fixtures should be resistant to vandalism and tampering. The standards should be of a height to reduce any tampering or damage. It is recommended that high:: pressure sodium type lighting be used for the reasons of color rendition and increased visibility (i.e. less glare). It is also recommended that all residences display a backlighted address on the front of each residence, clearly visible to emergency response personnel. 2. Graffiti Issues: Prior to occupancy, the surface of walls, fences, buildings, logo monuments, etc. should be graffiti resistant either through surface composition, applied paint type and/or planned shielding by landscaping or plants. 3. Public Safety: When completed, the Riverside County Sheriffs Department will serve this housing tract, Palm Desert Police contract. Current staffing levels at the Palm Desert Police Department are adequate, however, this housing tract will increase the full-time residential population of Palm Desert. Therefore, in conjunction with a significant rise in both planned and current residential and commercial development in the city, there is a high probability that a degradation of police services will occur, unless the project is programmed with development funds for public safety services. The Palm Desert Police Department requests specific mitigation to provide service. We request that as a condition of approval, a recurring revenue stream be identified as specific law enforcement cost mitigation for the project. During the build -out of the project, the law enforcement cost mitigation revenue should be proportionate to the estimated population that will be occupying the proposed project. If the planning commission, planning project representative, developer and/or construction staff have any questions regarding these issues, contact Deputy James Costello at (760) 836-1671. Respectfully submitted, James Costello Deputy Sheriff, ID # 2249 Palm Desert Police Dept Crime Prevention CITY OF PALM DESERT ART IN PUBLIC PLACES INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Renovation (Case No. PP04-01, C/Z 04-01 + TT 31836) Steve Smith, Planning Manager Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator ' 02/11/04 The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for the Palm Desert Country Club renovation be used for an onsite public art project. We estimate that the total fee is approximately $27,000 and feel that this amount will allow for a significant public art project. This assessment is based on each houses being an estimated 1750 square feet. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: City Manager DISCUSSION DRAFT MARCH 12, 2004 Fee Exempt - Govt. Code .5273831 (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 DAHOON INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., a California corporation [Dated as of March _, 2004 for reference purposes only] C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12.DOC 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 and Dahoon Investment Company, Inc., a California corporation ("Dahoon") (collectively "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 has requested City to enter into a development agreement for the development of certain real property ("Property") owned in fee by Owner and legally described in the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, Owner proposes 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 C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC2 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: ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.2 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. 1.3 Ownership of Property. Dahoon represents, covenants and warrants that it is the owner of fee simple title to the Property. 1.4 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. 1.5 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. 1.6 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. 1.7 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed automatically terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) Expiration of the Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 1.4. (b) Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the ordinance adopting this Agreement. (c) The adoption of a referendum measure pursuant to California Government Code Section 65867.5, overriding or repealing the ordinance adopting this Agreement. C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC3 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. 1.8 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) Ali 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: With a copy to: 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 Development, LLC 601 South Figueroa, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, California 90017 Attn: Larry J. Kosmont Telephone: (213) 599-4385 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:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC4 (c) Either 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 has committed to certain "Golf Course Improvements", in the estimated amount of up to $4 million and certain "Club House Improvements", in an estimated amount of $1 million. The Golf Course Improvements and Club House Improvements are listed on Exhibit "C". Owners performance of the Golf Course Improvements and Club House Improvements shall be the subject of a separate improvement agreement, owner's execution and performance of which is a condition of the continued validity of this agreement. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residences in the Project until all of the Golf Course Improvements are completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert. Building permits will not be issued for the 11 residential lots on the south side of New York Avenue (Tentative Tract map lots 55-65, inclusive) until the Club House Improvements have been completed and approved by the City. 2.4 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Approvals. The Project shall also be subject to subsequent development approvals required for the completion of the Project. 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 Planning Director to not be a substantial change in the proposed project or conditions of C:1Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOGS approval, can be approved by the Planning Director. 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. C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC6 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 C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC7 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. Theonly 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 C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC8 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. C:1Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC9 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: C:1Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC1 SIGNATURE PAGE TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB OWNER: PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC a California limited liability company By: Its: By: Its: DAHOON INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., a California corporation By: Its: C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC1 1 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 C:1Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC12 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 C:1Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC13 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 C:\Documents and Settingslrobert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC14 EXHIBIT "A" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of Property [Attached behind this page] C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC15 EXHIBIT "B" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [Attached behind this page] C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC16 EXHIBIT "C" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Description of Project and Existing Development Approvals — Golf Course Improvements [Attached behind this page] C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC17 Zoning Ordinance Zoning Modification R-1 9,000 TR-6 Minimum Proposed Side Setback Minimum 5 ft. as approved by with City totaling 14 ft. 5 ft. Front Setback 20 ditto 10 Setback to Front in Garage 20 ditto 20 Rear Setback 15 ditto 5 Minimum Lot Width 70 ditto 50 Maximum Building Height 18 ditto 18 R-19.000 PR-6 Minimum Lot Area 9,000 sq.ft. ditto 9,000 4,691 C:\Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC1 8 Golf Course and Club House Improvements The following improvements will be made to both the existing 9 Hole Executive and 18 Hole Golf Courses as well as existing Club House facilities. GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS 1. Replace existing manual irrigation system with modern computerized irrigation system. 2. Remove existing driving range and replace it with the new location for holes 1 and 2 and 54 residential units. 3. Delete and add fairway bunkers. 4. Recharge existing bunkers. 5. Modify existing and create new cart paths. 6. Reshape sand bunkers. 7. Rebuild lake. 8. Relocate trees. 9. Relocate tee boxes and greens. 10. Relocate Maintenance Facility Said Golf Course improvements to cost up to $4 million . CLUB HOUSE IMPROVEMENTS 1. Relocate cart storage barn. 2. Remodel interior and exterior of Club House. 3. Relocate parking lot. Said Club House Improvements to cost up to $1 million. Total Golf Course and Club House Improvements to cost up to $5 million. C:1Documents and Settings\robert.hargreaves\My Documents\PDCC Development Agreement 3-12. DOC1 9 Law Offices of CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS ROBERT L. PIPPIN MICHAEL A. CRISTE IRWIN L. GOLDS HANS P. FLEISCHNER Paim Desert City Council and Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2524 PDCC Development, LLC 333 S. Hope Street, 27th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1488 73-550 ALESSANDRO SUITE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 March 9, 2004 Re: Tentative Tract Map Number 31836 and Related Matters Ladies and Gentlemen: TELEPHONE: (760) 862-1111 FACSIMILE: (760) 776-4197 E-MAIL: ROBERTLPIPPIN@AOL.COM Of Counsel: E. LARRY BISHOP This office represents the Paim Desert Country Club Preservation Society ("PDCCPS") and its members ("Members"), all of whom own property within the Palm Desert Country Club. This letter serves as notice to the City of Palm Desert that (1) the Members have enforceable property rights which prohibit the creation of additional residential lots on the golf course lots at Palm Desert Country Club, and (2) County of Riverside Planning Commission Variance Case No. 409, as amended, imposes certain restrictions upon the 560-acre area that became Palm Desert Country Club which the above tentative tract and proposed development would violate. This letter also serves as notice to PDCC Development, LLC that PDCCPS and the Members intend to enforce their rights. We understand from PDCCPS that the City of Palm Desert has not yet viewed the documents which give rise to the enforceable property rights which prohibit the creation of additional lots nor the provisions of Variance Case No. 409. A copy of Instrument Number 31032 recorded April 12, 1961, Instrument Number 24645 recorded March 12, 1963, and County of Riverside Planning Commission Variance Case No. 409, and Variance Case No. 656 which modifies Variance Case No. 409, are enclosed. Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission PDCC Development, LLC Tentative Tract Map 31836 and Related Matters March 12, 2004 Page 2 of 4 DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS Instrument Number 31032, recorded April 12, 1961, is a Declaration of Restrictions which established the golf course lots within Tract 2137 as "restricted lots" to be used "solely for the purpose of maintaining a golf course and such improvements reasonably related thereto" and "imposed on each restricted lot ... a servitude in favor of each and every lot in said Tract as the dominant tenement or tenements (which) ... shall be enforceable against the restricted lots, and each of them, by the then owner or owners, lessee or lessees, of any other lot or lots or interest therein, in said Tract". The Members of PDCCPS own lots within Tract 2137 and intend to enforce these rights as the creation of the proposed additional residential lots on the golf course lots of Tract 2137 at Palm Desert Country Club would violate the declaration. Instrument Number 24645, recorded March 12, 1963, is a Declaration of Restrictions which established the golf course lots within Tract 2283 as "restricted lots" to be used "solely for the purpose of maintaining a golf course and such improvements reasonably related thereto" and "imposed on each restricted lot ... a servitude in favor of each and every lot in said Tract as the dominant tenement or tenements (which) ... shall be enforceable against the restricted lots, and each of them, by the then owner or owners, lessee or lessees, of any other lot or lots or interest therein, in said Tract". The Members of PDCCPS own lots within Tract 2283 and intend to enforce these rights as the creation of the proposed additional residential lots on the golf course lots of Tract 2283 at Palm Desert Country Club would violate the declaration. VARIANCE CASE NO. 409 Variance Case No. 409 provides that "a change of zone of any or all of the property involved in this variance shall not relieve the permittee or his successors in interest of any of the requirements of these conditions." Variance Case No. 409 also required protective covenants to "insure conformance with the intent and purposes of this variance." Those protective covenants were recorded as Instrument Number 31032, recorded April 12, 1961, and Instrument Number 24645, recorded March 12, 1963. A change in zoning of the open space golf course lots to residential zoning does not relieve the successors of the obligation to conform with the intent and purposes of Variance Case No. 409 which were to preserve open space in a dense residential zone as embodied in and set forth in the protective covenants. Variance Case No. 409, also requires minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a frontage of 60 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet with permission to plat irregular shaped lots provided the average width of the lot is not less than 60 feet and provided that no street frontage be less than 40 feet. The development proposed under Tentative Tract Map Number 31836 would violate this requirement. Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert PIanning Commission PDCC Development, LLC Tentative Tract Map 31836 and Related Matters March 12, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Variance Case No. 409, as modified by Variance Case No. 656, restricts single family dwellings within Palm Desert Country Club to a maximum of 1,800 square feet. The development proposed under Tentative Tract Map Number 31836 would violate this restriction. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Other matters which should be carefully considered when acting on this application are: 1) All single family housing within Palm Desert Country Club is zoned R-1. Variance Case No. 409 allowed the reduction in size of R-1 single family lots from 9000 square feet in the Indian Wells sector and 7200 square feet in the Bermuda Dunes sector to a minimum size of 6000 square feet for the whole project area. It is questionable whether the Planning Commission would have granted this variance if there were to be contiguous lots surrounding the golf course, thus eliminating the open spaces and reducing the golf course acreage. This is what is proposed. 2) Variance Case No. 409 was granted in part because the County of Riverside Planning Commission recognized that senior citizens required smaller lots with a minimum of maintenance and that smaller lots were therefore needed for successful sales and satisfactory completion of the project. The variance was granted because of the prevailing conditions at that time. Since those conditions no longer exist, the rationale for small lots is no longer relevant. 3) On October 1, 1985, prior to the property in question being annexed by the City of Palm Desert, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny a similar request by the then owner of the golf course to add additional single-family home sites as proposed by a request for variance and Tentative Tract Map Number 20589, as amended, based in part on findings and conclusions that: a) The proposed project was not consistent with the then current development standards of an R- 1 zone. b) The approval of the variance request would encourage small lots in the R-1 zone where there were other areas with zoning which would accommodate the proposed smaller lot sizes. c) The approval of the tract would be the equivalent of changing the declaration without the consent of the property owners which would expose the county (now the City of Palm Desert) to a potential suit by the residents. Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission PDCC Development, LLC Tentative Tract Map 31836 and Related Matters March 12, 2004 Page 4 of 4 A copy of the October 1, 1985 Minutes of the Board of Supervisors, together with Exhibit A thereto, denying the request for a variance and Tentative Tract Map Number 20589, as amended is enclosed. The Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society and its members oppose Tentative Tract Map Number 31836 as it reads and have every intention of enforcing their rights. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions. HPF:nga Enclosures: Very ruly yours, ans P. Fleischner for CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS Instrument Number 31032 recorded April 12, 1961 Instrument Number 24645 recorded March 12, 1963 County of Riverside Planning Commission Variance Case No. 409 County of Riverside Planning Commission Variance Case No. 656 October 1, 1985 Minutes of the Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside (with Exhibit A) 2)002/007 03/08/04 09:09 FAX 909 890 3621 FNT CUSTOMER SERVICE owner of that. certain real prop_.ty in the:Cotm • -eide,=-State of-Califoinia ;:descr • -es _ _ �i Ai�tr - - - _ , • • _ '• _ shown — _v . .-r ... _. .w1pviavor.wmr..,r..to,.ww..+.r :'•,wr+w. 5ive, records of Ri4crslde_:.County,,.California; . . g= �bdiir#ded=T ect--119-i-- shon bymap a_ferebalci-of-necorcl' tr, the ••'-Tf.ice theyt;ort w of aid County, —does herby • eta eatabi tied, and' does "°Hereby -'establish, a gene ai 1an — for the=im¢reVement--and development -of -said Tract na.Jocs k-;• - Hereby establish= -conditions, restrictions and covenant- upon and subject rntab irh AI —?ii C118,wroi,gtSx.At .Mir= .:y ...,,.•:_a....:«. .. . - .M.: .. aor • said resericted lore and for :the benefit of each owner of, • • _ »i tom. ••••=1 :ir 4.r"1. • . ' • • it Y • • or •lessee of an undivided interest of lany lot. within said Tract and shallinure and pass. with each and every lot of said Tract , and shall apply to and 'bindthe reapegtive • successors in interest of the .present owner- thereofi_and are imposed on eaclLtestsictad 7.ott<-=as a=scrvi[ude in -favor' . • • • _. _�,�. -r_ — - _ • ,r, 03/08/04 09:10 FAX 909 890 3621 FNT CUSTOMER SERVICE Z003/007 • • •••• ••••••••••••..., iver--- • - - _ — !7____. . • .H.„. - ::_._24.Asok• 2 6: m27 ei ..••• • .1 .--5, -...,.„....Liirialiiiiiiiiii every lot'in. said .Tract. -a8.. oio. dominant- term.... r''' . - . '.-;...: • • = :.,..: . . i.. •••••• • — •••dart.?., • . t:Irr _ kr..,0110i0.4144001601110.rigettri:j4vmorr .resttimta-4.10ts, And.eadh of...'ihe:Iii=tp7-71140wn-rowue4. _ ••,....r,..4...lagaiwzipLenfasmatx‘ctther..lot: or lots, or • - - • - • - • •••••••• ::":44=.11•.‘ Yori: 1. ' .The restricted lots shall be used solTelcr-fiii-tFe- „....pUrpose of:maintairring• a golf -course- and' -such .;. • • v.',' 741et 1 • club houses,. Pei5-shops equipment storage ish--ks, - . . - wenn', pumps, and other lw.?tovements reasov,ibly • -.related- to the opera fion of a. golf course . . _ . 2.• The above restrictions shall be 14pd4.1.fg on all parties or persbna claiming under it until • . • 1.17 - 'January -NI., 1992, at which CL . -1) u_nuts? • matiCET.-ly -extended- for successiverperiods-of- ------ . _ upon Ca r said DC of' r 3n4 raver • 2. - • ..".""..:Z7.•_"_._ •7_—- • .0-five . (-5) years; provided., however, :that-such...re- . _ 6 r1.e tions_sia}r -De at .any time after January '1, _1992, owners of fifty-one per cent (517.) of .the number .o.f residential • _ in- Tract 2137 - --evidence-by -arr- ins-tru- &aid ovnex-k. in the ^ • ...111MINOMMWO 1.prnperty; and duly recorded'in-the o-fft-ce-of-the - - __,:_--; - r. ; .. - ,• . - - - - -, -,County Recorder a foresait'.,44ind---upon .such--rEc ___ ._..-__.: tion shall: be valid and -binding upon ; elliperson a . __ .. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has cauSed _ - •• ' ' I 1. -2- I . • • I., , • 03/08/04 09:10 FAX 909 890 3621 FNT CUSTOMER SERVICE 004/007 . thisxaclaration to be execut•ed •by its dY au .- �`i4e-'this rtR, _ dagi of A 1Ii td: f4 F• • k • .�1'.47E OF CAI.IFngNIA ouNrs- rtr• RIVERSIDE ijFCt���L�a-•_ hcfnir r. th• •i[nrd, i Notary Puhtir in and for rail 4:numy •n41 Stilr prrvm•Ilt •rr»,crd: D. ille1 $: {irat y Oio, • • .-__:).nn.Ttin—v �.0 E,._ 1'+iArnt..and JT'gi'�,•. D In not 4- — V""^}'� Serr�tita44.�.9 --- .. .. earcuteJlhe�; •trumntttmnt�tr•lChi - — -+"-- �-�+tithtrt NAI..I,..... 1..-rFr► r1.vr.1M=1MiViirnc+: fir..'- ..... _... .._ �_T��. _:T-" ...,� _ =.,,,fmtavnuani In ita L -1ati, t!ti ltr,t„b �+(4,11. rt .ae ._7 _als+olution al r lw•rd-,p(tdlrrrtnq,: WITNF_5S my 1 A d Lffri•I •etr..7-r l. ' ---- ors 11r '..t :Notary PuLlir in and for mid f.nunt Dorathes DeP! • Wizen-re,cdrded fe1-ttirn, • [C F'OR:A V C. .al _ n rotpora . the {tilj county or • I111 -041 o. • • +oNrltwtr. i.sitKR 0-- • ;. - ithi••latre .. ' 1� F m<nionmiil 03/08/04 09:11 FAX 909 890 3621 FNT CUSTOMER SERVICE 3341 Ma 347 DECL.AR.ATION 0P RESTRICTIONS KIDW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the undersigned, MARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO.. a cor- poration, herein called the "Declarant," is the owner of that certain real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: Lots Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6.and 7 in Tract 2283 as shown by map on file in Rook 42, Pages 82 to 89, both inclusive, records of Riverside County, California. That Declarant, having subdivided Tract 2283, shown by map aforesaid of record in the office of the Recorder of said County, does hereby certify and declare that it has established, and does hereby certify and declare that it has established, and does hereby establish. a general plan for the improvement and development of said Tract, and does hereby establish con- ditions, restrictions end covenants upon and subject to which all of the restricted Lots, and portions thereof. shall be im- proved by it as such owner, each and all of which shall be covenants running with each of said restricted Lots and for the benefit of each owner of, or lessee of, an undivided interest of any lot within said Tract and shall inure and pass with each and every lot of said Tract, and shall apply to and bind the respective succeasors in interest of the present owner thereof, and are imposed on each restricted Lot as a servitude in favor' of each and every lot in said Tract as the dominant tenement o tenements and shall be enforceable against the restricted lots. and each of them, by the then owner or owners, lessee or Lessees. of any other Lot or lots, or interests therein, in said Tract. to wit: 1. The restricted Lots shall be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a golf course and such im- provements reasonably related thereto. No structures -1- Z 006/007 03/08/04 09:11 FAX 909 890 3621 FNT CUSTOMER SERVICE ?r' pro-ehwpe, equipment -storage ch.=rice, wKtls, pumps, and other improvements reasonably related to. the operation of;a golf course. 2. The above restrictions shall be binding on all parties or persons claiming under it until January 1, 1992, by the owners of fifty-one per cent (51%) of the number of residential lots in Tract 2283, evidenced by an instrument in writing executed by said owners in the manner provided by Law for the conveyance of real property, and duly recorded in the office of the County Recorder aforesaid, and upon such recordation sha11 be valid and binding upon all persona. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused thin Declaration to be executedby,,,its duly authori>ed officers this L _� day of /i �c�`� 1963. :tatt 11 California C.nt► .tI. San Diego f ¢' p„ 'March 6 I, 63 sin sq. Ik kereeigaek a Wart Petliic In and fir said tataie eegy_ l rai h se h N Aaidnl• and It aria' gregory karse ,,kI�..�Mf,,,�tl� be el _ _. r-_— ..___...SKtGIary al I e 'grapiu p! q9l mcsted the •ithin instrument. and • ter& leaadi •r "OM pe►as wM exit -Wet! the within Aaliional M iaait 14 Ile amputee Merin Need, and adn+4died to se that. such carperation euecufed the within loorrainil �e 10 its 1!•laws era tlesahlion al ih i1 essi1 hood pntlrti,d Ludo two, •. Pram ,h►er Is ad IM •.Y Ch.lt a.l &lrh. !y n...w.1W1{aa r. ON. A1ir• ra, IVIA M -2- MARNEL DEVELOPMENT CO. A Corporation By Q 1 4 J() RECEiVEO FOR RECO;10 i���ppccpp�lr\ Vressdcgt Rotc.O.A ,,, _ecre. "Declarant" • Z 007/007 RY Ywe-CAeinnee,Hemet OVELAND, Indio . PARK, leaning Y H. OLESEN, Palm Desert ELMER M. KATZENSTEtN, Rubidoox LEONARD M. KIRKPATRICK. SR., Perri, Ear A. C. KEITH, County Surveyor end Rood Commissioner ERIC L. WAITE. County Asso,sor RAY T. SULUVAN, JR., County Counsel HAZEL I. EVENSEN, Secrote.y GOLIN � :� �ni p KSIllE PLAN m ...". ,•SSION TYLER SUESS, PLANNING DIRECTOR COURT HOUSE. RIVERSIDE TELEPHONE — OVERLAND 3.4000 August 17, 1960 The. Honorable Board of Supervisors Court House Riverside, California Ts :168u I 6. A. PL Uf O :i I. I( SUBJECT: Variance Case Mo. 409 Associatsd Developers Reduced Lot Area i Additional Dwelling; in R-1 &ii-2 Zones Indian Wells -Bermuda Ames Diets. Fourth Supervisorial District Gentlesen:• The -Planning Commission respectfully reports approval of a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, d.inance No. 348, for the Associated Developers, a limited partnership by l(arsu, Inc. A Corporation, General Partner, (R. H. Seareet - President), 1812 W. Broadvay, Whittier, California, to permit a reduction in minimum r aired lot area in Zones I-W-2 (Interim -Watershed, Conservation and *creation) and R-1 (One Family Dwellings) in portions of the Indian Wells and Bermuda Dunes Districts, et its regular meeting held on August 9, 1960, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the minimum required lot areas may be reduced to not less than 6000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 6o feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet. Permission is granted to plat irregular shaped lots provided the average width of the lot is not less than 60 feet and in no event shall the street frontage be less than 40 feet. 2. That the scheme for the development, operation and control conform sub- stantially vith that et forth in brochure marked Exhibit "B" (Palm Village A Planned Community for Senior Citizens), on file vith Variance Case No. 409 in the office of the Riverside County Planning Commission. 3. That a sewage treatment plant be provided and that all lots and dwellings be connected to said 'plant. Board of Supervisors Variance Case No. 409 Page -2- b. A permit for the sewage disposal plant described in Paragraph 3 above shall be obtained pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 348. 5. Protective Covenants be recorded to insure conformance with the intent and purposes of this variance. Such covenants shell be submitted to end approved by the Riverside County Counsel and Planning Commission Staff prim. to recordation. 6. That no single family (belling shall have s gross area, exclusive of garages and un-roofed porches of more than 1300 square feet. 7. That a tentative subdivision map conforming substantially to said Exhibit "A" be filed with the Riverside County Planning Commission. 8. That the use permitted hereby may be developed in sections subject to approval by the Planning Commission. 9. That a change of zone of any or all of the property involved in this variance shall not relieve the permittee or hie successors in interest of any of the requirements of these conditions. 10. That the variance granted hereby shall be used within 1 year. By "use" is meant substantial development of the facilities and use contemplated by this permit. A public hearing vas held on this scatter before the P3anniug Commission on Tuesday, August 9, 1960. A summary of testimocy presented is attached hereto. After full and cAmplete consideration of all the facts and circumstances involved, together with report of the staff, it vas regularly moved and unanimously carried at the regular meeting of the Commission held, on August 9, 1960 that the report of the Commission's action be transmitted to your honorable board. No further action is required by your Board unless an appeal is filed by the applicant or some property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property under consideration within 10 days of the receipt of this report by your Board, ar the Board on its own motion by majority vote orders the appl- ication transferred to it for final action. Respectfully submitted, TB:hie !noes. Appl, Spry, Legal, Mapp Brochure Tile - Variance Case No. 409 (to be returned) cc: Supervisor Berkey November 18, 1964 i4•666-ista..'• tray _ bard Of bwpervisors Zi SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 656 City,Pala (Deletion at Cooditioa Variance Case '1o. 1109) so. 6 °� . Hem Dunes & Indian Wells Distriets Fturtb Snpery1 j r+—• - The 6 Commilssioo respectfully reports approval of a 'Using Ordinance It Pala•City, Inc., 77-9e0 Avenue of the States, to tbe Ito'waive Condition No. 6 attached a Pale Desert, Aug lying la ;smelling aims Of 1300 square feet in t Pals Case No: i09, affDevelopment to theect. 'conditions: s of Sections 13 and 111, T. 5 S., R. 6 B. S.B.B., $* Joet 1. Maxt no single taai/7 dwelling have a unroofed porches of less thin 800 gross area, eichueive oaf' �e and square fleet nor more than 1800 square feet. 2• Cott the balance of iamb eloped area at Avenue extending Westerly frra the existingder- � Plaproperty n abown an Exhibit Tennesseeely ( the withof Bi ►s end provide for a 55 foot ads ale `Pursuant to �`balr �i''i�t o�vqy. Planningthe Commission o. 348, a public bearing ties held an this ma tter before °° October 27, 19`l#, and testimony Panted to attached, spry of tes After !till and caaplete eid,eration of all fact3 b on determined that a dip under the p� aof ostad Ordinance No.involved, e over-all de8abad been esbe bllabed ty reason of Location of the per, sO' that it would not be ontrolled by tbe ental .t, f course del and vide a �d C ec!e-� �/' •r l / C `/ • .-tber;fropertrundeeccusideration itrit4,appears4.on- yoti413cstre tiantrensferred, to Tathia Ends. kppl,, 1,labels Property Owners List _ Susan Affidavit of Posting oat Baperviaor Cook Land Use Division (2) Palm Desert Planning Office Clark of the Board AOREDIERT I accept end agree, prior to use of this permit or appronl„ t,o cczaply with all of the conditions set forth, and undarstand that the Office or the Building and Safety will not issue a Pinciding Permit, or allay occupancy ell tha use permitted r • • until this signed confirvation, in triplicate?has been received by the Planning Cceedssion. Date: Date: t cant 'S i Z. I0,2UO3 16:1h IAA Clerk Of The Board • JGG:djd SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM. Planning Department SLJBMi1]ALDATE July 10, 19C33 Tentative Tract Map N. 205B9. Amerd=d No. 2 and Variance Case SUBJECT. ?o. 1459 - F.A. No. 19553 - E.E. Nelson Development Corpar, - Fourth SupervisJria) District - Bermuda Dunes and Ind an Wells 193 acres - 66 lots - Schedule A - R-1 and R-1-9000 Zones RECOMMENDED MOTION 00: Tne East Area Planning Council and Staff recommend: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for E.A. No. 19553 based on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusicr that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and APPROVAL of Variance Case No. 1459 subject to the attached conditions; and APPROVAL of Tentative Tract No. 20589, Amended No. 2, subject to the attached amended conditions and based upon the findings and conclusions contained in the East Area Planning Council minutes dated June 20, 1985. Director 5treete`h, g P nnin MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On motion o1^ Supervisor Larson, seconded by Supervisor Ceniceroz, and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above Variance and Tentative Tract are denied based upon the findings a-,-1 conclusions identified as Board of Supervisors' Exhibit A. Ayes: Abraham, Dunlap, Ceniceros, Younglove and Larson Noes: None Gerald A. MaLbpne;• Absent: None erk of h 'Board Date': October 1, 1985 c ,( y1-- xc: Planning, Land Use, Appl i. , Engr., Subdiv. - Cput,; Prev. Agn. rel. Depts. Commes Dist. AGENDA '.'C_) 12%lti:20u3 16:18 FAX Clerk 01 l'he Board BOARD Of SUPERVISORS EXHIBIT A DATED: October 1, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant requested to divide 193 acres of the Palm Desert Country Club golf course into 52 residential lots and 14 golf course lots on property located west of Washington Street, south of 4v1 Street, and north of Fred Waring Drive. 2. The project site is zoned R-1 and R-1 (R-1-9,000). 3. The W.1 zone requires a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet. 4. The Site is surrounded by existing residences on 6,000 square footots. 5. Use Of 6,000 square foot lots within the Palm Desert Country Club community was approved through variance Case No. 409. 6. The initial study of Environmental Assessment No. 19553 indicated the following environmental concerns: biological resources, overcrowded schools and localized visual impacts. 7. Acondition of project approval would incorporate requirements ffir compliance with an agreement to mitigate impacts upon Desert Sands Unified School District. R. No impacts to the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard are expected due to the legally developed nature of the existing golf course. 9. The tract map is not designated as part of an open space land use as shown on the Open Space and Conservation Map of the Comprehensive General Plan. 10. The tract map will conform to the land use standards of a Category II (Urban) project. 11. Protective covenants were recorded foz Tract 2137 and Tract 2283 in 1963, which established two-thirds of the Palm Desert Country Club community, which specifically restricted certain lots solely for the purpose of maintaining a golf course and other improvements reasonably related thereto. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The project as proposed is not consistent with the development standards of the R-1 zone. 2. Approval of the variance 1459 would encourage small lots in the R-1 zone for which the County has other zoning which accommodates smaller lot size. Therefore there is no basis for granting the variance. 3. Approval of the tract would be agreeing to change CC & R's without the consent of all the property owners. ul 1ne uoaro 4004 In reference to tentative tract 20589 There are two basic questions to be answered before a decision can be made by the Board of Supervisors. First: Can -this tract or any subdivision on this land occur prior to 1992? • Second: If such subdivision can occur, is Tentative Tract 20589 as presently before the Board of Supervisors suitable for approval? Any consideration on the second Question becomes moot unies5 the answer to the first question is yes, i.e. the suitability cf this particular tract presupposes that the land can be legally subdivided. Nevertheless, pausing briefly on the second question of this particular tract, it seems that the applicant has made reasonable effort to ,accommodate specific objections to specific lots. Further, while there still is objection to the lots on which the "half -way" facility is located, those objections could be mitigated by the elimination of some or all of those lots if that were the desire of the Board of Supervisors. Returning to the first and key question as to whether then: can be any subdivision of this property prior to 1992, 1 rote r.:c following: 1. We are dealing with a 1960 subdivision since which there have been changes in County ordinance and policy. 2. The Application for Change of Zone and the application for Variance 409 went hand -in -hand. Variance 409 requested "600G square foot lots instead of the present minimums of 7200 and 9000 square feet". In reviewing the records still available after 25 years, one cannot find clear indication as to the exact ratonale used to make the case for the variance from 7200 and 9000 square feet to 6000 square foot lots. 3. On August 17, 1960 the Planning Commission forwarded t_• the Board of Supervisors its report of approval of Variance 409 "subject to the following conditions: 5. Protective Covenants be recorded to insure confor- mance with the intent and purposes of this variance. a , .,n ♦/ 1 1 Ake. non1'p the Such covenants shall be submitted to and approved by the Riverside County Counsel and Planning Commission Staff prior to recordation." It is important to note that while the Variance was for entire Palm Village property (now known as Palm Desert Country Club), it was developed over a period of time as 5 tracts. 4. Documentation indicates that the "Protective Covenants" called for by Variance 409 Condition. of Approval 05 were recorucu in March of 1963 in a "Declaration of Restriction". Said Deciar- ation of Restriction lists restricted lots and say in part: "does hereby establish conditions, convenants upon...all of the pass with each and every lot. the respective successors in then proceeds to restrictions, and lots ...and shall apply to and bind the present owner thereof...asthe dominant tenement..and shall be enforceable against the restricted lots...to wit: 1. The restricted lots shall be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a golf course and such improvements reasonably related thereto. No structures shall be permit- ted thereon except club houses, pro-shops...and other improvements reasonably related to the operations of a golf course" restricted ..and shall interest of Therefore, I conclude as follows: While the County now takes the position that it does not enforce Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC and R's) because they are private contracts between private parties, it appears that this particular Declaration of Restriction occupies a different CC and R's. It appears evident to me that the Declaration of Restrictions was part and parcel of the conditions of approval required bx the County "to insure conformance with the intent and purpose of this variance". (Condition of Approval *5) Given those facts it escapes me as to how he.County can entertain the notion that it can ignore a position from the usual I' • 1' 111 111V 1./uiirl1 7UUo condition required by the County, wording for which had to he approved by County Cousel and Planning Staff before recordation. Further, two of the original subdividers of the Tract each indicate that the original intent was indeed exactly as stated in the Declaration of Restrictions and that a substantial "golf course premium" was charged for all lots located adjacent to any: grassed area whether actually in the playing area or not. Further, in checking with the Los Angeles Office of the State Real Estate 'Commission, the deputy spoken to adds the following force of 'argument by saying that the matter is pretty cut and dried that the County would be agreeing to change CC and R's without the consent of the property owners; that the residents have a clearly recorded right that this golf course be used as such to exclusion of all else until 1992 and that if allowed by the County the next step would be for the residents to sue the County and the developer. Without passing any judgement as to the merits or need of the project, it would be irresponsible to open the County to liability from such legal ac ion. Unless legal action taker by the owner of the land proves hat the Declaration of Restrictions does not encumber the land i question, I conclude that I must move to deny Tenative Tract 20589 and Variance Case 41459, and hereby so move, based upon t e above statements and the attached findings and conclusions i dicated as Board of Supervisors' Ext"ibit A The Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society www.pdccps.org March 12, 2004 Palm Desert City Council and Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2524 Ladies and Gentleman: On August 17, 1960 the Riverside Planning Commission granted variance 409 as a master variance for the 560-acre area that became Palm Desert Country Club. All single family housing in this area is zoned R-1. Variance 409 allowed reduced size of R-1 single-family lots from 9000 square feet in the Indian Wells sector and 7200 square feet in the Bermuda Dunes sector to a minimum size of 6000 square feet for the whole project area. The variance also requires minimum lot frontage of 60 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet with permission to plat irregular shaped lots provided the average width of the lot is not less than 60 feet and in no event shall the street frontage be less than 40 feet. Variance 409 also restricts the size of dwelling aloud on a single-family lot to a maximum of 1300 square feet. This part of variance 409 was amended on November 18, 1964 by variance 656 which changed the maximum size of dwelling to 1800 square feet. Protective covenants were also required by variance 409 to "insure conformance with the intent and purposes of this variance." Those protective covenants were recorded as a declaration of restrictions on April 7, 1961 and March 6, 1963 and refer to golf course lots in tract 2137 and 2283 as "restricted lots" and further state "does herby establish conditions, restrictions, and covenants upon...all of the restricted lots...and shall pass with each and every lot...and shall apply to and bind the respective successors in interest of the present owner thereof...as the dominant tenement...and shall be enforceable against the restricted lots...to wit: 1. The restricted lots shall be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a golf course and such improvements reasonably related thereto. No structures shall be permitted thereon except club houses, pro-shops...and other improvements reasonably related to the operations of a golf course." We oppose the Palm Desert Country Club Development, LLC proposal because if the Palm Desert Planning Department grants approval for the requested in -fill of homes they will be violating the CC&Rs of the homeowners in Palm Desert Country Club. Ignoring Tel (760) 250-4291 • email: pdccps anhotmail.com 42335 Washington Street Suite F108 • Palm Desert, CA 92211 The Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society www.pdccps org the restrictions would remove all protection from further golf course in -fill or complete removal of the entire golf course. On October 1, 1985, prior to the property being annexed by the City of Palm Desert, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny a similar request by the then owner of the golf course to add additional single-family home sites. Additionally our opposition is based on the following points: 1. The golf course owner has not shown a financial justification for this project, more specifically the need for the number of home sites proposed. 2. There is no precise plan on file with the planning department showing the addition to the pro -shop or the proposed new cart barn to be excavated under the clubhouse. Also where will the golf carts be kept during the construction of the "cluster homes" in the year prior to the clubhouse remodel. 3. A bond guaranteeing completion should be required by the City of Palm Desert for grading, building, landscaping, and maintenance of unsold lots. Posting a completion bond should be a condition of approval. Such an bond should also cover failure to sell the proposed homes in a reasonable amount of time and guarantee completion of all golf course, clubhouse, and cart barn upgrades. 4. Lots in tentative tract 31836 are scattered throughout our community. Consequently they should be annexed into the Palm Desert Country club Association to ensure continuous maintenance and architectural control of the area. 5. Homeowners whose views and privacy are adversely affected and whose property values are negatively impacted should be financially compensated. 6. All remaining golf course lots should be dedicated to open space as per a new declaration of restrictions for at least an additional 30 years to insure that no further development can take place in the future. 7. R-2 zoning in the 9.68 acre "cluster home" area supports high -density housing and potential building of multi -unit or low income housing. Assurances must be made that there will be no attempt either now or in the future to develop this area as such. 8. We oppose the creation of a gated or otherwise segregated development within our existing community. The plans for the "cluster home" area as provided clearly indicate intent to gate in the future. Tel (760) 250-4291 • email: pdccps@hotrnail.com 42335 Washington Street Suite F108 • Palm Desert, CA 92211 The Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society www.pdccps.org 9. Any newly created street should match the existing community standards with regards to width, and sidewalks and should be dedicated to the City of Palm Desert as a public street. 10. The height of new homes in the "cluster area" should conform to the height of the existing homes surrounding them which is 13 feet. 11. What is the breakdown for the 5 million being spent on improvements and will part of the funds come from a Ioan from the City of Palm Desert. The above -mentioned items constitute the core of our opposition without being an exhaustive list of such items. We all agree that the condition of the golf course has deteriorated greatly in the last two years. While we feel that the upgrades to the golf course should be the financial responsibility of the owner, we are always willing to work with third parties in the interest of the community at large. Thank you for attention on this matter and we look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, PDC PS au, 'resident cc: PDCC Development, LLC Tel (760) 250-4291 • email: pdccps@hotmail.com 42335 Washington Street Suite F108 • Palm Desert, CA 92211 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES 11 CASE NO.: DP 12-79 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): S.A. MIRO for SEARS, 4582 S. Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 1501, Denver, Colorado, 80237 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of exterior remodel of Sears Tire, Battery and Auto Center. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MBH ARCHITECTS, 1115 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of signage and storefront remodel. Old Navy LOCATION: Desert Crossing, 72-349 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-01, C!Z 04-01, TT 31836 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, c/o Larry Kosmont, 601 Figueroa Street, Suite 3550, Los Angeles, CA 90017 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040210.AG 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Renovation of existing Palm Desert Country Club clubhouse; development of 95 single-family homes on portions of existing 200-acre golf course. LOCATION: Palm Desert Country Club ZONE: OS Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Lopez left the meeting at this time. Mr. Smith stated that there are no plans for the clubhouse. The applicant has indicated that they will be re -painting the facility and they will submit color chips at a later date. The development plans for 95 single-family homes are available for the ARC to review. The homes would be developed on portions of the existing golf course and/or driving range. That portion of the application needs a change of zone request through the Planning Commission and the City Council. What we're currently dealing with are the landscape plans for those units and the parking lot around the clubhouse facility. The ARC shall also review the architecture for the various plans that would go on the 95 lots. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the roof tile. Mr. Larry Kosmont stated that they will be concrete tile which would simulate a true clay tile. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks thin and wasn't sure what the material was. He asked for clarification on the fascias which have rafter tails, but some are solid. Mr. Kosmont stated that this is typical of this type of architecture. In some cases there will be a break with a detail which is demonstrated on Plan 4 with a scalloped detail. This is an accent detail that's part of the stucco itself. There will be three elevations per plan. Some will have exposed rafter tails and others will have stucco detail. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there would be any wood fascia boards on any of the houses. Mr. Kosmont stated that there will be wood fascia boards in some cases. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the type of windows that will be used. Mr. Kosmont stated that they will have vinyl windows. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the walls will be 2 x 6. Mr. Kosmont stated that the exterior walls could possibly by 2 x 6. There will be some depth between the relationship between the walls and windows on the front elevations to create a shadow line. The interior walls will be 2 x 4 construction. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the exterior walls, the ARC consistently asks the applicant to add some relief with the nail -on windows so that the window isn't flush with the exterior of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR040210.AG 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES the wall. He also asked about the location of the mechanical equipment. Mr. Kosmont stated that the equipment will be on the exterior of the home with nothing on the roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the tops of the chimneys. Mr. Kosmont stated that there will be surrounds around the chimneys, in terms of some type of stucco band and roof shelter over the caps of the chimney with tile or metal shroud. There will not be any exposed spark arresters. Commissioner Hanson commented that in Plan 1 in bedroom #2 in every elevation the applicant has indicated what appears to be high windows above some lower windows and wanted to know if they were real windows. Mr. Kosmont stated that they are real windows. Commissioner Hanson added that on the front elevations, on Plan 1, the walls should be thick for a deep shadow line ( a minimum of 12"). Commissioner Vuksic stated that it depends on the detail. If it's an entire room with a window in the front, it needs to be recessed more than 12". Mr. Kosmont stated that in most cases they have clusters of small windows. Commissioner Van Vliet commented on the setbacks. The units are 45' wide and the Tots are typically 55' wide. He asked if 5' side yard setbacks, are typical for the area. Mr. Drell stated that the county standards are 5'. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that this will be tight with the condenser units in the side yards. Mr. Drell stated that you can't put a condenser in the side yard. The Fire Marshall is asking for 5' of clear area in the side yards. The condensers will have to be put in the rear yard. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioners Vuksic and Hanson in stating that the applicant should carry the architecture all the way around the building so that the sides and rear elevations still look good. Commissioner Hanson commented that the new homes will be a nice improvement to the area. Rob Parker, representative for RGA Landscape Design, was present and stated that they're minimizing the use of lawn in the front yards and lots with shallow front yard setbacks would have no lawn at all. On the outside cul-de-sac lots, they would like a possibility to get some lawn in those areas to soften the appearance while working in accordance with the City's water use standards, as well as the selection of plant material. The only place that will be different will be on the corner lot configurations where there will be a series of shrubs and vines, as opposed to trees. There will be a side yard setback of 5' on the perimeter wall on the street side. There is still an opportunity for the homeowner to add landscaping inside the wall. Mr. Drell stated that we try to apply the City's typical standards to projects such as this, it may be pushing the envelope. Mr. Parker stated that he didn't see a problem pulling the wall in. It just minimizes the actual space on the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040210.AG 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES interior of the lot. If it's acceptable to place the wall at the 7' minimum because of the narrow width of the lots, it would give the homeowner a useable side yard. Mr. Drell stated that typically the corner lots are a little bit wider because of the expectation of having two frontages. Mr. Parker stated that the rationale for the landscaping for the clubhouse is two -fold. One is the reconfiguration to a certain degree of the existing parking lot. The other idea is to enhance the appearance of the clubhouse from New York Avenue and California Drive. They are planning to re -landscape all of the parking areas and the perimeters so that they are within the City's water use standards. They're not doing anything to the back portion. Some modifications still have to be made to the size of the planters in the parking lot. The challenge is that the front of the building is heavily shaded. Spencer Knight encouraged the developer and architectural staff to consider looking at using some kind of alternative soil type around the trees in order to ensure the success of the trees. The present planter size that the City requires is still minimal. It's recommended that they use structural soil. It has produced good results in other cities such as Palo Alto and areas on the east coast. It's an alternative that we're looking at using here in Palm Desert because we have such adverse climates in parking lots because of the heat so it's a major problem. This is a suggestion and if the applicant doesn't want to do it, it's not something that the City can require. Palm Desert Country Club has existing mature trees on site. Mr. Knight commented that he's going to be interested, as the City arborist, in having the trees reviewed for health. Then the question will be asked if they actually have to be cut down. We don't have a lot of mature trees in the valley and they're an asset here. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wanted to make a specific comment on the walls. In the rear, there are covered, outdoor areas and where they don't have those to create shadow, those walls should be a minimum of 12" thick, as well as on, street side yards. Anything that's in clear public view should be a minimum of 12" thick. Ehud Raize, resident of Palm Desert Country Club, was present. He wanted to show the commission pictures of what's in front of his home and some of the neighboring houses. He bought his home there in 1988 and decided to move there because they like the area. They didn't want to live in cluster homes. He's opposed to the project. He's concerned about the mature trees in the area that might be affected by the new development. There's nothing modern about the homes in his neighborhood, but they're very nice homes. There's a .certain density in the area, which is inherent in the development of the golf course. When G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040210.AG 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES they bought homes in the area, they all assumed that this is the density that they're going to be living in. He doesn't know where the actual property lines for the new homes will be relative to his home, but they look like they're going to be between 150'-180'. His views are going to disappear. The homes will be 17'-18' in height and they're not what they want there. They also don't want cluster homes. This is not progress in any way. If the developers wish to develop homes, there's plenty of land in the Coachella Valley where they can develop and profit and if they still wish to invest in the country club, then that's fine. However, putting up cluster homes that are totally out of character with the rest of the older homes in the area is atrocious and totally out of character with what's there. We shouldn't be asked to lose what we have for the sake of financial gain. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the setbacks on the existing homes. Lisa Theodoratus, Palm Desert Country Club resident, was present and stated that she wasn't completely sure but thought that the front setbacks were 20', rear setbacks were 15' and the side setbacks are a minimum of 16' combined with a 5' minimum on one side. Also, all of the lots in the area are a minimum of 6,000 square feet and go up to approximately 9,500 square feet. The proposed new lots would be about 4,700 square feet per lot. She presented pictures of the front of her house and also the view from her backyard. Mr. Kosmont stated that the proposed setbacks are the same as those in the HOA CC & R's, except for the front on the cluster, but they're the same on the sides and back. Ms. Theodoratus stated that if they look at the CC & R's for the Palm Desert Country Club they would see that they're different. She did not have a copy of the CC & R's with her. She showed the commission photos of the lot line for a proposed new home and a picture of a gentleman on another lot line. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they were getting into an area that's not appropriate for the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that they address the commission on architectural/design issues. Ms. Theodoratus stated that the reason that she's showing the commission the photos is because she's opposed to the 18' roof lines and also the side yard setbacks that are being requested. The existing homes in this area have 13' high roof lines. This is representative of every home that's in the area of the cluster homes. Mr. Kosmont stated that the proposed homes are not cluster homes. They're typical production homes on conventional lots. Cluster homes are defined as homes clustered together with open spaces between them. These are not cluster homes. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR040210.AG 13. • r • • • r 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Findings All of the signalized intersections that were studied are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The results of the traffic analysis show that the project will not result in significant changes in the operations of area roadways. The project is forecast to generate 71 AM and 96 PM peak hour trips to be distributed among twelve roadways within the project area. It is currently difficult to make southbound left -turns at Fred Waring Drive and the unsignalized intersections of Elkhorn Trail, Tennessee Avenue and California Drive. It will become more difficult as a result of area traffic growth and the project. Traffic signals are not currently recommended at the unsignalized intersections along Fred Waring Drive since the signalized Fred Waring Drive/Warner Trail intersection has sufficient capacity to provide for southbound left -turn movements during peak periods. The addition of traffic signals in the future may improve access to the Palm Desert Country Club community but could also encourage "cut -through" traffic and is therefore not currently recommended. Project traffic is only a small percentage of the traffic increase anticipated due to projected regional traffic growth. As such, the project will have no significant impact at the study intersections based on the Palm Desert criteria for such impacts. Recommendations The following recommendations are consistent with requirements generally imposed by the City of Palm Desert for projects, such as the Palm Desert Country Club In -fill Development. 1. The design of the proposed project roadways and site driveways shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer during the development review process, to insure compliance with City access and design standards. 2. The project proponent shall contribute traffic impact mitigation fees, by participating in the TUMF program. GEORGE DUNN ENGINEERING Palm Desert Country Club Project Palm Desert, California 36 Traffic Analysis a,topg - (nam 1.4 . : • • PP" ' , • t • N.4 rZO. • "..t. rt, WI Ell IBM IN 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 March 10, 2004 Mr. Phil Drell CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC Phone: 877.760.PDCC Fax: 877.894.5601 RE: PROPOSED 95 HOME RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND GOLF COURSE/CLUBHOUSE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Dear Mr. Drell: In connection with the above referenced development, please note the following: 1. For certain existing residences listed below in the Palm Desert Country Club area adjacent to our proposed lots, there are boundary encroachments whereby either the physical structure encroaches beyond the existing home's property line, or where the existing home does not meet the minimum statutory side yard or rear yard setback. These encroachments are based upon our review of the ALTA survey that we ordered and received. The affected homes are located at: • 77030 Utah Circle • 43635 Elkhorn • 43620 Elkhorn • 77185 California • 42260 \Varner Trail Related to the above residences, we will take the following actions in favor of the existing property owners: a. Where there is an encroachment on property lines, we will record lot line adjustments. b . Where there is a side yard encroachment, we will plot our homes so that the new home is a minimum of 10 feet from any existing residential structure. Related to the 95 homes we are proposing, and notwithstanding what Tentative Tract Map 31836 may reflect related to side yard setbacks, we will agree to a Condition of Approval to provide minimum side yard setbacks of 5 feet for each lot. Related to the height of the 95 homes we are proposing, we will agree to a Condition of Approval to limit height (with the exception of chimneys) to a maximum of 18 feet. Please call me at 714-651-9510, if you have anv questions or require further clarification. Very truly yours, Randy L. Case Partner PDCC Development LLC c: Larry-.J. Kosmont Sherry Ryan LOT# TOT SC) FT NET SQ FT 1 5,174 5,174 2 4,750 4,750 3 4,750 4,750 4 4,734 4,734 5 5,215 5,215 6 4,750 4,750 7 4,750 4,750 8 4,750 4,750 9 4,750 4,750 10 6,161 6,161 11 4,908 4,908 12 4,750 4,750 13 5,297 5,297 14 4,861 4,861 15 4,847 4,847 16 4,750 4,750 17 4,750 4,750 18 5,021 5,021 19 5,376 5,376 20 4,789 4,789 21 4,876 4,876 22 5,959 5,959 23 5,465 5,465 24 4,762 4,762 25 5,235 5,235 26 6,395 6,395 27 5,641 5,641 28 4,750 4,750 29 4,750 4,750 30 4,750 4,750 31 4,750 4,750 32 4,968 4,968 33 5,445 5,445 34 5,707 5,707 35 5,707 5,707 36 5,707 5,707 37 5,715 5,715 38 6,101 6,101 39 6,101 6,101 40 6,555 6,555 41 6,779 6,779 42 4,749 4,749 43 4,749 4,749 44 4,749 4,749 45 4,749 4,749 46 5,454 5,454 47 5,708 5,708 48 5,708 5,708 49 5,708 5,708 50 5,741 5,741 LOT# TOT SQ FT NET SQ FT 51' 5,708 5,708 52 5,407 5,407 53 4,750 4,750 54 4,691 4,691 55 9,008 5,320 56 9,176 5,318 57 9,006 5,111 58 9,000 5,000 59 9,161 5,043 60 9,001 5,241 61 9,026 5,226 62 9,026 5,226 63 9,026 5,226 64 9,000 5,226 65 9,007 5,354 66 9,011 5,178 67 9,010 5,412 68 9,037 5,187 69 9,030 6,855 70 9,030 5,075 71 9,000 5,000 72 9,002 5,874 73 9,016 5,914 74 9,001 5,654 75 9,000 5,000 76 9,000 5,000 77 9,034 5,236 78 9,129 5,264 79 9,017 5,183 80 9,042 5,180 81 9,021 5,189 82 8,999 5,176 83 8,997 5,180 84 9,002 5,241 85 9,020 6,150 86 9,030 5,250 87 9,030 5,250 88 9,024 5,260 89 8,945 5,305 90 9,000 5,325 91 9,015 5,970 92 9,000 5,000 93 9,000 5,000 94 9,030 6,125 95 9,031 5,250 TOTAL: 653,062 502,096 Avg. Lot 5,285 sq.ft. Largest 6,555 sq.ft. Smallest 4,749 sq.ft. Cluster Area (Lots 1-54) 283,122 sq.ft. Avg. Cluster Lot 5,243 sq.ft. Total Cluster Area 9.68 AC Density 5.58 DU/AC 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 March 10, 2004 Mr. Phil Drell CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC Phone: 877.760.PDCC Fax: 877.894.5601 RE: PROPOSED 95 HOME RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND GOLF COURSE/CLUBHOUSE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Dear Mr. Drell: In connection with the above referenced development, please note the following: 1. For certain existing residences listed below in the Palm Desert Country Club area adjacent to our proposed lots, there are boundary encroachments whereby either the physical structure encroaches beyond the existing home's property line, or where the existing home does not meet the minimum statutory side yard or rear yard setback. These encroachments are based upon our review of the ALTA survey that we ordered and received. The affected homes are located at: • 77030 Utah Circle • 43635 Elkhorn • 43620 Elkhorn • 77185 California • 42260 Warner Trail Related to the above residences, we will take the following actions in favor of the existing property owners: a. Where there is an encroachment on property lines, we will record lot line adjustments. b . Where there is a side yard encroachment, we will plot our homes so that the new home is a minimum of 10 feet from any existing residential structure. 2. Related to the 95 homes we are proposing, and notwithstanding what Tentative Tract Map 31836 may reflect related to side yard setbacks, we will agree to a Condition of Approval to provide minimum side yard setbacks of 5 feet for each lot. 3. Related to the height of the 95 homes we are proposing, we will agree to a Condition of Approval to limit height (with the exception of chimneys) to a maximum of 18 feet. Please call me at 714-651-9510, if you have any questions or require further clarification. Very truly yours, Randy L. Case Partner PDCC Development LLC c: Larry J. Kosmont Sherry Ryan PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC PRO FORMA Golf Land Cost Total Lots Course Acres 200 25 175 Amout Total $5,660,000 $707,500 $4,952,500 Per Acre 28,300 28,300 28,300 Pre Development & Entitlements Amount $600,000 Lot Infrastructure & Improvements Amount $3,000,000 Country Club Golf Course Improvements Clubhouse Improvements $4,000,000 1,000,000 Development Revenue Number of Lots 95 Amount Per Lot $135,000 Total 12, 825, 000 Interest Expense Amount $500,000 Summary Land Cost $707,500 6% Pre Development & Entitlements 600,000 5% Lot Infrastructure & Improvements 3,000,000 23% Golf Course Improvements 4,000,000 31 Clubhouse Improvements 1,000,000 8% Interest Expense 500,000 4% Developer Profit 3,017,500 24% Development Revenue $12,825,000 March 2004 Note All dollar figures in thousands o) 01 0 Mou yse3leN (A 'co N fA cn 0 Woo' t$) (eoL't$) V) N O 0 0 0 D O�C�G)� 03 O c o r-T O J r Z C) r =o m o ° C)3 °=° o m n r o n 0 3 L o N m m 3— a c y< N y °c N o c p < (/) ° p x m N o C) m N a 7 (� 3 m c^ m m 03m C O S -0 3 C N r N 0 0 O 8= T O3 7, m^ r n mm° R'Q° r m` ° k'; G< n m 0 m =ma m3 m2m "{-Z. S' y< N 5i t N r N N 3 r 3° C)n O 7 MI — MC CAj N N N OM j9 fA m di "1 _ 0 OD O) O 0 UI O) V ID (AC N O O O O O O N N co O O D (!t 0 00000 NNUIN 0 N O (000'l$) Woo' t5) EA 00 00 in 0 0 C 7 0 0 O N 0 V 69 7 D O O O O S C 7 <A c A W 67 O 0 co O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 (A 0 0 ID 0 D cc O a Z cn O 67 0 69 CO 0 69 N O En W O EA N O L a 0 A 0 C O 7 0 L C co C ID 0 0 Note: All dollar figures in thousands m W (71O O 0 Mou ysej laN 69 N W N 096'S$ (009$) 69 O 69 0 69 0 69 0 6, CD O O 6g O 0 69 N 0 61 N O O 69 N O O 69 O 69 0 O O o Z n • rD- m O c,- D DZ< a --I• 0 0 m N c y o c u ° o c ° < fn r,r n a•F3cm i 03c o o Ti O—I m r i n m m < Pn P, m < Q" Po O R1 a' 5 co 3 7 • —1 rn N ry i = O N r 33 3 ° N ° (D 0 3 (D n n N N y N 3) r C O Cti 1 -n 0 EA 6'i 63 O J.) N^_ A L.) FA O 3 • N W CO O O U) O) V m �. 0 v N O) 0 0 0 0 O 01 CA0 0 0 0 CO Vt (7) N N (Nn (W1i (P N W N V 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 rn 61 N 0) 0 n (n (J1 O W O N O 0 O o O O O N 0 O 7 L 0 A Z O 69 O 0 2 00 C..7 7 7 7 F g 2 F4 - z • > O Rz r • 0 g00 F n = Cr: rr: 2 0.10 lo..+ - CC .o C 40 sc 0 C vas 44. •i CA4 -- I. i7, na .... IV 4.. CC .Gt, w - I- N 4V--4NCN-..0 . ..i., c.A LAC0p = C- - srC - , m '', ..C C 0 N,...J., -_. C C.,, C A C ... o ° .0'59cc_4,o,E. .V - VIA ON 00 .1,, , a --- ot, 00 a -4 L... N'IV. 1CO C4, - 4-OC c,n 3 00 0 -C , .C• .L4 ...a--''''t -c, '0- CA „.. , 40,3 , - ,.., „ ..< Palm Desert CC C a - 4 IV .„V. 0 LA - _t•. s C4 VLA - C• ,, U, NJ - C CT-. NJ e r' L. -00 C• C, -J'- .• 6-4 4 (-0 cc.c. - -0 ' ‘,:-....:..4.!, .V--7-I •- 4,.'-", ., 00 . ...._. X. - - p L. 0 .... ;%•'E' Cs %Gv vo 0 -N... V. V, .N... '...s 0 -1A....0 1•4, 1C1 I4 C - c. I4 , ., ., 4 C N0 00 L, --- .0 1.4 ..3 c c 0 LA C> 0 --.1 - a -0. 00 - - 00 c .0 , .0 c,', WI IA 00 C I C, 0C, CA N1 --I CA A00 *ICv IO 0 cc - co c3, 00 v. 4- C, ,4- - 0 --, = -cs 4. ,0 v i..'.".'.„... 1-4 0 . A C A. v ..:3 tv - CdCEN 4- - 4... 1.... N.> C 66 ',/i --I 00 r..... L,•-.4 0-4 00 LA -•- 00 ..- r- NJ 1., -, ..... N., t... V. v. N. C. a --I W. -. - A --GI NJ ,.,c, C C. C,4 ,,C C., -. N. 00 cp, ..-.1 CI,I4I4 N. C7A L., ..,... j .D. •-• v , j...,,."4'...1... 0 L ‘,10 -- .4,.. v, o, , -I..CO0A-W/. Ll- LC." 43.9 v, - .4„. a --) C• -- :-- 41 ^.71. L1.9 ,.< 10 4 c` .0 Cs se 0 ..i c". 0, V. ---1 .-- 0 ....1 10 lA is... •-• 1...1 1-..1 CC - C CC Cs 0 0 00 0 --I A 00 -I ...., -- .....,'0,,, .,co 0 --I 0 NJ 0' C, CA 0 ..... a C w .JH..... .... m v C 4. c ..'' ii. : I 4.. - -4 L... M I 00,. CA CC 00 .41 __ --I -4 C. . IV .i.n ,..., tr, VI N'.0N. 1V4.0 N .NV. - _ 1,4 w 1.4 - NJ t.... CA C., t, -3 c." 0 ‚.9 - NI 00 CO NJ , 00 Cs C Cs -4 C OIII.IIIII14 I4 C -.0.. Cs 0-.C• a - a. 00 = a -4 --C- 0 NJ a --0. '.0 C., /a t. © p A , VI ,300 "-4 L.. - 1.... CC C 00 -4 CO -4 - -.4-I. I4 , '0 .., 0, VC cok 4. - v " g . '.0c-4 '7r-t eLA .-oo 1- v Cc co 0 •00 1- ,0 ,., - 00 ':- -v .•-cc., -.a .. -v a 00 1.1 ... V) , --, .p. -oc - .-, C4 • ...• ..:', .a". NJ CV 44 E.C. V. - 4- 3. 4. _ sa L4 llt Cc6 , 00 •-4 -- 0 -,. V, - CI'' su) CP, 0 -•-• o '. Us, • , 17, tA '''''' . 0, O 0 ..r- - .. c....3 NJ - NJ N (.... C., Cs NJ OC Cs 1./1 .4. - r... r..0 c-.4 - -,n t- -4 C 0IA .II...I ,. 0 0...0 .00 ,,, - C --C L, , Lc '.9 c cc- c. I., , I. 0 , N N C., -- .0.... 0 Cs 00 CC C: '=,CC-- J .... .... -.,-r, IA 0 ,C^-V0I C! .L, 'Cle'"`t-8 , . ., ,:, 0 oc ..80 5.8' !? tn 4 0 5 L CALA =I N. ,C. 4. ICJ - aNJ CA - v. a C .1.r. - ..,„. 00 --.4 4.. 0,0 000 tA - -..I 00 ..,, 00 L., • ,.o .6, •., a 0' .14 42. 00 C00 N. C., lso C. .7.- - NC.NJ-NJ a C. -4 IV .0 CC C a -- '9 1^, 10 NJ I., J ....1 N., Cs Cs CO C "-"'-"„I =.10 c , 00 - cc. <.0 1r CCl., IV --) .....1 .....] ...... -..i .-.... 00 C C. , Cs - C, Iv C - 1, v. L.v. 4., cv .,L, ., p 19 0 ti, 0 ., IV c". ••••, L-c. 0, C --I LC 0 'a -- a ,D C 40 ., 00 I... c..., N.. a 4- CA gh ...., C. L., v , 44 r0, occ LA C:I -C IA 0 0'v, ..., a CT VI C 00 - - , -a a, ,C.` C:, 0' . 1... v 0 .7- m .c...: o I, I., crc 00 C 0 , - !") 00 00 .. .. .<,. " , LA - L. co i1 L0 o 0, -A Cr a :7 .. " . C .00, . 0- - .ti... N. 4.C -4 V C .0 , c- .0.. t4 r, C L-4 , 00 - C a II'4-11.=..-I • Ga '0 00 .00 ,I4 , NJ ., cc .t. 0 --,C, V-4 , 0 • .,.c '1J.4 1ET4 0, 10CACCCDC." i - 0•J 0.0 , C ‘C 00 .C 6a,C...9J, C0ss4 A...,,,1 .b, _ 0' U.= U, ,r.. .'. 0 ,, c, -3. J) o'. .COA 0C --4 - -. -I C VC... , OC C 0 ..0 , C - V-4 C, L., v w - - "-4 0 CC A 00 00 ...14 o CV0 m LA - o 00 > f o t itOc . c - -.4 a - C IV 1..... 1... --I 00 .... - U. 00 SC, -- .-. 00 0 ,..., iv ....,, na ... ,c, NJ C en 00 ..... 1.... 7' - ...4 4. ..... -. Iv a C CC lv .... cc 00 v. - v, w -a V. c.., -...... 4 - C C tv w v CC 4, ID I, ID IA .0. C. , im - C....i , L40 --, _. O. IA 17-. C.... •-• .. N C.... 0 --.1 0 ,.p.. 0 C CT .-. IA I4 CC '..0.....0' ...... ... ..... 0 ...... c ..... 1... c .. --. '••••' --4. '00 .4. - ...1 .... C "0 Os 1..) c .0 y, V . 0C VI '00 'SO '6 i,..1 o - 4, -.• - -..... 4, 4- I, i..CO . 1./. ....) CO VI Lu. ..... ...... .. ..„, . (X, , ch i' C` --.1 F;,.. t, , 0 O." to. C., C. 0 -4 CC CC 0 Cs LA - NJ CA 0' c.... 0' .. CC 4. 0oo 0 V. '9 N.) ... ..4. --.3001.... ',','?- C00 1.4 ='0- 00 0" 1..... --1 .0 C` 4 .0 o ' - - a. ... Os C 1..f. 00-12 '.-.' 00 C., ...., - ,.... ...© _. - L.., a. .0. - N... W. ON Co. - NJ a V, C• - 4- CA .< - • - - a, 00 CC .-.1 70 . c. .... • NI -4 - 0 -LA a C .0 NJ N., NJ NJ 0' NJ C• W a C -- .0..0 -4 0 C• - C C 'I. C C''' - CJI = --I- Fs L, 00 ts... 'C.. L. ,.... NJ , a • tot L. . CD '• -'-.•1 -sC-1 tU.,., _ ...., 04.0- -4 - .... 0 ,c) - cclo. . III C - c• t..., k...., NC oC C - 00 , - lv 0 a .., o. N CLA V. - 0I.IA -w C t...-caV w v, C I. CA 00 --I CO C.4 O-'.0 CNJ ,,.,, A o „°W C.NJ C - 0 , C. CN LA . --4 IV i: oc c C '0 c .7- 4 - C L. .0 - - c, W , ',..3 t..1 LA ..7....> ...V N., -.0 N.) CC o. - 4... --.1 a •-• 'ON „....,3„. 07, w • I.,.., ,o c., ..?.. - .-. -4 VA NJ `. ... NJ a V, a _ 1- 41 .4. .4. .-- V I a --4 ,.0 NJ L...3 w -4 C• 1,4 CI, c, C -. .--I V. 07 4. NJ CN - 00 'VI IA 1,1 'VI 1...J 00 '.C., ',-, .......1 ..... 0 C." V, = LA NJ CO C, ,..0 LA a c... ,.., .:...„ C .7' a 4. ..... . .. r•V t....1 ... t...1 00 0 00 -- NJ C7 0 CC I,4 -,4 -a, .:" ..„, . 0, Cr 0> 4.D. .. ---I . I, cc 1. L.1 OG C ..,1 ....• L.0 4- 4..., c-• . - r. .,... ICC '-' •-.1 -- 4- L..7.. C -', .."' "11 0 • CD re K."1 AD CA 0. 00 to • 17 Total Expenses Gross Profit Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) Total Revenue -EA COCO Ul O O Ef3 CO O O O E N O O O $2,150,000 CO CO Efl "' GO .) O O $1,835,000 Ef) -� C�) O O Ee C3) CJ1 O IvCO O O O O) C31 CO N 0 -op �I -a O 0 0 -� -a U1 0 0 0 -co CO 11 O 0 0 O 0 -a EA CO O co 11 O $2,139,000 EA -a.N O) O O O 0 {69 IV CO CO O O 0 N 0 0 IV b9 -' 'J � CA) O 0 0 FA CO C11 CJ1 O 0 0 EA .A U1 O 0 0 000`oo1-`z$ N O O 0.) PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT 1999-2003 8fll0 MI1NfO312I3S3a 1/111Vd ? 0 X n co - O O C< y 7 0 11 7 0 7 'O n O= N c C a =w 7 co W co Gib y C O 0 -c° m . — 0) Iv 7 a a m o O, m O ° co o o m m 0 3 c !�D N a 61 � A Fo c O. 7 3 CD r. c CD o ° 0tD 7 .A 01 EL E m c m o t< O 7 o o m '° o '° 7 ) CD EI CDsy G1 N o FA O N V A 2 7 uN 7 CO 7 O ca- M 6D co y' N 0) 0 CCD 7' 0 o 3 o 3-''-' N 0 c 2. c c �. a `< IQ a su 5 oo O 5:N < d co m d_ Q rt m 0 D th n N CD a A. CD G. CD m o G) 1. 0) O o- y o co0 O cn W co 5'a. iv o O 7 7 CD CO CD O to O 3 o c => O 17 m co 0 7 en 3 `< °: 0m O N 7 co N co c W 'R -a. a Q .0 CD ° Net Cash Flow to Owner Debt Service on $5,000,000 of Capital Improvements (6.5% for 30 years) Net Operating Income 000 O O Gam.) CO CDO O N_ G.) O _a 11 -1 C031 O G) 00 N O O N O COT1 O 0) (0 N --N.O O W CO N O O N -a N 11 (0 O -EA -a U1 -. '-•,1 O ffl CO co N) O O O -GA N W O 00 0) O Efl -J O O O 0 -EA-GA-.A. CO 00 N O 0 0 N --I N O 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course Improvement and Residential Project 2. Lead Agency and Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 3. Contact person and Phone Number: Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager Department of Community Development (760) 346-061 1 ext. 486 4. Project Location: Palm Desert Country Club between Fred Waring Drive and Hovley Lane east of Washington Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: PDCC Development LLC 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 9,000 and R-2 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Project includes proposed change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to Residential R-1 9,000 and R-2 and approval of a tentative tract map to create 95 single family residential Tots on the perimeter of the existing golf course and on the existing driving range. Project also includes renovation of the existing golf course and improvement in water supply to serve the area. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Palm Desert Country Club is an older country club development at the east end of Palm Desert. The area was primarily developed in the 1960's with later phases completed in the 1970's and 1980's. Significant recent remodeling of existing units has occurred throughout the community. The area is surrounded by residential developments to the south, north and east and a vacant residential area to the west. Washington Street is lined with significant commercial projects. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Coachella Valley Water District CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J" Mineral Resources Public Services Noise ri Population / Housing Recreation Utilities / Service Systems n Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Transportation/Traffic I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. fl1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date --/-p i44 Printed name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose 2 Final Text - October 26, 1998 sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Final Text - October 26, 1998 SAMPLE QUESTION Issues: I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact n n 5] Final Text - October 26, 1998 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? nn n n n nn d 5 Final Text - October 26, 1998 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? n x n n %C x n n 6 Final Text - October 26, 1998 e) Have .soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 7 n n n n n r1 n n 11 X n Final Text - October 26, 1998 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? n nlx n � n n n n 8 Final Text - October 26, 1998 X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? .01.1.10011111.11 x n n n n n x n n 7 x 9 Final Text - October 26, 1998 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? n n n X n p n nn� nnn nn n J n z 10 Final Text - October 26, 1998 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 11 P1 n Final Text - October 26, 1998 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact n n 12 Final Text - October 26, 1998 LEGEND OF SOURCES Case No. TT 31836 1 . City of Palm Desert General Plan and General Plan Update 2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance 3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development 4. Visual inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development staff 5. Cultural Resource Identification and Recommendations for the General Plan Update for the City of Palm Desert 6. General Plan Update Traffic Report 7. General Plan Update Technical Studies 8. City of Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage 9. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance 10. Coachella Valley Water District 1 1 . Sunline Transit 12. Riverside County Fire Department 13. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch 14. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Conservation Plan 15. Desert Sands Unified School District 16. Traffic Study Date January 17, 2004 prepared by George Dunn Engineering INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) I. AESTHETICS (1, 4) a&c The area offers restricted scenic vistas across the golf course fairways and driving range to mountains to the north, west and south. The vistas are currently restricted by the existing large eucalyptus trees around the golf course and driving range. This project will result in removal of some of the existing large trees and installation of new smaller trees which will improve the scenic vistas. Construction of new residences will occur at varying distances from existing residences which will have the potential to impair the scenic vistas. In the driving range area the pad elevations of the proposed residences will be four to six feet below the pad height of the existing residences on Utah Circle and Indiana Avenue respectively. Photo simulations indicate that any view impairment will be a less than significant impact. b. Some existing large eucalyptus trees will be removed as part of the project. The city arborist will require a tree removal plan be provided and approved prior to removal of any significant trees. Tree removal plan will also include an assessment of the condition of the tree by a certified arborist and a tree protection plan for remaining trees. There are no rock outcroppings or historical buildings. d. New Tight will be produced, but the project will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (1) a, b, c. The site is an existing golf course and driving range. The site has never been used for agricultural purposes nor shown on maps as agricultural. INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 HI. AIR QUALITY (1, 2, 7) a&b. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short- term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting, its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. Completed development of the site and golf course renovation will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's present condition. c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. d. The proposed development does not call for uses which would create substantial pollutant concentrations. e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (1, 2, 4, 14) a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, however, this project is taking place on previously graded and developed land (i.e., a golf course and driving range). b. No riparian habitat present on site. c. No wetlands habitat present on site. d. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site. e. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other than that delineated in item (a) above. f. See (a) above. INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES (1, 7) a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the General Plan Update found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance on this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (1, 2) a (i-iv). The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various studies have concluded that with proper building design which is required by the Uniform Building Code people will not be exposed to substantial adverse effects. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of onsitesoils. All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. b. Development will reduce blow sand erosion. There is no top soil present. c. See mitigation measure above. d. See mitigation measure above. e. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks, but they will not be used as sewers are available. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (1, 2) a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. 3 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards. c. There is no school within 1/4 mile of the site. d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites. e. Site is within two miles of a public airport. The project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing in the project area beyond that experienced by existing residents of the area. f. No private airstrip in area. g. Project will not interfere with City's emergency response or evacuation plan. h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or trees. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (1, 8, 9, 10) While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage and the grading ordinance. b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. c, d, e. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality. INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard designated area. h. See (g). Area is not subject to flooding. j. Area is flat desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mud flow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING (1, 2, 3) a. The project is located within an existing golf course/driving range which is surrounded by existing residences. The project will add 95 units around the golf course and on the driving range. Units have been designed to blend into the existing community. b. The golf course and driving range are currently zoned Open Space (O.S.). Part of the approval process include a change of zone to residential for the areas with new units. The overall residential density will not exceed the general plan land use limit. c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, other than that discussed in Section IV (al ). X. MINERAL RESOURCES (1, 7) a. No known mineral resources. b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general plan. Xl. NOISE (1, 2) a, b, c, d. Construction and subsequent use for residential housing will increase ambient noise level. The increase is not expected to create an annoyance to adjacent residential properties. All uses on the site will be required to comply with the city noise ordinance. 5 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise to be mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. e. The project is within two miles of Bermuda Dunes Airport. Noise studies performed as part of the General Plan Update concluded that this area of the city is not subject to excessive noise levels. f. Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING (1, 2, 3) a-c. The project is a 95-lot tract map for 95 residential lots. The 95 lots to be created are consistent with general plan density limits. The site is currently vacant so the project will not displace people. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES (1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15) The property is presently part of an existing golf course and driving range. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the project area has been developed and the general plan and zoning maps designated for residential development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land use would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses. The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. Tax increment above the base generated on the site after 1994, including those generated by the improvement of this project, will go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. Fire and Police Protection Police and fire services have indicated that they can service the proposed project. 6 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 Schools The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time of building permit issuance. Parks The project is a residential development of 95 units which will generally be family oriented. Existing and proposed parks will be adequate to serve these families. Other Public Facilities Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project. XIV. RECREATION (1, 3) The project is consistent with general plan densities and as a result the population generated was considered as part of the recreation element. Onsite recreation facilities will be limited to those on single family lots and are not expected to have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (1, 2, 3, 16) a-b. The project will general additional traffic on area streets. A traffic study was prepared by George Dunn Engineering dated January 17, 2004. The traffic study concludes that: "All of the signalized intersections that were studies are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The results of the traffic analysis show that the project will not result. in significant changes in the operations of area roadways. The project is forecast to generate 71 AM and 96 PM peak hour trips to be distributed among twelve roadways within the project area." "Project traffic is only a small percentage of the traffic increase anticipated due to projected regional traffic growth. As such, the INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 project will have no significant impact at the study intersections based on the Palm Desert criteria for such impacts." Project will not change air traffic patterns. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and the project will not include incompatible uses. e. Emergency access will be acceptable. f. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project on site in compliance with city code. g. Off-street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street improvements will minimize traffic hazards to motor vehicles. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (1, 2, 3, 10, 11) a. Project will not exceed limits. b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project. c. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They will occur with or without this project. d. See (b) above. e. See (b) above. f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available at Eagle Mountain. g. City will enforce these statutes through Community Development Department. 8 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 MARCH 2, 2004 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (1, 3) a. None. b. None. c. None. CARY BICKLER, INC. GOLF COURSE DESIGN 1220 Rosecrans St. #314 San Diego, California 92106 phone fax email website (619) 223-3240 (619)221-5999 cb@%bickler.com www.bickler.com PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB Palm Desert, CA REMODEL TAKE -OFF Date: 8/6/03 Revised: 3/3/04 OUTLINE OF THE WORK PART I PART I includes go/f course features to be redesigned and relocated for the purpose of developing housing. 18-HOLE CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF COURSE 1. RELOCATE GREEN COMPLEXES 2. NEW PRACTICE PUTTING GREEN & NEW SHORT GAME AREA 3. RESHAPE FAIRWAY LANDING AREAS 4. ADD NEW WATER FALL FEATURE 5. REBUILD EXISTING LAKES 6. REMODEL BUNKERING 7. RELOCATE NEW TEE COMPLEXES 8. NEW ASPHALT CART PATHS 9. TREE REMOVAL & RELOCATION OF PALM TREES 10. 9-HOLE EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE A) RELOCATE AND ADD NEW TEE COMPLEXES B) RELOCATE GREEN COMPLEXES C) RELOCATE ENTIRE HOLE D) DESIGN & SHAPE NEW GOLF HOLES #1 & #2 1 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF GOLF COURSE, ARCHITECTS BOARD OF GOVERNORS PART II PART II includes the remaining golf course features to he redesigned consistent with redevelopment changes. 1. REMODEL BUNKERING 2. EXISTING TEES/ LASER LEVEL, REALIGN, & RESURFACE (Includes new forward tees @ 5,200 yards) 3. TREE REMOVAL & RELOCATION OF PALM TREES 4. NOT INCLUDED: A) DEVELOP OUT -OF -PLAY NATIVE PLANT AREAS THROUGHOUT THE GOLF COURSE B) TREE BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM C) NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM 2 PART I includes golf course features to he redesigned and relocated for the purpose of developing housing. 1. RELOCATE GREEN COMPLEX (Included in bunker numbers - moving approximately 100 (+/-) greenside bunkers) Redesign and rebuild new greens (Average square footage of 6,000 s.f.) Front Side: Hole #9 6,000 s.f. Back Side: Holes #11, #13, #14, #18 24,000 s.f. SUBTOTAL/ FOR 5 GREENS MOVED 30,000 S.F. 2 New Greens 6,000 s.f. Practice Area 8,000 s.f. TOTAL/NEW GREENS 44,000 S.F. 2. NEW PRACTICE PUTTING GREEN 8,000 s.f. (In green numbers) NEW SHORT GAME AREA (In tee numbers) a) New tee 2,500 s.f. b) New green complex 6,000 s.f. c) Reshape & irrigate new practice area 94,240 s.f. 3 3. RESHAPE FAIRWAY LANDING AREAS HOLE #1 6,000 s.f. Convert par 5 to par 4 Existing landing area moves forward 90 yards HOLE #3 26,660 s.f. Lower fairway & open view HOLE #7 52,700 s.f. Lower & reshape new hole corridor Open view corridor to green & lake HOLE #9 35,000 s.f. Reshape landing area TOTAL 144,360 S.F. 4. ADD NEW WATER FALL FEATURE Finishing HOLES #9 & #18 Water cascading 3 times/ 3 feet, 4 feet & 3 feet TOTAL 38,440 S.F. 5. REBUILD 2 EXISTING LAKES HOLE #1 22,000 s.f. Reshape, clean, shoreline & liner (600 1.f.) HOLE #7 & #13 95,120 s.f. Reshape, clean, shoreline & liner Enlarge lake close to green (2,000 1.f.) TOTAL 117,120 S.F. 6. REMODEL BUNKERING HOLE # OF BUNKERS SQUARE FOOTAGE 3 3 5,700 s.f. 5 2 1,900 s.f. 9 2 _ 2,300 s.f. 10 1 2,000 s.f. 11 3 3,200 s.f. 14 2 1,900 s.f. 16 3 3,000 s.f. 18 1 1,200 s.f. New Practice Area 1,500 s.f. TOTAL 18 22.700 S.F. 5 7. RELOCATE NEW TEE COMPLEXES (Includes new forward tees @ 5,200 yards/ 1,000 s.f. each) HOLE SQUARE FOOTAGE 6,100 s.f. 4 1,500 s.f. (add new back tee) 5 5,500 s.f. 6 5,000 s.f. 7 10,000 s.f. 5,500 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 14 5,500 s.f. 17 5,500 s.f. TOTAL/ NEW TEES 54,600 S.F. 13 TOTAL TEES 1 11 12 8. NEW ASPHALT CART PATHS (8 Feet wide) Reroute due to new lot development and green relocation HOLE SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 5501.f. 5 3601.f. 6 360 1.f. (tee) 9 & 18 ' 90011. (greens) SUBTOTAL/FRONT 9 1,270 L.F. 10 3601.f. (green) 11 3601.f. 12 3001.f. 14 5001.f. 15 400 1.f. 17 3001.f. (green) SUBTOTAL/BACK 9 2,220 L.F. TOTAL 4,390 L.F. X 8 feet = 35,120 S.F. 9. TREE REMOVAL & LOCATION OF PALM TREES HOLE #7 Remove 2 large specimen trees Transplant 2 large palm trees 10. 9-HOLE EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE A) RELOCATE & ADD NEW TEE COMPLEXES HOLE 1 2 3 6 7 9 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 3,000 s.f. (new hole) 3,000 1.f. (new hole) 3,000 1.f. 3,000 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 18.000 S.F. B) RELOCATE GREEN COMPLEX (move 100 feet) HOLE SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 4,500 s.f. (new hole) 2 4,500 s.f. (new hole) 6 4,500 s.f. TOTAL 13,500 S.F. C) RELOCATE ENTIRE HOLE (tee to green) HOLES #1 & #2 D) DESIGN & SHAPE NEW GOLF HOLE (total area) HOLE SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 122,760 s.f. 2 101,060 s.f. (add irrigation) TOTAL 13,500 S.F. or 5.14 AC SCOPE OF WORK for PART II 1. REMODEL BUNKERING HOLE # OF BUNKERS SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 1 1,500 s.f. 2 5 6,400 s.f. 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 TOTAL 3 2,800 s.f. 3 4,200 s.f. 6 6,300 s.f. 4 4,700 s.f. 2 2,400 s.f. 2 2,300 s.f. 2 2,000 s.f. 5 5,700 s.f. 2 2,000 s.f. 6 5,600 s.f. 5 7,100 s.f. 2 2,200 s.f. 48 55,200 S.F. 2. EXISTING TEES/ LASER LEVEL, REALIGN, RESURFACE, EXISTING TEE COMPLEXES (Includes new forward tees @ 5,200 yards/ 100 s.f. each) HOLE 2 SQUARE FOOTAGE 5,400 s.f. 3 4,600 s.f. 4 4,000 s.f. 8 5,500 s.f. 9 5,500 s.f. 10 5,500 s.f. 13 5,500 s.f. 14 4,000 s.f. 16 10,000 s.f. 18 5,500 s.f. TOTAL/NEW TEES 54,600 S.F. 3. TREE REMOVAL & RELOCATION OF PALM TREES HOLE #11 Relocate 2 large palm trees HOLE #17 Relocate 2 large trees HOLE #18 Relocate 3 large palm trees Overall 18-Holes transplant and relocate 50 palm trees 4. NOT INCLUDED A) DEVELOP OUT -OF -PLAY NATIVE PLANT AREAS THROUGHOUT THE GOLF COURSE. B) TREE BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM C) NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM 10 1 dill& L( L1 t rtaitlllug l..ulululJslull 3 LUU1 OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Thank you for the notice of the 16 March meeting regarding the change ofzoning on and around the Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course. I am very interested in the outcome of your rezoning decision and do plan to attend the meeting. I bought a small home on Warner Trail in 1993 to use as a weekend getaway from the Los Angeles area. In June 1994 I retired from an aerospace company that I had worked at for 38 years and moved to Palm Desert. I was still considerably young since I had started my job at the age of 17. I love to golf and this was truly a blue color type golf course that I could afford. In 1994 the Country Club area was not in the city of Palm Desert but was a part of Riverside County. My wife and I decided to tear down the original home and build a new home that took advantage of the wonderful view in the rear of the home. The property location is one of the best in the country club with a view of three golf fairways when looking out our back windows. Working with the Riverside Building Departmeht was very frustrating as we were trying to take advantage of all the space we could on the lot. It took 2 months longer than originally planned to complete the home causing me to move to a different rental until the home was livable. By the time we began planning the landscaping, fencing, decking and swimming pool the area was incorporated into the city of Palm Desert. It was a complete joy working with the Palm Desert Building Department compared to the Riverside County Department. They were very helpful and accommodating when it came to decisions regarding the placement of various residual items. We were able to complete the work ahead of schedule. Our total investment in 1994-1995 dollars was $325,000. This was not a financial decision obviously as the surrounding homes were valued at less than half that amount but this is where we planned to live out the rest of our lives so it wasn't really relevant. We truly enjoyed the golf course and the friendly members of the Palm Desert Country Club. The course was in good condition and the clubhouse service and food was actually pretty good. This condition has changed over the past ten years with the coming and going of uncaring owners who took their profits from member and guest fees and shipped it back to their countries corporate owners. The golf course has been neglected of needed repairs and greedy decisions on the over seeding of fairways and greens to take advantage of other courses that closed for this procedure during the desirable time. The end result has been Rye grass dying from the heat and lack of proper watering. The course is difficult to play due to the clumps of grass amongst bare spots of dormant Bermuda grass. The service in the restaurant is very poor. The food is not desirable and the service is very amateur. The community itself has shown very nice improvements. The city landscaping along with homeowner improvements has added value to all the properties in the PDCC area. However until the golf course is improved, including a needed automated watering system, it continues to be an eyesore to the community and the good name. of Palm Desert. I have attended several presentations by the PDCC Development LLC and am impressed with their plans for the golf course and the professional manner they have shown in dealing with the homeowner concerns. In most cases they have reduced the profitability of the total development to satisfy these concerns. As I am sure your aware, the PDCC Association polled all the homeowners in the association and the response was 3 to 1 in favor of the development. The few dissenters have expressed concerns regarding traffic and water pressure. I have heard of no other reasonable complaints. If what I've been told is true, these complaints have been addressed in the proposed development. I have full confidence the city will assure these problems have been carefully considered and will provide whatever guidance is necessary to make sure they will not exist in the final plan. My wife and I are fully in favor of these much needed improvements and we are confident you will consider the total benefit to the city and the residents of the Palm Desert Country Club. Thank you for any consideration you may give to this response: William and Nancy Greene 42360 Warner Trail Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 (760) 360-5678 William Christian Jan Christian 43-760 Elkhorn Trail Palm Desert, CA 92211 March 1, 2004 Chari Sabby Jonathan, Co -Chairperson, Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 .RECEIVED MA1 9 2004 ii;WILI SIT TDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° 1. v OF PALM DESERT Dear Chari Sabby Jonathan, We are long-time residents in the Palm Desert Country Club area. We have been very happy here since 1990, and continue our support of our country club and the community. It is with this in mind, I am writing to support the proposed project, by Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC, that will renovate our dub house, produce a golf course that is currently a diamond in the rough, and allow all of our members, and members of the community, to take pride in our community once again. It is so sad to see the current state of Palm Desert Country Club's golf course. Other than during the rainy months, it looks very much in distress. If this Project is approved, the developers will fix up the golf course, put in an automated irrigation system, help fix a water pressure issue in one of our neighborhoods, and save about 500 acre feet of water per year. As a member of the Board of Governors at Palm Desert Country Club, our responsibility is to protect the integrity and future of the Golf Course and the community, and it's members. Again, approving the Project, will do just that. On November 20, 2003, the Board of Governors convened and voted unanimously to support the project in every way possible. I have enclosed a copy of the newspaper article which appeared in The Desert Sun, on Saturday, November 29, 2003, verifying this commitment. The Homeowners Association have also voted upon and passed a resolution to support this Project. We own three properties on the golf course, which we have purchased over the years. As an investment, our objective, as was many of the owners of these homes built in the 1960's, was to remodel these homes, giving them a major "face lift", and, thereby, improving the looks of our community. Having seen the architectural renderings of the proposed 95 homes, we can only believe that these new residences, will do nothing but complement and add sparkle to the existing neighborhood, and therefore raise everyone's property values. Addressing the traffic issue, we have heard some negative comments about the proposed development. Most of the time our biggest traffic problem is speed, not congestion. We do not believe adding 95 homes in an existing neighborhood of 1,800 homes is going to gridlock any local intersections. We understand a traffic study was done for this project. Let's see what the traffic engineers say, instead of speculating. Please be aware that the nay sayers are just a vocal minority. We urge our Planning Commission and City Council to approve the proposed project. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Bill and Janet Christian 43-760 Elkhom Trail, 42-735 Kansas Avenue, and 42-680 Wisconsin Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 360-1642 CC: Randy Case, Kosmont and Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2003 B3 LA QULKTA Bus tickets available to parade of lights making improvements thatvalues, con- tribute to rising property she said. — JENNIFER LARSON Development company La Quinta's Community Ser- schedules meetings vices Department is hosting a trip to Newport Harbor's parade of lights. For $45 per person, transporta- tion will be provided to the 95th annual Christmas Boat Parade on Dec. 20 in Newport Beach. Children 17 and under must be accompanied by an adult. The registration deadline for the trip is Dec. 8. Information: 7 77-7 090 or www.la-quints-ors — LEONOR VIVANCO PALA DESERT Golf course officials support renovation\ Palm Desert Country Club De- velopment Company will host three more meetings for residentswho of Palm Desert Country Club are interested inleamtn about the company's proposed project for the neighborhood. The meeting dates are sched- uled for Dec. 5 at 3 p.m., Dec. 6 at 10 a.m. and Dec. 13 at 10 a.m. Representatives from PDCC Development will be on hand tc answer questions about their pro• ject, which includes plans to built 112 new homes in the club and overhaul the golftours and 'clubhouse. „w „eetings will be held in th PDCC Homeown building, 77-800 The board of governors of the PDCCDevelopmentwantshom California 'Driv golf course at Palm Desert Coun-oars to call ahead to JeffreyL� try Club has come out solidly in den at (877) 1 0 j,ARsc favor of a proposal to renovate the golf course. The eight board members have �MI RlA6� shape or form," said Jan voted 'unanimously to waa y, Reward for missing support this project in any Chris-Reward sheep goes uj nan, board secretary. palm blgh Earlier this autumn, Desert Country Club Develop- The reward has risen o$1, meat LLC presented a plan to for information leading to thrn se build 112 new homes in the coup- covey of a stolen The try club in order to fund $5 mil- sculpture , announced lion in renovations and improve- of the BighornCommittee. initially post meats to the golf course and committee had clubhouse. The announcement sparked $500 reward. The fiberglass sculpture both vigorous opposition and en- base, which reportedly wei thusiasm among residents in the about 350 pounds, was t community from its installation site at N Some opponents criticized the ern Trust Bank at Frank Si plans to build new houses on the Drive and Highway 111 Tu driving range and possibly erad- moaning, said Lydia Kr( lowing views of the golf course for bighorn project coordinator some existing homes. It was last seen at about Meanwhile, proponents Tuesday by a member 4 cheered the prospect of a mod- teank's ground staff, sh i ernized clubhouse and a comput- The bighorn was- ittiegg erized irrigation system for the . 50 sculptures ore unevenly -watered golf course. out the Coachella Christian said the board of gov- part of the Path or the ernors believes the golf course is public art project. long overdue for an overhaul. Each sculpture is painter She said she understands the con- different visage at the ban This one d cems of some residents who wont' Gently They will lose their views if new Anyone with inf01matio houses are built near their lots. the sculpture can calf the 1 03/08/2004 11:18 8185026573 CCS FIXED INCOME 4......... - :: tz 773soC ;/2-ra 419 PAGE O1/01 CITY OF HUM OF�� _Rj 73-j zo PMMto VTAR/r4G DRIv4 PALM[ nISSERT, CALIFORNXA p5m6a-2578 Ttz: Teo 345-oG x : PAX: 760 341-7098 ief.@yolm-deaerr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. C/2 04-01, TT 31836 AND DA 04-01 NOTICE I5 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC for approver of a change of zone from open Space (O.S.) to R-1 9,000 for 41 lots aroundthe golf course perimeter; a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-2 4,000 for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range; e tentative tract mop to create 95 residential lots, 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, fir.►�1� r7 dean n111111 �y��ra�l��orr■��t SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday. March 16, 2004, et the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califo n e..at c which tirnee and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development et the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through .Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you mey be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at. or hearing. qp 1 IA described in this VLJ ` L/L R.Cn �, �, �Jr}�,1 �or.to, thepublic PUBLISH; Desert Sun '�' �' i' �7 � Sec March a, 2004 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ,Palm Desert Planning Commission ..ti Received Mar-08-200d 11:20 From-8185026573 To-PALAA nFSGOT mini . �, February 26,2007 Cindy Finerty,Commissioner Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Ms. Finerty, a;- i •! E1, Subject: Palm Desert Country Club and Proposed New Development and Renovation by Palm Desert Country Club LLC In a few weeks the Planning Commission will hear plans for the above project. We would like to take a few minutes of your time to explain our view and those of our neighbors. We have owned our home at 76918 Kentucky Ave, Palm Desert since 1983. We have been members of Palm Desert Country Club since 1993. We have now been through five different owners and have steadily watched the golf course, club house and the general area become run down. We support Larry Kosmont, Randy Case and Sherry Ryan, the developers. They met with many of our friends and neighbors that were concerned about the project. In all cases their concerns were turned to positive support. We spent many hours with a small petition committee informing residents on our street and many other streets about the project. Our goal was to find out what kind of support our friends and neighbors had for the project. The positive support for this project by the members of this community has been outstanding. We have obtained many signatures on our petitions in favor of the project.. We want our area to be beautiful and productive again. This project will accomplish that goal. Please support the project with a big , YES. Sincerely, Barbara and Charles Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-345-7203 February 25, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260-2578 Re: Palm Desert Country Club Residential and Golf Project Attention: Stephen R. Smith REGENE1 MAH ' 2004 (-'OMMUNITY DEVELOPME.VI ;t,i 'if i CITY OF PALM DESER'i We have been homeowners in the above -mentioned country club since 1981, and fulltime residents since 1986. As such we have seen many changes in the club ownership and with each new owner the overall appearance and management has gone down. We believe it is now time for a complete change. We do approve of the plans that have been submitted by Palm Desert Country Club Development, LLC. As an outdated country club surrounded by many newer residential golf course developments, it would seem prudent to make the changes submitted. We understand some of the homeowners disapprove of the project, however with the current ownership, the clubhouse and golf course will only deteriorate further and property values will begin to decrease. It is our hope that the Planning Commission will seriously consider this project as being an upgra t1e community and give it full approval to proceed. spectfull John & Marian Rogerson 77039 Utah Circle Palm Desert CA 9221 1 de/e.t.a cc `.- RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN: DEPARTMENT CITY OF PAL1, E 2;r Gti�._-t �- �_ n 67. t7 A4;,_ City of Palm Desert Honorable Mayor City Council & Planning Dept. November 18, 2003 Gentlemen: 1 2003 Re: Palm Desert Country Club As you may have heard, a PDCC Development LLC has been formed to test the water on their idea, how, to pay for what they are proposing. Developing 112 Housing Units in open area in the Palm Desert Country Club. This will effect a number of us. This is an older golf course, and was designed with open areas where the golfers cross the street. Building on these lots and golf range hurts our property value very much. All of us bought our property long before these people arrived. We liked what we saw, and we don't want it changed. We bought the property and built a house in October 1986. We designed the plans to take advantage of the view of the Golf Course and Open Area. Now, they want to sell our view to the new house they are proposing. (Enough said for now). Sincerely, ead Harold and Lee Tomkins 76-580 California Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 Copy to: Philip Drell Director of Community Development. u Palm Desert Country Club Association 77-800 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 Dear Madams and Sirs, 77-020 Utah Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 November 1, 2003 T,. I will be unable to attend the town hall meeting set for November 7, 2003. I am truly sorry about this but I signed up for an out of state course over six months ago. The reasons I am sorry about this are multiple in nature. Of course, I want the opportunity to stand up and present my point of view on the proposed housing development for the driving range. The impact of this project on me is tremendous. I have lived at this address since 1970 and bought this house in 1971. I have always loved the view from my kitchen window. Before I leave for work every morning, I pause and take look toward the driving range. Whenever I talk to my friends and neighbors I always tell them I want to retire here because I have this beautiful view. This project will remove one of the reasons I have stayed in this house and plan to stay when I reach retirement. Besides losing my view, I will be impacted at night by an increase in the noise level and the light pollution that will occur. These are things that cannot be eliminated if the project goes through. I feel that the proposed Spanish/Mediterranean style design is not appropriate to this area. If you look around, you will see that all our homes are shingled tract style homes. I think that adding "signage" is pretty meaningless. There are already street signs on every corner. Upgrading the water system could occur without having this project if the Coachella Valley Water District undertakes the project. I am not a golfer; hence, I am not impacted by what happens on the greens but I am truly impacted by this project. I hope that you will listen to my view and make the decision to not approve this project. Suzanne Tracy CC: Palm Desert Planning Commission Feb 13`h, 2004 To whom it may concern: I am a resident of the Palm Desert Country Club. This letter is to officially request that I please be kept informed in due time of any Committee or Board meetings at the City of Palm Desert pertaining to the Palm Desert Country Club Re -development project as proposed by the PDCC Development, LLC under case #PP 04-01, C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 I appreciate your assistance on this matter. Sincerely, Jerome D. Pineau 77510 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-250-1031 Dear City of Palm Desert Planning Commission... 1 am very much against the proposed new development in Palm Desert Country Club. 1 attended the developers open community meeting and they unwittingly convinced me that the project is in their self-interest only and that it will result in the detriment of the majority of residents of Palm Desert Country Club. The only two benefits they can define for the general resident is "more signage" and "higher water pressure." I own four homes throughout Palm Desert Country Club and the water pressure is just fine at all locations. I've talked to several other residents and no one seems aware of any water pressure problem. Unneeded higher water pressure means valves and washers will wear out faster. As for "more signage," I've never heard a human being describe a location as desirable to live in because it has lots of signs. What will he the impact for these two "benefits" which are actually detriments? 1) The unique charm and atmosphere - of openness, views, and beauty from walking, bicycling, or driving around the neighborhood will be forever lost. 2) There will forever be a higher level of congestion from population density. 3) There will forever be more traffic. 4) There will be more street outlets. 5) Numerous folks will lose their "golf course lots" which they no doubt paid a premium price for when they purchased them. 6) And for all this, we have to endure construction noise, inconveniences, and having the streets torn up for 2 years or more. (California Drive is still unnecessarily a bumpy patchwork mess where the apartment development "Villas on the Green" was completed over a year ago. An indicator of developer's carelessness and lack of concern for the rest of us. It also indicates a lack of oversight as well. The street prior to that construction was excellent. How many more years will it remain with uneven patches while unnecessarily and prematurely wearing out shocks?) The only improvements to the golf course are very marginal and at the cost of shortening the course. New sand in sand traps, some cosmetic upgrades to the 3 existing fountains and one new fountain. I would think even the golfers in the community could not be too exited about that. They claim that the course will be maintained at a new higher level: once they're gone, who's going to be responsible for keeping that commitment? The developers say they will also upgrade the clubhouse...another change that will probably not benefit the vast majority of residents if any. The developers are calling this "community enhancement." In my opinion, they don't care about the community and are doing as little for the community that they feel they can get away with...i.e., nothing. The entire so-called community enhancement is really just things in their own self-interest. Nothing wrong with that if it doesn't degrade the community. Unfortunately it does. We do not need the extra noise and congestion that an additional 100 houses will bring in this community. Let's not ruin a good thing. Sincerely. Terry Grand 42935 Tennessee Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Page 1 of 1 Smith, Steve From: Klassen, Rachelle Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 200311,38 AM To: Michelson, Wilma ��— Cc: Drell, Phil; Smith, Steve Subject: FW: PLEASE dont let us down! I am going to print out this e-mail and place in my "Pending Agenda" file to ensure he is notified when anything appears on a City Council Agenda. Will also respond to Mr. Pineau to let him know that his message was received and that we will put him on the mailing list for future Council or Planning Commission consideration. Phil, Steve — Would you please make sure M/M Pineau are notified of any future Planning Commission consideration. Or has it already occurred? Thanks. Rachelle D. Klassen City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 (760) 346-0611, Ext. 304 F: (760) 340-0574 Original Message From: Jerome -- RR [mailto:jpineau@dc.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:32 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: PLEASE dont let us down! good morning, i am a resident of the palm desert country club (77510 califomia drive, palm desert, ca 92211) and am extremely concerned by the recent application from the Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC to re -zone our golf course in order to build substancial amounts of housing on the property. the developer's 5 year plan as presented to the PDCC Association last monday during the Board Meeting would essentially destroy all our property values on the country club, endanger our future and ruin the views which benefit us all so much. i would like to know how i can be notified of any public or private meetings between these developers and the City Council. This development group has operated in stealth mode for 18 months and has tried to squeeze this project by us (the residents) unnoticed. No member of the association was notified of the Boar Meeting presentation in time. It took a last-minute grass -root effort on our part to notify as many people as we could about the developer's plans. I do not wish to be left in the dark with respect to the City's dealings with the developers, and i do hope you will allow all affected residents to voice their opinion with respect to this appaling developer's intended actions. sincerely yours, jerome & veronique pineau 77510 california drive palm desert, ca 92211 760-250-1031 10/15/2003 November 26, 2003 Jim Lopez, Commissioner City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Lopez, I am writing to express my extreme concern over the proposed Palm Desert Country Club Residential and Golf Project. I have attended one of the neighborhood meetings, and believe that the proposed project will be most detrimental to the residents of PDCC. My mother-in-law was one of the first property owners in this development, and I have watched its growth through the years. The beauty of PDCC is in the open spaces between the homes which.allow views of not only the golf course in many places, but add a feeling of openness and space which will be lost if all these areas are filled with homes. In addition the clubhouse grounds will be greatly diminished when surrounded by homes. PDCC is a community of modest, but well -kept homes. I believe the concerns of the residents and property owners should be the primary focus at this time. I am a property owner, and appreciate any help you can give us in keeping this community the area of beauty it is without any further encroachment or development. Thank you for your consideration. Most sincerely, mod/ Betty Grand 75388 Montecito drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 Palm Desert Country Club Properties I co-own with my son include: 77310 Missouri 77037 California 77041 California 42935 Tennessee March 5, 2004 EC.EJ V ED ZOO4 'MMUN!iY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT '!TY )F PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION WE ARE 26 YR RESIDENTS OF PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB. WE FEEL WE HAVE A NICE COMMUNITY, WITH ENOUGH PEOPLE HERE ALREADY AND MUCH TO MUCH TRAFFIC . WE OPPOSE THIS NEW PROJECT AS IT WILL BRING IN MORE PEOPLE, TRAFFIC AND WILL AFFECT THE VIEWS AND OPEN SPACES OF MANY RESIDENTS. BUT SINCE WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY WE THINK THE PEOPLE OF PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB SHOULD DECIDE WHEATHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT BY A VOTE. THANK YOU, S' CITY of PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISION Dear Sirs, I am a resident of the Palm Desert Country Club, and also a member of the Golf Club. A company named Kosmont Company is trying to buy our golf course and build some 102 houses on part of the golf course, tennis courts and parking lots. They say that they plan to use the profit on the sales of these homes to make many improvements to our very old golf course. All of the things they promise would cost a few million dollars, and I doubt if there is that much profit to be made in the sales of these homes. Quite a few years ago, the owner at that time , Warren MacMillan tried to something like the above, and applied to Riverside County for permits. This was much before we were annexed into your great city. Riverside County said "NO". They said our golf course was designated as a green belt, and open area, and that no one could ever build buildings on it. I am afraid that if the above company is granted a permit to rip into our golf course, they would build their houses and then put our golf course up for sale and that would leave us with nothing. If and when this company comes to your office applying for permits, that you are very careful with our plans for the future. Thank You, )0,JY e„Jz-i;:77ss Karl Berg 42905 Texas Ave. Palm Desert, Ca. .760 345 7870 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 tihk) Pam Desert Country Club Development LLC Phone: 877.760.PDCC Fax: 877.894.5601 December 23, 2003 Re: PDCC Golf Course Improvement, Clubhouse Renovation, and Residential Project - UPDATE Dear PDCC Resident: As we approach the end of the year, we wanted to update you on the past few months of meetings and interactions with the residents of Palm Desert Country Club. We also wanted to announce the resulting revised plans for the Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course Improvement, Clubhouse Renovation, and Residential Project. Over the past two months, we have held dozens of meetings and met with hundreds of the PDCC residents to share our plans, answer questions, and gather homeowners' input. We have received an enormous amount of positive feedback, and were met with honest and open dialog. We greatly appreciate everyone's input; your suggestions have been invaluable and your support has been very encouraging. As a result of your many suggestions, we have made modifications to the Project that we believe you will find beneficial. We have reduced the number of homes to 95. The number of single-family homes to be built around the golf course has been reduced from 112 homes to 95 homes (15% reduction). We are proposing to build 65 homes in Phase I (one fewer than the original 66 homes proposed) and 30 homes in Phase 11 (16 homes fewer than the original 46 homes proposed, which represents a 35% decrease). We have also modified the layout of some of the remaining homes and lots in order to enhance the view corridors We are confident that the Project is positive for this community, and everything we have heard through the hundreds of conversations with PDCC residents has confirmed that most of you agree. We do, however, continue to hear some opposing comments regarding our plans for enhancing the PDCC golf course, clubhouse, and neighborhood, and we understand that not everyone will be on board with the project We would like to reiterate that we do not plan to negatively impact this community. On the contrary, PDCC Development is ready to invest over 25 million dollars into the neighborhood. We are fully committed to accomplishing the best for Palm Desert -Country Club and residents — it is simply counter -intuitive for us naf to. We hope that you and your neighbors understand that we are here for the long term, and have committed to putting millions of dollars into your golf course and community. Again, we would like to thank everyone for support of the Project. We are available to answer any questions you may have and meet with you to show you our updated plans, so please feel free to call us at (877) 760-PDCC, or email any of us at the email addresses below. WE INVITE YOU TO VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.PDCCDEVELOPMENT.COM TO VIEW THE NEW PROJECT DETAILS AND UPDATES. Sincerely, a47- ///C— Larry J. Kosmont, CRE . - Randy Case Sherry Ryan Managing Partner Partner & Project Manager Partner Ikosmont Jkosmont.com rcase( kosmont.com ryanrealco@a dc.rr.com 11— PROPERTY VALUES MYTH FACT Your property values will go down because there are 95 new houses for sale. Property values in PDCC will go up, as is evidenced by developments everywhere In the Palm Desert area that have added new homes and upgraded amenities. The new homes will bring new owners to the area, and the older homes will benefit from the enhanced golf course and clubhouse facilities. We already have an unsolicited list of over 35 people who are interested in buying a home at PDCC as a result of this impending project - this is proof of real estate value and interest. #2 — CONSTRUCTION MYTH FACT Construction [will last] for 3 years. Total work is expected to last LESS than two years, and will not be continuous due to the seasonal limitations (see our phasing plan details at our official website, www.pdccdevetopment.com). The majority of the work will be contained to the clubhouse area and interior of the property. The remaining work will only be for short periods of time. The longest and most impacting stretch of work is anticipated for the water line replacement, which will last three to four months AT THE MOST. 103 — TRAFFIC MYTH FACT Traffic will increase forever on all streets inside the club. Homes wiN not be worth more with a traffic light in the front yard. We are not adding any traffic lights, therefore, none will "appear" on the front fawns of residents. In light of the existing street traffic, we have retained an established traffic consultant who has determined that overall, the impact from 95 homes will be minimal, and will not require stop signs. The City of Palm Desert will make final determinations on traffic modifications, if any. • # 4 — DEVELOPER'S LONGEVITY ON THE COMMUNITY MYTH FACT The developers will make their money on the land and bail out, leaving the door open for anyone else to come in, buy it, trash the entire course and build nothing but homes on it We, the developers, plan on staying in this ;community with our families. For over 20 years, members of our team have lived in Palm Desert.and vacationed here. Our objective is to build a better community and to stay here — plain and simple. We gain zero value in allowing a "new" owner to "trash it," or "build nothing but homes." IRS — DENSITY MYTH FACT When a lot of homes are crammed together the neighborhood loses attractiveness. When potential buyers see buildings, fences, concrete, stucco, and parking lots they will not want to pay more money to live in such a neighborhood. The proposed project will certainly not result in buildings, fences, concrete, and stucco. Houses will not be, nor aaaear to be':"crammed" together. The proposed project Is nothing less: than an overall enhancement project, and as such, real estate experts will tell you that this will only add value. We are adding 95 homes to an area that Is 220 acres. That is an increase of less than one home per every two acres. In addition to adding new homes, we are improving landscaping throughout the neighborhood, and improving all of the golf course "openings" - again, enhancing the community. 06—REZON! -MYTH FACT The developer is proposing a re -zoning of the tracts comprising the PDCC. By law, we must rezone the plots where homes will be built — this is required by the City of Palm Desert. We are proposing to re -zone only the 95 lots for the new homes. That's it. If we wanted to propose building over the entire area, we certainly would not have started with a proposal for only 112 homes, and then voluntarily FURTHER REDUCED the number to 95. — SUPPLY & DEMAND MYTH FACT Does not supply affect demand? It will be more difficult to sell your house while 95 new ones are on the market - Anyone who has been watching the housing market in Southern California can understand that because of the of long-term housing shortage experienced over the past decade housing supply has increased significantly, AS HAVE THE PRICES, across the board. Neighborhoods throughout Palm Desert are benefiting from the unwavering fact that people desire to live in enhanced communities — why should PDCC be left behind? As older neighborhoods get upgraded, new and old homes will be in great demand, particularly since they will be affordable, thus more desirable. WE INVITE YOU TO VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.PDCCDEVELOPMENT.COM TO VIEW THE NEW PROJECT DETAILS AND UPDATES. AN ---p vti �jvc \\13^1,-) 014 (r)n-1 TSS\1 'bP\ (St:C. 760-.\-10-ii12) -- �-^� _I u) Q Nti -Oa'SL$1:-) ° \ \-ts rr\Z\-\r-A2____ c,irrri3 -\ V-ids%) i )h`"r�L^Sti�l r 4.3--- 3i4 3 - 7 3 - 3v) 37 5 1{4 March 9, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission, RECEIVED MAR S 0 2004 OMMUNiTY DDVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT riTY OF PALM DESERT I am a new property owner in the Palm Desert County Club. I enjoy the views and open spaces that Palm Desert Country Club has to offer. I am very much against the development project now under consideration, and/or any future development project that would increase congestion and block views. I believe it is to the overall benefit of this community to stop this development project. Thank you very much. Sincerely, i Li Li 77912 Michigan Drive #A6 Palm Desert, CA 92211 March 1, 2004 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Proposed Building of 95 Homes on Golf Course in Palm Desert Country Club I respectively submit my objections to the proposed building of 95 homes which directly affect my home which would adversely affect my safety, health, and last but not least, bring my property value down a great deal. I bought my home in the year 2000 after renting the home in 1998. My son cosigned with me so I could qualify for the home. I saved by money for the down payment and closing costs under tremendous hardship. I loved the tranquil location and the beautiful peaceful view and have attached a picture of the view, plus an appraisal of the property, which describes the Golf Course location — giving the home increased value. I obtained a loan from the City of Palm Desert in August of 2002 for $15,000, and with this loan I improved the property with new air-conditioning, heater, renovated the laundry room and brought this area up to Code, installed a new water heater in a closet outside the laundry room, installed ceiling fans, new Moen faucets, shutters (inside and out), new roof, professional painter painted outside of home, new patio roof, a beautiful white vinyl fence separating the apartments from the backyard (Villas on the Green), landscaping, plus and additional $3,000 to bring the Citrus and Palm trees back to health, afterears of neglect from the former owner and the renters. All this was done with the intent of improving the value of the home and to live here for the remainder of my years and to also have an estate to leave my four children. The homes that are being proposed will be built within 30 feet of my property line adjacent to the Golf Course. My peaceful tranquil view of grass and trees will be gone and replaced with homes, cars, noise and clutter. I will no longer feel safe in my home because I will have homes looking straight into my home. All these residents can easily gain access to my home if they wished to do so. I have had problems even with the open Golf Course area with teenagers trying to break in. One did break into my neighbor's home and stole jewelry. My enjoyment and well being of living in this area will be taken away. The Villas on the Green, which are next door to me, have already taken away a lot of my privacy and the safety that I once felt. The residents walk into my yard and take roses, let their dogs run in the yard and do whatever the want and leave me to clean up, but this is only minor to what it would be with another 95 homes. I hope the City of Palm Desert and the Planning Commission will not approve the re- zoning of the Golf Course to R-1. I do not believe it will improve property values at all, but will take my value away considerably. If the Planning Commission does approve this building — I am asking to be reimbursed by the City of Palm Desert and the Kosmont Development Co. for the Loss of my view in the amount of $50,000, this is the value placed on my home for the view and location. I have the largest lot in the Palm Desert Country Club and feel this is a reasonable amount. Secondly, since it will no longer be a Golf Course, but R-1 - I will be requesting a permit to extend my white vinyl fence over the remainder of my lot to block out the homes and the construction. I would also like to add that the Palm Desert Country Club Assn does a very poor job of maintaining the CC&R's. So many homes are run down with poorly maintained yards, weeds, etc. The let renters have junk piled in the front yards give the area a run down look. Residents are allowed to do whatever they please — because they know they can get away with it. Code Enforcement is the only one that maintains so sort of order in the area. The property values would go up in the area with out 112 new homes adding to the already overcrowded look. I have a right to enjoy my home and should not have to go through the turmoil and sleepness nights this whole episode has brought to me. I am part of a small minority that will be adversely affected and I hope the Planning Commission will help to stop this proposed building. Claudette Whiston Attachments /cw Description i, r Address pal Description LOT 445 MB 042/082 TRACT Z.283 Special Assessments S NIA rsessofs Parcel No. 637-241.006 Tax Year 03 R.E. Taxes i 1,603.00 Spec ON Current Owner OCCupant nOwner riTenant 1 1Vacent )rrower V � , ',warty i _I Condominium (HUDVVA only) HOAS 250 IMo erty rights appraised . X Fee Simple Leasehold Project TYPa p Reference 819D6 Census Tract 0449.03 aie Price or Project Name PALM DESFF(1�4S1 DescTRY CLUBMap S amount el loan drryeslonnoessions to be paid by sewer NONE ale Price S NIA Date d Sale _NIA Addcription Address 10370 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE no, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 UNIrUKirt t'CC11Jch I ih"+r � State cA Zip cede 92211 cny PALM DESERT 77160 IND1ANA AVENUE County RIVERSIDE ender/Client ROYAL ALLIANCE Ppraisar VjNC NT DEL NE 0 Single family housing Present land use % Land use change ovation Urban X Sutwrben Rural PredominantXI Not likely ❑ likely Under 25% oa ncY spoor two Ono family 100 tuitt up X Over 75% StsD O 90 Low 2-4 family In process :rowth rate Rapid ® Stab,. s TenaOwnnt 220 To: Increasing © Stable Declining High 45 Multi4sr by ttomnvalues Y >omandlwPPhl Shortage ®In balance Over sue* ��Vacant (0-5%) I Predominant I Commercial VacantII derketing time , Under 3 moe X 3-6rnos. over 8 mos. Vacsnt to ar 5%3 LP f 40 4ote: race and the racial composition of the neighborhood ere not appraisal factors. iieighborhood boundaries and characteristics. SUBJECT IS BOUNDED BY COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE NORTH. WARING DRIVE SOUTH; WASHINGTON TREET EAST AND VIRGINIA AVENUE WEST employment and amenities,employment Mobility, appeal to market, etc.). 'actors that affect the marketability of the properties In the neighborhood (preadmit' to ,LL HOMES IN THE SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE AREA APPEAR TO BE ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED. THERE WERE NO FACTORS INHERENT HE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MIGHT AFFECT MARKETABILITY. SUBJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN QNE HALF MILES OF SCHOOLS. HOPPING AND TRANSPORTATION Address Market conditions in the subject neighborhood (including support for the above conclusions related to the trend of property values, demand/supply, end marketing time - such as data on competitive properties for sale in the neighborhood, description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions. etc.): IARKET CONDITIONS APPEAR NORMAL WITH MARKETING TIMES WITHIN THREE TO SIX MONTHS. LOAN DISCOUNTS. INTEREST tUYDOWNS AND LOAN CONCESSIONS APPEAR TO HAVE LITTLE IMPACT IN THE AREA RESALE MARKET WHERE TYPICAL 'INANCING IS CONVENTIONAL AND FHA Is the developer/builder in control o1 the Homo Owner's Association (HOA)7 u Yes U No Project Information mfob rPof sf applicable) subject - e total number of units for soh In the subject project Approximate total number of units in the subject project 500 APW�nat 20 Describe common elements and recreational facnmes: rticsiarAL uc+ TopogtaPhY LEVEL DimensionsSEE MAP Comer Lot I I Yes U No Site areaa7.405 Size AVERAGE Shops RECTANGULAR Specific zoning classificationand description R-1/SFR • III No Zoning Drainage ADEQUATE Zoning compliance �`J Legal Legal nonoontwining (Grandrathered use) Illegal View GOLF COURSE best imPrv.'ed. X Present use �Otirr use (explain) .. t�htS use s Public Other Utilities Public Private Oft -site Improvements Type X Landscaping AVERAGE] Driveway Surface CONCRETE Electricity I �, Street ASPHALT NONE Curb/gutter CONCRETE X Apparent easements Gas X 1 Sidewalk NONE FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area ❑ Yes L_XJ No Water X X FEMA Zone C Map Date 322/83 Street lights YES H Sanitary sewer \ i t Alley NONE FEMA Map No. 0602452255B Stone sewer I .r I Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments, special assessments, slide areas, Segal or legal nonconforming zoning use, etc.): THE SIZE. SHAPE SITE IS TYPICAL OF MANY SITES IN THE AREA. THERE WERE NO ADVERSE CONDITIONS PRESENT. AND LANDSCAPING OF THIS BASEMENT INSULATION GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION Area Sq. Ft. 0 Roof l Foundation CONC Slab YES No. of Units Space NO % Finished N/A Ceiling UNK X 1 Exterior Walls STUC Crawl No. of Stories Ceiling N/A Walls uNK X Roof Surface CMP SHNG Basement NONE Type (Dot./Att.) DET NONE Walls N/A Floor CONY Gutters & Dwnspts. ALUM Sump Pump Design (Style) NONE AP Floor N/A None EXIST Window Type ALUM Dampness Existing/Proposed AP Outside Entry N/A Unknown UNK X Age (Yrs.) 41 Storm/Screens SCREEN Settlement NONE ManufacturedInfestation House NO NNE . ' Q - Effective Age (Yrs.) 30 Living Dining Kitchen Den Family Rm Rec. Rm. Bedrooms S Baths Laundry Other Area Sq. Ft. ROOMS Foyer 0 Basement 1 1 1 2 ZOO 1 1,246 Level 1 1 o Level 2 Le 0 Bedroom s j 2.00 Bath(s]L246 Square Feet of Gross Living Area t contains: i Rooms: 2 (-�+ ; Finished area above grade INTERIOR Matenals/Condition Floors CRPT/AVG HEATING Type FAU KITCHEN EQUIP. Refrigerator Range/Oven Disposal Dishwasher Fan/Hood Microwave Washer/Dryer X X X X • ATTIC None Stairs Drop Stair Scuttle Floor Heated Finished X AMENITIES Fireplaces) S 1 X CAR STORAGE None IIII Garage 1 8 of cars Attached YES Patio CONC X Fuel GAS Walls DRYWALL/AVG Deck Condition AVG Trim/Finish WOOD/AVG Detached Porch CONC X Bath Floor TILE/AVG COOLING Central YES Built -In Fence WOOD X Beth Wainscot TILE/AVG Carport Pool Other NO Doors WOOD/AVG Driveway Condition AVG items, etc.): O N E Additional features (special energy efficient N repairs needed, quaky of construction, remodelirg/edditions, etc.:PHYSICAL-NO Condition of the improvements, depreciation (physical, functional, and external), EXTERNAL -NONE; REPAIRS NEEDE-NONE; MODERNIZATION -NONE E- FUNCTIONAL•NONE• Adverse environmental conditions (such as, but not limited to, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) present in the improvements, on the site, or in the WERE NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PRESENT THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE immediate vicinity of the subject property.: THERE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ........... 1. c...... 1 MA (n-991 caw-0E . 5 Rat Eeute Appur.t Soneoee by &adfed lee600lop«lean) 6224, 2, addle Mac Form 70 6-93 F Sales Pride 3 N/A r wv w� Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 0.00 $ 156.74 $ 170.11 VI 149.43 LL--1 Data and/or Verification Source INSPECTION NDCDATA#60366 INSPECTION NDCDATA#772522 INSPECTION NDCDATA#74' INSPECTIO ADJUST1AENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +(-)S Adjustment DESCRIPTION +OS Adjustment DESCRIPTION + VALUE Sales or Financing Concessions CONV CONV CONY Date Sale/Time 1/03 12/02 12/02 of Location AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE Simple FEE FEE FEE FEE Leasehold/Fee 7,405 6098 6098 6098 Site GOLF COURSE SAME NONE +10,000, NONE View Appeal AVERAGE CONV CONV CONV Design and Construction AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE Quality of 41 42 41 25 Age AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE Condition ToW Berms Baths Told Wins I Bath Total B nn Bsfu Total 1. P. M ra i 8aM Above Grade 5 5 1 2jl 2.00 5 2 2.00 c Room Co Area 1.246 Sq Ft. 1 276 Sq. Ft. 064 Sq. Ft. +050 1.238 Sq, Ft. Gross Living PBasement & Finished A Grade 0 NONE NONE NONE NONE Rooms Below R AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE 1 Functional Utility FAU/CAC FAU/CAC FAUICAC FAUICAC Heating/Cooling N items TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL Energy Efficient 1-G 1-CAR 1-CAR 1-CAR A Garage/Carport A Porch, Patio, Deck, PATIO 1 PATIO 1 PATIO 1 PATIO 1 YFireplace(s), etc. FENCE POOL/SPA -5.000 BLOCK BLOCK S Fence, Pool, etc. I BUILT-INS BUILT-INS BUILT-INS BUILT-INS 7+ X - $ -5,000 " X + n- $ 14.550 ! X I+ (-7- $ Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable - 195,000 195 550 fl$ Comments on Sales Comparison (including the subject property's compatibility to the neighborhood, etc.): SALES USED WERE TAKEN FROM SUBJECT'S IMMEDIATE AREA AND WERE CONSIDERED BEST AVAILABLE DUE TO SIMILARITIES IN AGE. SIZE AND LOCAT SALES WERE CONSIDERED EQUALLY IN THE FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE ITEM SUBJECT Date, Price and Data 8 / 11 / 2 0 0 0 Source, for prior sales 12 3 0 0 0 within year of appraisal TITLE Analysis of any current agreement of sale, option, or listing of the subject property and analysis of any prior sales of subject and comparables within one year of the THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN LISTED FOR SALE OR SOLD WITHIN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABL 3/3/93 120000 TITLE 5/14/92 N/A TITLE 7/31/91 159500 TITLE Freddie Mac Form 70 6-93 INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH (If Applicable) Estimated Market Rent $ N/A /Mo.x Gross Rent Multiplier N/A =$ This appraisal is made X as is- _ subject to the repairs, alterations, inspections or conditions listed below I !subject to completion per plans a Conditions of Appraisal: NO CONDITIONS APPLY. SUBJECT WAS APPRAISED AS IS Final Reconciliation: FINAL OPINION OF VALUE IS BASED UPON THE MARKET DATA APPROACH WHICH IS CONSIDERED TH INDICATOR OF VALUE WHEN SUPPORTED BY THE COST APPROACH. INCOME APPRAOCH IS NOT APPLICABLE AS MOST OWNER OCCUPIED. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the real property that is subject to this report. based on the above conditions and the certlf and limiting conditions, and market value definition that are stated in the attached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 1004B (Revised 8/9 I (WE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF MART (WHICH IS THE DATE�OF INSPECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE S • 195.000 �� SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED): APPRAISER: / � Signature f ` % ✓— -�� lr Name VINCENT DEL NE 0 Name Date Report Signed MARCH 30.2003 Date Report Signed State Certification # CA State State Certification # Or State License* AR013932 State Or State License* CtickFORMS Rat Estate Appraisal Software by &baord Teck a3o ea (800) 622-8727 Signature 1 Di InsF Fannie MM EXTRA SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No. • /fir WHISTON /foperty Address 77160 INDIANA AVENUE 'City PALM DESERT County RIVERSIDE State CA Zip Code92211 Lender/Client ROYAL ALLIANCE Address 10370 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE 110. RANCHO CUCAMONG/ GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENT, CLUB HOUSE RENOVATION & RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Phasing Exhibit 111 Total Lot Count: 95 lots v FIRST RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION Section 6. Variances. The Architectural Committee shall be entitled to allow reasonable variances with respect to Article VII or any restrictions specified in Article VII in order to overcome practical difficulties and avoid unnecessary hardships, as determined by the Architectural Committee, provided that the variance does not constitute a material deviation from the overall plan and scheme of development within the Properties, and will not result in a material detriment, or create an unreasonable nuisance, with respect to any other Lot, Common Area, or Owner within the Properties_ Section 7. Waiver 'he approval by the Committee of any plans, drawings, or specifications for any work done or proposed, or for any other matter requiring the approval of the Committee shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right to withhold or give its approval of any similar plan, drawing, specification or matter subsequently submitted for approval. Section 8. Liability Neither the Committee nor any member thereof shall be liable to the Association, any Owner, or to any other party, for any damage, loss or prejudice suffered or claimed on account of (a) the approval or disapproval of any plans, drawings, or specifications, or (b) the construction or performance of any work, whether or not pursuant to approved plans, drawings and specifications; provided that with respect to the liability ofa member, such member has acted in good faith on the basis of actual knowledge possessed by him or her. Section 9. Appeal In the event plans and specifications submitted to the Architectural Committee are disapproved, then the Owner may appeal in writing to the Board. The written request must be received by the Board not more than thirty (30) days following the final decision of the Architectural Committee. Within forty-five (45) days following receipt of the request for appeal, the Board shall render its written decision. Failure of the Board to render a decision within the forty-five (45) day period shall be deemed a decision in favor of the applicant. Section 10. Approval of Applicable Public/Governmental Agencies The issuance ofa permit, or approval by applicable public/governmental agencies of the proposed structure, improvement or alteration shall be independent of, and shall not be construed as, approval of the Architectural Committee of such structure, improvement or alteration. Scction S. Impairment of Another Lot and Easements. An owner or occupant shall not perform nor commence any work or do any act which will adversely affect another Lot, or its Owner or occupant(s). Section 9. Rubbish, Trash, and Weeds. All rubbish, trash and weeds shall be regularly removed from the Lots, and shall not be allowed to accumulate outside of any Residence and/or upon any Lot or maintained so as to create an unsanitary, unsightly, offensive condition detrimental to any other Lot or its occupants. All trash, garbage and rubbish shall be kept in sanitary containers. Sanitary containers shall be stored in areas as determined by the Board, and shall be placed on the curb for removal and moved from the curb after pick-up during the hours prescribed by the Board. Section 10. Nuisance. No noxious, illegal, or materially offensive activities shall be carried out or conducted within any Lot or the Common Area or in any part of the development, nor shall anything be done within the Development which shall unreasonably interfere with any other resident's right to quiet enjoyment. No Owner or occupant of a Residence may use or allow the use of the Residence or any portion of their Lot in any way or for any purpose which may endanger the health or unreasonably annoy or disturb other Owners or occupants of the Lots; or in such a way as to constitute, in the sole opinion of the Board, a nuisance. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed to affect the rights of an aggrieved owner to proceed individually for relief from interference with his or her property or personal rights. Except as otherwise provided herein, nothing shall be altered or constructed in or removed from the Common Area except upon the written consent of the Board or an architectural committee appointed by the Board. Section 11. Unsightly or Unkept Conditions. The pursuit of hobbies or other activities, including without limitations, the assembly and/or disassembly of motor vehicles and other mechanical devices, which might tend to cause disorderly, unsightly, unkept or unsightly conditions, shall not be pursued or undertaken on any part ofa Lot, or within any part of the Development property. Section 24. View Rights/Fences On Golf -Course Lots. No Owner shall construct a fence, wall or other structure which materially obstructs the view neighboring properties or the Common Area without the prior written consent of the Board, as set forth in Article VII below. Fences constructed on Lots which are located adjacent to the Gol Course shall be no more than six feet in height, and shall be constructed of open wrought iron. A concrete block wall to maximum height of two (2) feet may be constructed, and the wrought iron fence placed on top so that the total fence does not exceed six (6) feet. Said wrought iron and block fences shall be constructed along the property common to the golf course property and along the sidc property lines to the point of intersection of the side property line with the rear line of the house structure produced to the side property lines. Section 25. Easements. Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded map of Tract 2283 and Tract 2137 and over the rear five (5) feet of each Lot. ARTICLE VII ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL Section 1. Architectural Committee The Board may appoint an Architectural Committee (the "Committee") which consists of at least two (2) members, none of whom shall be required to meet any particular qualifications, except that members appointed to the Committee by the Board shall be from the membership of the Association. and a Board member shall chair the Committee. The Board may act as the Committee. Section 2. Duties of the Committee It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider and act upon any and all proposals or plans submitted to it pursuant to the terms hereof, to insure that any improvements or alterations to the Properties conform to plans approved by the Cormittee, to adopt Architectural Rules, and to perform other duties imposed upon it by this Declaration. Section 3. Architectural Committee'Approval of Improvements. (A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Declaration expressly or implied to the contrary. no building, fence. wall or other structure or improvement shall be constructed or maintained upon the Development, nor shall any exterior addition. change or alteration be made in, on or to the Development, or any part thereof, including patio covers, until the plans and specifications showing the nature, shape. dimensions, materials, location and dimensions of the same to the property line shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to the harmony ofdesign and location in relation to surrounding improvements and topography by N FROM THE PEOPLE TO THEIR ELECTED OFF "° v o ECJ V c�v' �� • • ° w '0 0 0 G o p 6.0 v ° V u a) 0 4 0 :44 ti O elk 0 aU 13- (.4rt �.r *fcc/3 to 0 ts o v Q • W t9^o'a4. t- g.0 o ° 0 ett 0 a+ O 0 ° E v^ a, 4, 44 ° E a.) o o °' o ct �,' ° rs • a "'Iar ° AMMiiIMM z C amsol z , )s. \\\ k i ,--); -e r• ,,,-'' „ ,i IN ril ,,„ ii et . .. tV k tl, i a i f., A 1 \ frt. rx,) v) , ,, 1 A March 9, 2004 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 RE: Palm Desert Country Club Project Gentlemen: RECEIVED 1 2004 "OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OJT), ()F PALM DESERT We have lived in the desert for over 30 years and at Palm Desert Country Club for 10 years in our house on the 7th tee. In the past 10 years we have seen the golf course slowly deteriorate to the mess it is in now. It definitely could use new owners. An upgrade is needed. We are for the renovation. At first we were not for this project as we have a beautiful view and it was going to be taken away with 3 houses. As the time went on our neighbors and we met with Randy Case of Kosmont Development. We met several times and we realized that this company was willing to work with us and we in turn wanted to work with them. Randy brought back plans that showed the deletion of 2 of the homes for our area and he mailed us copies of these plans so we would have it in writing. This is the company that we want to work with to upgrade Palm Desert Country Club. Sincerely, Rick and Tish Slavens 77a�5 PHILIP DRELL SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 2004 • ;.'n,',1i.'•;T: PskiENT i2EPARTMENT AS HOMEOWNER AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PAL M DESERT COUNTRY CLUB FOR SIXTEEN YEARS I HAVE WITNESSED A ROLLER COASTER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PAST 4 OWNERS. EACH ONE BEGAN WITH VAST IDEAS AND HALF VAST RESOURSES. THEY ALL LOST INTEREST WHEN DISCOVERING THAT PDCC COULD NOT BECOME A COMPETATIVE COURSE WITHOUT THE INFUSION OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL. . AT THAT POINT THEY MILKED ALL THEY COULD FROM EVERY ASPECT OF THE OPERATIONS AND ATTEMPTED TO BAIL OUT. THE MASTER PLAN PROPOSED BY THE PALM DESERT LLC GROUP APPEARS TO HAVE ALL THE INGREDIENTS NECESSARY TO CONVERT THIS IN TO A FIRST CLASS COUNTRY CLUB. MY ONLY FEAR IS IF THIS PROJECT IS NOT APPROVED WE WILL BE THE SLUMS OF PALM DESERT. THE FUNDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETELY RENOVATE A 40 YEAR OLD CLUB COULD NEVER BE RECOUPED FROM THE BASIC OPERATIONS OF GREENS FEES, RESTAURANT AND BAR PROFIT, OR DRIVING RANGE REVENUE. THE VACANT PROPERTY MUST BE DEVELOPED AND SOLD TO MAKE THE PLAN FEASIBLE. WE WILL ALL LOSE IF WE STAND STILL. YOUR COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL IS ESSENTIAL. WAITING FOR THE PRESENT OWNER TO REACT IS AKIN TO PUTTING A CANDLE IN THE IriNDC)W FOR JIMMY HOFFA. GEp*E 76t1toMKp.D. 344) PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AND PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 8 March 2004 • 2334 My husband and I are members of Palm Desert Country Club and we own two houses on the course. Since we have been members we have seen one change of ownership and thought that was going to be a really good thing. As it turns out, it is almost a disaster. We have seen the renderings and heard what the Palm Desert LLC group has had to say. We have also seen how they have worked with the people who had concerns and talked with some of those people as well as the prospective buyers. We are totally in favor of this project, not only for the prospect of a truly wonderful golf course, but in hope that some of the people currently there will start to take pride in what they have to do some fixing up as some of these homes look as though nothing has been done to them since they were built. We are aware there are those who are not in favor of this project, but can see no good reason why. It cannot impact the traffic enough to make a major difference. We understand the water problem has been or will be taken care of. The new homes will bring in more tax dollars for the city. We sincerely hope you will see more positives than negatives and pass this plan. The sooner the better. Thank you Ron and Peggy Podojil Members PDCC Homeowners on Alabama and Minnesota. WED Mik:N1I•Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTJIE ', 1'r` A:L": 'Er°PT 3-10-04 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Gentlemen: I have a home at 43-365 Tennessee in Palm Desert CC. In 1983 we purchased this home because of its location at the end of a row of homes, the open space on the north side, and several large beautiful eucalyptus trees. These beautiful trees are unique to PDCC and can't be replaced. Building additional homes here would require the trees be removed. Placing two additional homes at the opening on Tennessee across from the entrance to the proposed homes on the existing driving range would create a traffic hazard. With cars parked on the street, visibility is reduced from cars coming around the curve in the road. I experience this when leaving my driveway now. There have been accidents at this location with golf carts also. In addition to the above concems, my view to the north and the home owners on Oklahoma will have their views severely reduced. The proposed upgrading of the executive golf coarse will result in shortening the coarse once again.The "tee" for the 2nd hole of the existing executive coarse will have to be moved approximately 15 yards closer to the green. The builders haven't shown what will happen to the remaining "holes" of the short coarse. I feel the placing of homes at this location should be omitted. Sincerely, Re-‘4‘:. "4")(f Richard Shafer - homowner P/C --/,q RD SHAPER. o/-/di \N4KEr-'EtV C r- L o,ic SEA c.A. 9 Q ? March City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 12, CEIVED MAR t 2 2004 Attn: Palm Desert Planning Commission ;; uNIIYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMF,NT t TS" c)F PALM DESERT Re: Case Nos. C/Z 04-01 TT 31836 and DA 04-01 This is the 25th year I have lived on the perimeter of the driving range at Palm Desert Country Club. I have been an active member all those years. Twenty years as a member of the Women's Club 18 hole group and the last five years as a member of the Golfing Niners. I have survived four owners of this club. All four had planned to build houses on the ingress and egress of every hole on both golf courses. None were successful. I want a new club and golf courses for my golfing friends and me. What I don't'want is 65 houses in my backyard. Building a nucleus of 65 houses on the driving range will devaluate my property at my expense." Incidentally, I can't imagine a country club without a driving range. What I don't want is a city street coming from California Avenue through the golf course and intersecting Tennessee Avenue at an all ready dangerous spot where the sharp bend is located. What I don't want is 130 cars, that is if there are two car families, entering and exiting two doors from my house. What I don't want is all that extra traffic. More cars add up to more hazard on our streets for our traveling golf carts in our complex. I never liked my house, but I love the location. As you know real estate value is location, location, location. This proposed project will destroy my location. Mr. Kane passed away last October, but we have six kids who will inherit this location. We all say "Vote NO": .f� Evelyn S. Kane 43-380 Tennessee Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211-7772 Telephone No. (760) 345-6215 RECEIVED APR 2 S 2004 IMMUNITY DEVELOPW E OO4 CITY OF PALM Palm Desert PlanningDepartment- Architectural Review Commission . /t has, just come to my attention that the PDCC Development LLC is planning to fill in the pond between the 13th and 14th fairways and build a very /arge Maintenance Facility on mat site and move the pond to the eastern end of the property. This p/an was not included in the initial presentation of their plans. / am concerned about the size of this facility and its effect on those of us who live along both of these fairways., We realize that a Maintenance Facility is necessary, but its impact on the surrounding neighborhood should be considered. /, and my neighbors will lose a wonderful view, for one thing and the resulting noise from the movement of golf course equipment will certainly be a detriment As a compromsie, we hope the MCC Development LW will consider moving the budding further east along the fence line between Joe Mann Park , the Dog Park,and the golf course. We would also hope that they would leave the Pond in its present location. /t seems to me that the cost of filling in the present Pond and creating a new one wou/d be prohibitive. We are a/so concerned that this proposal was not included in the infor 'omen to residents of MCC when this plan was proposed On the whole, / am in favor of what the Development company has presented to us, but / am concerned that changes are being made without giving us a chance to voice an opinion. Thus this letter. Very truly yours, 7 7 7 �� lot y 3 31:0 a —L 87 r Mary E. Yoke ,�,y'b9l�ECfY DEVEOPMEIr'T DEPARTb`:F��9` 77725 Michigan Dr., A-1 cIlP OF PALA4 DESERT Palm Desert, CA 92211 Home Phone 760-345-1690 eMaib m.yoke()earth/inknet April26, 2004 Palm Desert P/anning Departrnen• Architectural Review Commission 26011 /t has just come to my attention that the PVCC Development LLC is planning to fill in the pond between the 13th and 14th fairways and build a very large Maintenance Facility on that site and move the pond to the eastern end of the property. This plan was not included in me initial presentation of their plans. / am concerned about the size of this facility and its effect on those of us who live along both of these fairways. We realize that a Maintenance Facility is necessary, but its impact on the surrounding neighborhood should be considered. /, and my neighbors will lose a wonderful view, for one thing and the resulting noise from the movement ofgolf course equipment will certainty be a detriment As a compromsie, we hope the MCC Development LLC will consider moving the budding further east, a/ong the fence line between Joe Mann Park , the Dog Park,and the golf course. We would a/so hope that they would leave the Pond in its present location. /t seems to me that the cost of filling in the present Pond and creating a new one would be prohibitive. We are a/so concerned that this proposal was not included in the information given to residents of PDCC when this plan was proposed. On the who/e, / am in favor of what the Development company has presented to us, but / am concerned that changes are being made without giving us a chance to voice an opinion. Thus this letter: Very truly yours, 4�1 l ti .. 'N'� e sFn�n"� APR 7 6 2004 • .omNLINITY DEVELOPMENT DEPSFTMEN CITY OF PALM DESERT Pa/m Desert Planing Department: Architectural Review Commission Apr//26, 2004 It hasjust come to my attention that the MCC Development LLC is planning to fill in the pond between the 13th and 14th fairways and build a very large Maintenance Facility on that site and move the pond to the eastern end of the property. This plan was not included in the initial presentation of their plans. / am concerned about the size of this fact/ity and its effect on those of us who live along both of these fairways. We realize that a Maintenance Facility is necessary, but its impact on the surrounding neighborhood should be considered. /, and my neighbors will lose a wonderful view, for one thing and the resulting noise from the movement of golf course equipment will certainly be a detriment As a compromsie, we hope the MCC Development LW will consider moving the building further east, a/ong the fence line between Joe Mann Park , me Dog Park,and the golf course. We would also hope that they would leave the Pond in its present location. It seems to me that the cost of filling in the present Pond and creating a new one would be prohibitive. We are a/so concerned that this proposal was not included in the information given to residents of PDCC when this plan was proposed. On the who/e, I am in favor of what the Development company has presented to us, but / am concerned that changes are being made without giving us a chance to voice an opinion. Thus this letter. Very truly yours, 34-(7-nvi--)te___-- ‘, Pa-621 redeAf4i y)_›// t .1,J R `MMUUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY nF PALM DESERT Palm Desert Planning Department• Architectural Review Commission April 26, 2004 It has, just come to my attention that the MCC Development LLC is planning to fill in the pond between the 13th and 14th fairways and build a very large Maintenance Facility on that site and move the pond to the eastern end of the property. This p/an was not included in the initial presentation of their plans. / am concerned about the size of this facility and its effect on those of us who live along both of these fairways. We realize that a Maintenance Facility is necessary, but its impact on the surrounding neighborhood should be considered. /, and my neighbors will lose a wonderful view, for one thing and the resulting noise from the movement ofgolfcourse equipment will certainly be a detriment As a compromsie, we hope the POCC Development LLC will consider moving the building further east, along the fence line between Joe Mann Park , the Dog Park,and the golf course. We would also hope that they would leave the Pond in its present location. It seems to me that the cost of filling in the present Pond and creating a new one would be prohibitive. We are a/so concerned that this proposal was not included in the information given to residents of MCC when this plan was proposed. On the whole, / am in favor of what the Development company has presented to us, but / am concerned that changes are being made without giving us a chance to voice an opinion. Thus this letter. Very truly yours, 77,/,C-#/c)i- J• 45,6. C20 9'2211 -,6) /E-6)LS- A note from Joanne J Gaunce 71- VIAL.er• t -El IR- 19-4 amzu k3/.4-5-1 Lf1l TKAA, UN-4Na- CUla *-Cz' Gsjd'U (1.ADAPt \NRILA.S).- et lac).A.g c4 t G 1.'1(20 vwa 40— b \Tv D t\P 2 '"': NVVY ?TX 1313: 's/E1,0PNIENA' 26 April 2004 APR ,. i1MMUN TY DEVELOPMENT T DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert Planning Dept. Attn.: Architectural Review Commission RE: 13 & 14 Fairways Filling in lake Constructing a golf course maintenance facility Our home was purchased in 1967. As residents of PDCC we absolutely oppose the relocation of the Maintenance Facility to the 13/14 Fairways. At the Planning Commission meeting March 16th, Mr. Case from PDCC Development LLC briefly addressed one of many of Jacque Becker's and my concerns re: the Maintenance Yard we had just learned about that morning. Mr. Case said "It would not block their view any more than the existing pump house. In fact, they would landscape it better and it would be nicer than what they see now". I must apologize but even with 24 years construction management, design and landscape experience and 99 percentile in space relations...I can not envision how looking at the existing pump house (100' x 50' Mr. Case's numbers) PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 245' x 120' COMPOUND with an enclosed building with 19.6 elevation is going to be "nicer than what they see now" (Mr. Case). Nicer than a lovely landscaped lake surrounded by 43 year old weeping willows...that 56 mallards and an occasional egret, roadrunner, fish, frogs etc call home. The residents of the 13/14 Fairways whole heartedly urge Mr. Case and the Architectural Review Commission to come better illustrate the concept to us. However destroying our view is one of a number of pressing concerns: "INSUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION" or in the case of the impacted residents — we had NO NOTIFICATION of the Developer's plan to relocate the Maintenance Facility. I learned of the project through my extremely limited high school Spanish from a Grounds keeper at 6:30 AM March 16. Also, the Maintenance Yard was added to the Arch. Review Agenda April 22. I picked up a copy of their plan Friday, after 6 weeks of vigilant inquiries and visits to the Planning Dept. This gave us 1 and Y2 working days before the Review Mtg. to contact neighbors, attorneys, media, assemblymen etc. NOISE is a huge issue. We are only too aware of the noise 24/7 made by the maintenance vehicles (they are not quiet electric vehicles!). Add to this possible generators and other equipment. To date there is no detail listing vehicles, machines, equipment, pesticides etc to be housed therein. ACCESS An array of_large loud vehicles including waste management trucks etc.coming/going at all hours. SAFETY ISSUE RE: ACCESS Children run, bike, roller blade, skateboard day/night and to/from the park and the Clubhouse pool on the walk that passes in front of this Access entrance. LOSS OF PRIVACY The city park is a huge impact on our privacy. Not only is there noise all day and often much of the night, but the kids at all hours bike etc through our yards, over the greens and tees due to the on going holes in the fence. Now we are adding to this the entire support crew of grounds keepers for a the entire course?? HEIGTH CODE A resident is currently restricted to 13' elevation code...but the course can build to19.6'??? ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES- PDCCPS and their attorneys will better address this issue. PARKING Parking for our PDCC pool is a fraction of what is was before the park. Now the limited spaces are being used by park visitors, the recently approved school ---teacher and parent parking. Where are members wishing to go to the pool to park if ground keepers are also using this lot or are they to park in front of our homes beginning about 5 AM making it even more difficult to safely get in and out of our Driveways attempting to avoid the children and deluge of traffic down Califomia. EYE SORE Name one golf course that has a Maintenance Yard in the middle of their fairway. It's like upgrading a nice hotel ballroom...then design in the middle of it all your "back of house" tables, chairs, equipment, kitchen...telling guests it a beautiful upgraded ballroom. SEWER, WATER ELECTRICAL must be brought in to Facility. PROPERTY VALUES Property values that once had beautiful lake and fairway views (that we paid dearly for) will be seriously affected. QUIET PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT The residents by law are entitled to "peaceful possession" of their homes and property. We justified the park thinking it was for the greater good! We implore the Architectural Review to understand the gravity and the wide range of Repercussions of the decisions you make today and on May 13. Thank you. Mosincerely Theresa Pawley 77-670 California 04/27/2004 09:24 7607581038 ROBERT PETERSON PAGE 01 41.o113CON REALTY •s14651 stinistert asimr, Vista, GA. a*O83 TOO 'ra8-1i312 To Arch/ 6.6c_, 4,i€,' 60.414 f Fax; 7k-30 7 ( From.: Bob Peterson Date: Time riot Teo ...6-8- /6 3 Y Number of pages including this page: CC: 6d�J91? . Message: ,vim 4/440y404., .4- 72 .6".4 . #64›,:). ddre ogiiJ off . % �� ��a� % �1r. 7,97 44-24 efo4eviiii 2/16/91, 46, IL "hi hifit /04,0 -1e, //,/ ./.1 4, 44 Jed% �-!ve✓ ma 40 - ,G„ d/ r I of,/ otes-e- rede h-iva 014- n fC»l4r ✓Y hid I )4 r- ' on ad, oga e? 40t4 A/?,x-1. / /6/4z- det9;e/ 40id I A/dicie -471;r4 A--1(ft c,/ or-‘K 4vel /001 jAs, 4'» f ' ewer 0,94fori, Owfer Broker Robert L. Peterson EMx: 78O%-g- /O3 V Received Apr-27-200A 08:36 . From-7607581038 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pais 001 G Zoo Pa,GIAJT Piku NivufwA-L,,x) cck (et.) //a_ a1ibezJa.u4L --L2, Coxi6cct- GuaLO if& lki;AStAAJA-ce_ tr (m-(6.1 4Ltia_, -r;tc a-ikiLLGt9-€A-L- GaGruk oLa hot IruA" ru2)6-43 ' t1LJL'44iu 2 RECEIVED TAIUNFII bERTMENT CITY n:f PALM DESERT ptittc, jittt 1,(A- csue (Aki6 ca-ti /bicuAl&-: �p f6 ZPVYWY-1:4.e 1-q‘Aq - pr�L a� ,azc�� nn APR 6 2004 •t IYNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM- (',TTY OF PALM DESERT Attached are letters from homeowners on Michigan Avenue regarding the proposed structure on the 1 3th/1 4th Fairways of the Palm Desert country Club Golf Course To: Architectural Review Meeting -April 27, 2004 From: Sherry Kihm, 77 565 1A Michigan Re: Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway PDCC Date: April 25, 2004 APP 6 2004 7..iTtiiTNITY DEVELOPMENT D"EPARTh • rTTv OF PALM DESERT 1 have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance building proposed to be built where the small well building is currently. These plans are disturbing for several reasons: -The building itself is quite large and it is two story - Two story homes have not been allowed along the golf course. -The building will be very unattractive to homeowners on both sides of the fairways. -An equipment building next to a teebox is unattractive and often noisy. -I have seen this on another golf course. -The continuous use of the access 'road' will be disturbing to homeowners living next to the road. -It is costly to fill in the current pond, then create another pond -How do residents know another pond will be created? -Landscaping is not described, and regardless of what is planted, it will be years before shrubbery grows high enough to add to the attractiveness of the course. -What construction material will be used to build the maintenance building? Hopefully not metal! -Lots of extra expenses for new water lines, sewer and electrical hookups. These plans have been posted publicly right on the deadline, not giving residents time to be aware of these plans. In reality, it is a lack of full disclosure not to have made these facts known to the neighborhood at the informational meetings. During November/December some informational meetings were held. I was out of the state during that time and missed the beginning information. Some people I know received information by mail about the sale of the course and home construction. Personally I received no information, no phone calls and 1 tried calling the development company many times during January/February and could never get a call back. nor could I get information at the golf course during that time. Lack of information and response is poor community relations between residents and the developers. In conclusion i ask you to not approve these plans as presented. Consider keeping the maintenance building in the area it is now, or where the asphalt parking lot is. This would be a more effective location for everyone and less offensive to the general public. It also would be less costly for water, electricity and sewer changes. Super size buildings are out of place within a neighborhood of all small, single story houses. Finally,--i--do—hope your committee will not approve this- building- and plans without reconsidering the size of it and its location, plus the failure of keeping residents informed of proposals that will affect their property use and value. Thank you Apt n 2004 To: Architectural Review Meeting -April 27, 2004 From: Jane Hibbard 77625 1A Michigan Re: Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway PDCC Date: April 25, 2004 I have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance buiiding proposed to be built where the small well building is currently housed on the 14th fairway. These plans are disturbing for several reasons: MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARV rpry nF PALM DFSEPT -The building itself is very large and it is two story -proposed on flat area. The scale is way out of place according to the surrounding, small single story homes and the one story Association building. Two story homes have not been allowed along the golf course. -The building will be very unattractive to homeowners on both sides of the fairways. -An equipment building next to a teebox is unattractive and often quite noisy.-J have seen this on another golf course. -The continuous use of the access 'road' will be disturbing to homeowners living next to the road. -It is costly to fill in the current pond, then create another pond -It is costly to do new sewer and electrical lines. -How do residents know another pond will be created? -Landscaping is not described, and regardless of what is planted, it will be years before shrubbery grows high enough to add to the attractiveness of the course. -What type of construction material would be used? These plans have been posted publicly right on the deadline, not giving residents time to be aware of these plans. In reality, it is a lack of full disclosure not to have made these facts known to the neighborhood at the informational meetings. Lack of information and response is poor community relations between residents and the developers. In conclusion I ask you to not approve these plans as presented. I suggest the maintenance building be built closer to the clubhouse, such as in the present parking area. This would be more efficient for all the employes and a two story building at that location would be less offensive to the general public. Finally, I do hope your committee will not approve this building and plans without reconsidering the size of it and the failure of keeping residents informed of proposals that will affect disk property -use -and -value. Thank you ____ To: Architectural Review Meeting -April 27, 2004 From: Nancy Kihm-Edwards 77685 1A Michigan Re: Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway PDCC Date: April 25, 2004 Gtal APR 6 2004 MI'NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM' oTTY OP PALM DESERT 1 have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance building proposed to be built where the small well building .is currently housed on the 14th fairway. These plans are disturbing for several reasons: -The building itself is quite large and it is two story -proposed on flat area. The scale is way out of place according to the surrounding, small single story homes and the one story Association building. Two story homes have not been allowed along the golf course. -The building will be very unattractive to homeowners on both sides of the fairways. -An equipment building next to a teebox is unattractive and often quite noisy.-/ have seen this on another golf course. -The continuous use of the access 'road' will be disturbing to homeowners living next to the road. -It is costly to fill in the current pond, then create another pond -It is costly to do new sewer and electrical lines. -How do residents know another pond will be created? -Landscaping is not described, and regardless of what is planted, it will be years before shrubbery grows high enough to add to the attractiveness of the course. -What type of construction material would be used? These plans have been posted publicly right on the deadline, not giving residents time to be aware of these plans. In reality, it is a lack of full disclosure not to have made these facts known to the neighborhood at the informational meetings. Lack of information and response is poor community relations between residents and the developers. In conclusion, please do not approve these plans as presented. I suggest the maintenance building be kept in the same as it is now or be built closer to the clubhouse, such as in the present parking area. This parking lot sits lower than the club house. This area would be more efficient for all the employees and a two story building at that location would be less offensive to the general public. Such a huge building as currently designed is inappropriate amongst small, single story homes and next to a children's playground. Also, please remember the failure of the developers of not keeping residents informed of proposals that will affect their property use and value in a timely manner. Thank you / To: Re: Date: Architectural Review Meeting -April 27, 2004 Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway April 25, 2004 APR 6 2004 V.YNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTi (TTY OF PALM DESERT I have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance building proposed to be built where the small well building is currently. These plans are disturbing for several reasons: -The building itself is quite large and it is two story - Two story homes have not been allowed along the golf course. -The building will be very unattractive to homeowners on both sides of the fairways. -An equipment building next to a teebox is unattractive and often noisy.-/ have seen this on another golf course. -The continuous use of the access 'road' will be disturbing to homeowners living next to the road. -It is costly to fill in the current pond, then create another pond -How do residents know another pond will be created? -Landscaping is not described, and regardless of what is planted, it will be years before shrubbery grows high enough to add to the attractiveness of the course. These plans have been posted publicly right on the deadline, not giving residents time to be aware of these plans. In reality, it is a lack of full disclosure not to have made these facts known to the neighborhood at the informational meetings. Lack of information and response is poor community relations between residents and the developers. In conclusion I ask you to not approve these plans as presented. Consider keeping the maintenance building in the area it is now, or if this is cannot be done, please consider the idea of moving it closer to the recreation building and not by the teebox. Also, PLEASE consider a single story building -not so high. Finally, I do hope your committee will not approve this building and plans without reconsidering the size of it and the failure of keeping residents informed of proposals that will affect their property use and value. Thank you To: Re: Date: Architectural Review Meeting -April 27, 2004 Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway April 25, 2004 APR a 6 2004 1UNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM r?TV f1P PALM DESERT I have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance building proposed to be built where the small well building is currently. These plans are disturbing for several reasons: -The building itself is quite large and it is two story - Two story homes have not been allowed along the golf course. -The building will be very unattractive to homeowners on both sides of the fairways. -An equipment building next to a teebox is unattractive and often noisy.-/ have seen this on another golf course. -The continuous use of the access 'road' will be disturbing to homeowners living next to the road. -It is costly to fill in the current pond, then create another pond -How do residents know another pond will be created? -Landscaping is not described, and regardless of what is planted, it will be years before shrubbery grows high enough to add to the attractiveness of the course. These plans have been posted publicly right on the deadline, not giving residents time to be aware of these plans. In reality, it is a lack of full disclosure not to have made these facts known to the neighborhood at the informational meetings. Lack of information and response is poor community relations between residents and the developers. In conclusion I ask you to not approve these plans as presented. Consider keeping the maintenance building in the area it is now, or if this is cannot be done, please consider the idea of moving it closer to the recreation building and not by the teebox. Also, PLEASE consider a single story building -not so high. Finally, I do hope your committee will not approve this building and plans without reconsidering the size of it and the failure of keeping residents informed of proposals that will affect their property use and value. Thank you To: Re: Date: Architectural Review Meeting -April 27, 2004 Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway April 25, 2004 APP 2004 1•;"UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAI TI my OF PALM DESERT I have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance building proposed to be built where the small well building is currently. These plans are disturbing for several reasons: -The building itself is quite large and it is two story - Two story homes have not been allowed along the golf course. -The building will be very unattractive to homeowners on both sides of the fairways. -An equipment building next to a teebox is unattractive and often noisy.-/ have seen this on another golf course. -The continuous use of the access 'road' will be disturbing to homeowners living next to the road. -It is costly to fill in the current pond, then create another pond -How do residents know another pond will be created? -Landscaping is not described, and regardless of what is planted, it will be years before shrubbery grows high enough to add to the attractiveness of the course. These plans have been posted publicly right on the deadline, not giving residents time to be aware of these plans. In reality, it is a lack of full disclosure not to have made these facts known to the neighborhood at the informational meetings. Lack of information and response is poor community relations between residents and the developers. In conclusion I ask you to not approve these plans as presented. Consider keeping the maintenance building in the area it is now, or if this is cannot be done, please consider the idea of moving it closer to the recreation building and not by the teebox. Also, PLEASE consider a single story building -not so high. Finally, I do hope your committee will not approve this building and plans without reconsidering the size of it and the failure of keeping residents informed of proposals that will affect their property use and value. Thank you To: Re: Date: Architectural Review Meeting -April 27, 2004 Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway April 25, 2004 APP 6 2004 ''.'i!EUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART , r.,T.Ty OF PALM DESERT I have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance building proposed to be built where the small well building is currently. These plans are disturbing for several reasons: -The building itself is quite large and it is two story - Two story homes have not been allowed along the golf course. -The building will be very unattractive to homeowners on both sides of the fairways. -An equipment building next to a teebox is unattractive and often noisy.-/ have seen this on another golf course. -The continuous use of the access 'road' will be disturbing to homeowners living next to the road. -It is costly to fill in the current pond, then create another pond -How do residents know another pond will be created? -Landscaping is not described, and regardless of what is planted, it will be years before shrubbery grows high enough to add to the attractiveness of the course. These plans have been posted publicly right on the deadline, not giving residents time to be aware of these plans. In reality, it is a lack of full disclosure not to have made these facts known to the neighborhood at the informational meetings. Lack of information and response is poor community relations between residents and the developers. In conclusion I ask you to not approve these plans as presented. Consider keeping the maintenance building in the area it is now, or if this jg can -not be done, please consider the idea of moving it closer to the recreation building and not by the teebox. Also, PLEASE consider a single story building -not so high. Finally, I do hope your committee will not approve this building and plans without reconsidering the size of it and the failure of keeping residents informed of proposals that will affect their property use and value. Thank you i. 004--/2/4 / 77-- 6” biz/ filiak64,1 Qr. 711714 C 722u Members of the Planning Commission Meeting 4-27-04 As members and property owners in the PDCC we do not believe it is in the best interest of the PDCC membership to construct a two story commercial type building and maintenance yard in the middle of a neighborhood of single story family homes on the 14th fairway. A maintenance yard would require the storage of gas and diesel fuel. A maintenance yard will also require pumps for the fuel, a repair garage and the golf course equipment storage. Factors that must be acknowledged are: 1.Appearance: No golf course should have the maintenance yard in the midst of the residential area (the 14th fairway) 2.Noise: PDCC maintenance men start their work shift early,and the residents on the 13th and 14th fairways will endure the noise starting at 5 a.m. 3.View: The two story maintenance building and yard is unsightly and will depress property values in a residential neighborhood. 4. Expense: Moving the yard from its present location will be expensive. 5.Our recreational area of pool, dog park, city park with children play equipment must not be subjected to fumes of gas or diesel fuel at any time. Our children must be protected from noxious fumes that could emanate from a garage/maintenance yard should that yard be placed in close proximity to a child centered play area. We are relying on you, the planning commission to make sensible plans_ for our country club area and our unique life styles. Mary C. Fromme, President of the 24 unit Garden Apartments Homeowners Association, Inc. 1-7K0-345-0648 Palm Desert Planning Dept. Attn. Planning Dept. Architectural Review Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92211 Via Fax #: 760-341-7098 To: Architectural Review Meting --April 27, 2004 From Stan Foster Re: Maintenance Building on 13/14 Fairway Date: April 25, 2004 3 .t VIED 2004 "± DE ' E! ;.IPMENT DEPARTME '. 1;.6,N DESERT I have just finished reviewing the printed document illustrating the architectural plans for the maintenance building proposed to be built where the small well building is currently. I have a few concerns and comments. The current proposal is for a 19' high building to be built on the pond/lake. I am concerned that this building will not fit in to the single story low density housing that surrounds this area. This planned commercial building has the potential of lowering the neighborhood property values. How will the new building fit into the style of the neighborhood? Will there be extensive landscaping to protect esthetics and views? This maintenance yard is near a public park. How will management handle the use of solvents, cleaners, gasoline, diesel and chemical fertilizers. Does the golf course's waste generation permit deal with an adjoining public park issues. Are our children adequately protected from the use of industrial chemicals and chemical fertilizers for the golf course? I believe it is important to also address the current roll out of diesel mitigation plans by the California Air Resources Board and the local Air Quality Management Districts. Does the maintained yard activities have the potential of increasing particulates and NOX in the park area? I thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns. I do not believe this site is the best site for the good of the community and the as well the good of the golf course. Thank you for your attention. Stan Foster 77695 Michigan Unit lA Palm Desert, CA 92211 MR. ROBERT A SPIEGEL MAYOR CITY OF PALM DESERT CA. DEAR MR. MAYOR I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB FOR OVER 16 YEARS. I HAVE WITNESSED 4 OWNERS WHO THOUGHT THEY COULD MAKE A PROFIT WHILE UNAWARE OF THE UNIQUE OPEN SPACE C.C.&R'S ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY. THIS CLUB CANNOT SURVIVE NOW WITHOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO REMEDY THE NEGLECT AND THE AGING OF THE FACILITIES, ESPECIALLY AF 1'ER THE PRESENT OWNER BLED THE ASSETS AND LOST THE CONFIDENCE AND SUPPORT OF THE MEMBERS. OUR. RESTAURANT IS ALMOST EXTINCT ...OUR BAR CLOSES AT 5.P.M. BECAUSE NO ONE IS AROUND. WE ARE LOSING MEMBERS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER. I AM ON THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND AWARE OF THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF THE PICTURE. UNLESS A HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH IS INJECTED TO BRING THE`COURSE AND THE CLUBHOUSE UP TO A COMPETTIVE CONDITION THE ENTIRE CLUB WILL BECOME A WHITE ELEPHANT. AS YOU KNOW, UNLIKE OTHER GATED COMMUNI TIES, HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE ON OUR FAIRWAYS PAY NOTHING FOR THE MAINTAINANCE AND PRIVILAGE AND THE EMENITIES ASSOCIATED WITH COUNTRY CLUB LIVING. WE ASSUME IT WAS A SHORT SIGHTED GIMMICK USED BY THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS TO SELL HOUSES 40 YEAS AGO. THIS FACILITY IS A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE,AND NO BUSINESSMAN IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD BUY THE OLD FACILITY WHEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A PROFIT WITH ONLY GREEN FEES AND RESTAURANT REVENUE. THE P.DCC L.L.C. GROUP LOOKS LIKE THE WHITE KNIGHT THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE CASH TO IMPROVE THE COURSE AND THE CLUBHOUSE. BY REZONING SOME OF'THEVACANT PROPERTIES. THEY SEEM TO BE A V ERY CO-OPERATIVE GROUP WHO HAVE ALREADY MODIFIED THE MASTER PLAN NUMEROUS TIMES TO APPEASE THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MIGHT BE NEGATIVELY EFFECTED. SHOULD YOUR COMMIT 1'EE NOT APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL IT WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE WITH THE WOODHAVEN' S ,THE P.D. RESORT, AND OASIS WHERE MUCH OF THEIR REVENUE IS DERIVED FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, WHETHER THEY PLAY GOLF OR NOT. REZONING THIS COURSE FOR ANOTHER USE WOULD BE A UNRELISTIC AND PERHAPS IMPOSSIBLE FROM MY RESEARCH. PLEASE MAKE YOU DECISION FROM A COMMON SENSE ,VERY LONG TERM PERSPECTIVE. SINCE THE RESULTS WILL EFFECT MORE PEOPLE THAN JUST THOSE OF US WHO LIVE HERE. THE SMALL NUMBER OF THOSE IN OPPOSITION ARE NOT THE ONES WHO HAVE CONTRIBU II D TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS CLUB FOR 40 YEARS. I DON'T FEEL THEIR PERSONAL PREFFERENCES SHOULD OUTWEIGH THE APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH A FREE ENTERPRISE TAX PAYING BUSINESS. THE NAME "PALM DESERT" HAS RISEN IN THE PAST 25 YEARS TO EQUATE TO GREAT RESORT LIVING IN THE GOLF CAPITOL OF THE WEST. TO LET THE NAME "PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB" BECOME AN EMBARRASMENT TO THE CHAMBER ADVERTISING AND TO THE CITY WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN. THANK YOU GEORGE BOAL 76'739 OKLAHOMA 760 345 0625 cc: 'BUFORD A . CRITES JEAN M. BENSON JIM FERGUSON RICHARD S. KELL May 05 04 10:20a Alisa 7607790673 p.2 May 5, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, Ca_ 92260 From: Charles K. Sweet 43-708 Virginia Ave. Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 Re: Palm Desert Country Club - Project Approval May 13 th Hearing Please accept this letter in my absence as a request to the Palm Desert City Council to approve the proposed Palm Desert Country Club project. I have reviewed all facets of this proposal and consider it to be a great boon to our community. The Developers of this project are well qualified and have created a proposal that will be a benefit to every resident within the project area. I have been a resident of Palm Desert for 34 years and most recently residing in the Palm Desert Country Club for the last 4 years. Thank you in advance for your consideration and approval(s). Charlie Sweet 760.831.7433 Received May-05-2004 09:16 From-7607790673 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 April 29, 2004 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260-2578 Re: Palm Desert Country Club Residential and Golf Project Attention: Mayor and Members of the City Council As homeowners on Utah Circle in Palm Desert Country Club since 1981, we have seen many changes in the club ownership. None of the owners have upgraded the clubhouse or maintenance barn and yard to improve the overall appearance, and it is our opinion that as of now they appear as second rate and out -dated buildings with no appeal. The golf courses (9 and 18 holes) are much in need of improvement with a complete remodel and landscaping. Also the installation of an automatic watering system will help to conserve an acre feet of water. Having viewed the plans proposed by Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC, we believe that the new homes and club will enhance the area 100% and once again be able to compete with the surrounding golf courses and clubhouses. This, we feel, will also upgrade all of the older homes, both in appearance and value. Palm Desert has always been a forerunner in development of the Coachella Valley, and the City leaders have the vision to make this city the best for living and business. We ask the City Council to give this project its full approval to start at the earliest possible date. John & Marian Rogerson 77039 Utah Circle Palm Desert CA 92211 10 :11 WV S AV14 I 1 30(:U0 S) 3 1,110 03 Ai To: Steve Smith for City Council Meeting, May 13th and other Planning Meetings for PDCC From: Sherry and Bob Kihm Re: Maintenance Building on the 14t Hole PDCC Date: May 1, 2004 2004 ';;PMENT DEPARTMENT DESERT I was not at the impromptu meeting on the 14t Teebox last week but my neighbors did tell me some changes are being considered for the placement of the maintenance building, but it is still scheduled for the same area. I still have some concerns that I think the PD City planning committee and City Council should consider and check prior to approving these plans. 1. The maintenance building is being placed next to a city park that is used extensively. Gas fumes from the many pieces of equipment will be a part of the park atmosphere. 2. Is a maintenance plan for heavy-duty equipment usage next to a city park usage in compliance with the California Air Resources Board and the local Air Quality Management District? 3. How will management handle the waste products and solvents, cleaners, and chemicals plus fertilizers? 4. Where will the employees of this area park? In the city parking lot, on the street in front of homes? 5. Has anyone checked the mileage for this building from the main clubhouse? It is quite a long way. 6. The size of the building is still out of place by all these homes. It is a business building in a residential neighborhood. Golf course maintenance buildings/yards usually have many pieces of heavy-duty equipment sitting around, along with other supplies and materials. This is not attractive to homeowners or park patrons. 7. Currently there is a large hole in the fence by the park and people go in and out of this area, on to the course, playing in the sand, riding bikes on the green, and destroying stakes and signs. Although there will be a new fence, have you considered that this maintenance building location lends itself to being available to the same type of vandalism? I understand the developers want to use the area where the maintenance building is currently located for some of their new homes. However, when you consider the cost of plumbing, sewers, electricity, road and parking areas, and the distance from the main office, it would be much more practical to keep the maintenance building in the same location it is in currently. It does need rebuilding and expanded, but if the building were left nearer the clubhouse and offices, environmental problems by the park and the homes would not be created. Thank you for reading through these comments. I strongly urge planning committee members and city council people to go to the spot where the building is being proposed and check out the proximity to the park and homes, keeping the above listed thoughts in mind. id114- erry and Bob Kihm, Homeowners 77 565 1A Michigan Drive Minn 28071 Via Machado Mission Viejo. CA 92692 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] rn RMPUB\KCV1231373.1 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. 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: ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to 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 I" 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 I Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert. Certificates of Occupancy for the 61st 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 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 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 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 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 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 - 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] Oil M MEIN lon 1 Cg WCI cc a, o GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENT, CLUB HOUSE RENOVATION & RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Phase 2 Released Lots car S TEJ 45 Cj Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setbacks Max. Building Min. Lot Area DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CODE REQUIREMENTS R-1 9,000 / PR 20'/as approved 15'/as approved 14' total, 5' minimum/ as approved Height 18'/24' 9,000/or as approved Max. Site Coverage 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] FROM : FAX N0. : May. 13 2004 03:3.4PM P1 May 13, 2004 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re; Public Hearing _. EYED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, CA 2004 MAY 13 PM 3: 44 To Whom It May Concern I purchased my home on the corner of Warner Tr. & Michigan, 77- 405 Michigan Dr., 5 years ago to be my final destination. Since I axn totally disabled, I can't get out as other's do to enjoy our Ynstead beautiful and pristine valley. , I'm stuck at home a lot. I chose my home for a few reason's, I could go out on my patio and see these huge beautiful old trees and the mountains, the green of the golf course and all of the birds and other nature our valley offers us. Now, someone wants to put a home directly behind me to block the mountains, the green of the golf course and to cut down the beautiful old trees or block them from view. The traffic now is horrendous since the light at Hovely & Warner. How anyone can honestly say more homes won't make a difference is not too informed. I sit on my patio daily and watch Golf carts trying to catch a break in the traffic in order to cross Warner. I've witnessed several near accidents of Golfers as the traffic doesn't adhere to the 35 mph limit even with police officers patrolling & writing65ticket I've clocked it several times and the average speed is from the corner of California to Hovely and visa versa - When the PDCCLLC, were going door to door November 29, 2003, the wife of i'effrey Lowden. Community Liason, saw what would happen to my tiny view and replied, I wouldn't want a Received May-13-04 03:38pm From — To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Pale 01 FROM : FAX NO. : May. 13 2004 O3:34PM P2 house back there either, all of your view will be gone and replaced with the side view of a house, and yes, your value will definitely go down. She said she'd have Mr. Case or her husband to contact me because I must be wrong as Jeffrey had said our homes would go up a minimum of MMOK. I'm against it, because my whole life is my backyard Kayla Cruce fJ1 1),0-)yugA__0=-e_A-0.44_, c-/-/A.7,/ Received May-19-04 08:98pm Fram- i TrPALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 02 11 May 2004 TO: Palm Desert City Council and Palm Desert Planning Commission RE: Proposed PDCC Development LLC Project Maintenance Facility RECEIVED MAY 1 3 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT The more I learn of this project, the more it appears many important points have been concealed from home owners. Case in point follows. May 16th at 6:30AM I learned from a groundskeeper in Spanish that a Maintenance Facility was going to be built on the 14th fairway in front our homes where for 37 years we have looked onto a lake, fairways and mountains. For six weeks (May 16th to April 21st) I called or stopped in at Planning 3 times a week asking for information re: the relocation of the Maintenance Facility. Steve Smith said they had no idea where it was to be built...that I must wait for the drawings to be submitted. PDCC Development LLC submitted the drawings Thursday April 22... I stopped by Planning Friday April 23, made a copy and was informed this Plan would be included in Architectural Review April 27th. This gave me 1 and 1/2 working days to contact impacted residents, an attorney etc. Not one person I contacted by knocking on doors, calling or faxing knew anything of the proposed relocation. April 27 and May 11th Architectural Review critiqued esthetics and location improving both. May 7th I asked Phil Drell where and how to address our many other concerns related to the Maintenance Facility as there was little time before the Council Mtg. May 13th. Phil directed me to Architectural Review, to the Developer and the PDCC Association when I asked pertinent questions such as Access to the Maintenance Facility. As had been my previous experience, Access is not Architectural Review Material! Many homeowners addressed the following concerns re: the proposed Maintenance Facility, in letter form to City Planning to no avail. Zero notification to impacted residents or -- r744-- fSSO(il fr le Complete loss of privacy Great increase in congestion to an already highly congested area that includes a city park, a busy clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings d c Clubhouse $1plus million maximum...yet there are no minimum dollar figures. What is to keep PDCC Development LLC from investing a far lesser amount in one or more specified areas, after City Council gives the green Tight. With 24 years in the construction industry... is there a safeguard in place I've missed? In the Cities and Companies I've worked with, disclosure both positive and negative were a requirement of doing business. Rezoning of declared Open Space a tragedy. Over crowding is never a short or long term solution in an attempt to enhance design, beauty or property value. I implore the members of City Council to not rush this project through. Additional time is needed to resolve our deepening concerns. We need the developer's promises in writing, we need conditions attached for unresolved issues. We do not wish to add to the litany of lies from previous owners. When you are in future jobs and one day retired, the wisdom of your decision here will continue to impact PDCC homeowner's lives. Most sincere appreciation for your consideration, Theresa Pawley 77-670 California Drive May 12th, 2004 Honorable Mayor Spiegel, Honorable members of the Palm Desert City Council: My wife and I own a home at 77510 California Drive in Palm Desert. We are writing to you on the eve of May 13th, 2004 during which you will decide the future of the Palm Desert Country Club Community by considering the PDCC Development, LLC project. My wife and I live on the 14th hole, and to be perfectly honest, we are not immediately and directly affected by the initial phases of this project. Our views are not currently threatened. Yet. There will be two new homes built right next to us, and the developers have plans to run the golf cart path within feet of our backyard, but even that is not nearly as destructive as what other neighbors will have to endure. Surely, we are more than wary about undergoing years of construction, dust and noise that will inevitably accompany this project if approved. These are years of absolute misery to look forward to and as recent expatriates from the East Coast (New Jersey) I can tell you this was the LAST thing we expected to face in Palm Desert. What disturbs us most is how this project has suddenly and violently divided this community. A small minority of its members have found an opportunity to get themselves a brand new spanking golf course and facilities on the backs of their neighbors. In doing so, they deprecate and poison the lives of many other people who are devastated by this project. We have many friends and neighbors who are affected. And so it appears that a small number of people will pay the ultimate price to satisfy the selfish needs of a few. Responsible neighbors and members of a quality community do NOT let such things happen to their neighbors. This is the primary reason why we oppose this project. It is unfair and it is detrimental to the Community. Some of the most militant supporters are considered by some as upstanding members of the Community. They preach the revival of the PDCC and they shout down those who would dare oppose them. These courageous preachers are in no way affected by this project. Their views, their privacy, their property values are not at stake. We have lived a long time on the East Coast in NYC and NJ and I can tell you we have NEVER witnessed the type of hate and fury of neighbor against neighbor that this project has engendered. Men shouting at women, personal insults and threats being flung around. Flurries of lies, half-truths and intimidating statements. It is a disgrace. If this is the kind of community that this project will help build, then no rational person could want any part of it. 9Z:C did Z1 AVW}►007. d3 .1)13S3c, [-11Vd 331330 S.%k#3- 0 ;4!13 02 A17in-:I From the very beginning last October, the developers have hinted that the City would approve their plans without hindrance, and that the permitting process would be a mere formality. It was recently announced at the Women's Club that the Golf Course was being shut down June 1st for groundbreaking! We've seen the entire process go through ARC, Project Area 4 and the Planning Commission at lightning speed. I can only hope that a rational and fair Council will FINALLY take a serious look at what is being proposed here, as a serious and rational examination of this project will undoubtedly lead you to cast a "NO" vote against it for the sake of this community and for the sake of this City. Surely there has to be something better that Palm Desert can do to uplift PDCC. Palm Desert has always been about finding and implementing better solutions. Can't we do the same in this case? Thanking you for your time, we remain Sincerely yours, Jerome and Veronique Pineau 77510 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 250-1031 The Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society www.pdccps.org May 12th, 2004 Honorable Mayor Spiegel, Honorable members of the Palm Desert City Council: As the President of the Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society (PDCCPS), I am writing to you again regarding the proposed re -zoning and re -development of the Golf Course here in the Palm Desert Country Club Community because you will be deciding on the future of our community Thursday May 13th, 2004 during your scheduled meeting. As you know, members of our group and myself have had ample opportunity to address you and your staff repeatedly during the past six months. You have been gracious with your time and receptive to our voices. Consequently, I will not again list all the specific reasons for which we are opposing this project. Surely all these points are clearly stated in your information packets for Thursday's meeting and also part of the Public Record. I will simply make a few comments: ■ Contrary to what has been claimed, only a small minority of this entire Community ardently supports this project. 321 people out of 1800 to be exact. Keep in mind that only 959 out of 1800 people were able to even have a voice in the process via the HOA ballot. The remaining members of this community (841 homes) are entirely dependant on your ultimate decision. • Those who adamantly support this project do not stand to lose anything from it. Most of them are golf club members who seek to get a golf course upgrade for free. I can't blame them for wishing it but I can certainly fault them for wanting their own neighbors to pay the price for it exclusively. • The developers have refused item #17 as suggested by your own Planning Staff in their conditions to implement a mechanism to protect the remaining lots of the golf course should the project be approved. One can only infer from this action that the intent is to seek more re -zoning in the near future to continue land filling on PDCC. Once this precedent is set, there will be NO going back. Ever. • This ill-conceived project keeps springing surprises on the Community and on your Staff. The sudden emergence of the Maintenance Facility issue is a perfect example. Major aspects of the project have not been well thought out and have not gone through the normal processes and channels. For example, there is no reasonable storage for golf carts in the plans at the moment. The current proposed storage area cannot physically contain all those carts. Will another unexpected surprise pop up in the coming weeks to address this? 9 :C Wd Z1 AVWFiagc VO 'I 63S3Q 1,11 Vd 3Ot3.i0 s.:1 .� i tw Tel (760) 250-4291 • email: pdccps@hotmail.com (0 2 A 12 42335 Washington Street Suite F108 • Palm Desert, CA 92211 The Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society www.pdccps.org • It is clear from the Developers' own documents (online presentation, page 12 of 31, and contract with Mr. Jeffrey Lowden) that PDCC Development, LLC has no intention of owning the Golf Course exclusively. The current owner Dahoon Investments will still have a stake in the Golf Course if the project is approved. Yet the developers' main supporters were led to believe otherwise. Most of them will tell you that they support this project because "anything is better than the current owner". Yet they have been mislead. The current owner will likely remain a partner in the PDCC Development, LLC. • As you know, PDCCPS was able to locate 1961 Declarations of Restrictions protecting tracts 2137 and 2283 of our community. I understand the City has no enforcement role in this matter but I cannot imagine the City Council approving an illegal project under these circumstances. Our recourse is of course in California Superior Court. And although the City Council believes it has no legal enforcement obligations with respect to a contract between private individuals and a developer, I would still ask you as moral, fair-minded leaders to stand up for those of us who are being threatened. A private citizen on the street who is not a police officer is not legally compelled to defend another human being who is being attacked, but a moral , ethical, and socially -conscious person will stand up when the weak are being threatened. You have that power to protect us all and in the process, help us all avoid long and costly legal battles. In closing, I remind you that other solutions could and should be considered in order to improve this community. The project being proposed is NOT the only possible answer to uplift the Community. As in previous communications, I re -iterate our organization's pledge to you to work with the City in finding and implementing a fairer more reasonable solution involving ALL members of the community working together, not against one - another. In closing, and on behalf of all the members of PDCCPS, I would like to respectfully ask, once again, that you vote "NO" on this project. It stands to damage our Community and our City now and well into the future. Sin -rely yours, Jerome D. Pineau, President Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society (760) 250-4291 Tel (760) 250-4291 • email: pdccps@hotmail.com 42335 Washington Street Suite F108 • Palm Desert, CA 92211 May 12, 2004 Palm Desert City Council: Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Jean M. Benson, Council Member Jim Ferguson, Council Member Richard S. Kelly, Council Member City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: May 13, 2004 Public Hearing Objection to Palm Desert Country Club proposed zoning change Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: 0 —. > —c -.Cr2rfa r fV Nye rn rri - -_4GCV C+.1 C')-n D n Since my attached letter to the Planning Department was written we have had a least one question answered. The developers have now proposed a new maintenance facility near the 14th tee. This information was not a part of the original request to the Planning Department and has come to the great surprise and dismay of many homeowners near the proposed facility. This leads to the question where will the golf cart storage facility be put? It is obvious to anyone who knows the size of the existing clubhouse that there is no possibility of storing 60 to 70 golf carts, or cart charging and cleaning facility inside the current pro -shop as per the current plans provided by the developers. And even if some carts could be stored there where will the new pro -shop be located and where will the additional carts be stored? My belief is that a new item will be added to the developers' proposal soon for another building to be located between the 17th & 18th holes or the 9th & 18th holes blocking the views of more existing homes. You may ask yourself why would she possibly care where the carts would be stored? The answer is that!, and my neighbors care about this entire community and do not want to see it destroyed by a golf course owner who only wants to make money at the expense of homeowners and residents. An owner who was fully aware of the costs of upgrading and maintaining the golf course when he bought it on April 20, 2001 for $4,075,000. An owner who now hides behind a development group of which he is a part of to do what I believe he planned from the start, build homes and fill in the golf course. In the process of this our community will suffer and be forever changed for the worse. The developers have still not even produced factual data for the pro forma showing a "compelling need" for the building of homes in order to operate the golf course and certainly not for 95 homes. We see nothing but how much it is costing to gain entitlements from the city and how they will make money in the future after development. It is my understanding that any consideration to change open space to residential must meet certain requirements and to my knowledge that has not happened. At the March 16, 2004 planning meeting the developers were able to have condition of approval #17 removed as a requirement. It was unbelievable to many of us that there was little discussion about this as item #17 is the only thing that would stop even further development in the future and must be reinstated. I also find it disturbing that the development requested for the driving range area is listed as "PR-6 for 9.68 acres instead of the 54 lots. Could this mean the developers plan on getting your approval and then requesting that instead of 54 lots the zoning be changed to many more condos? My home which is located at 77-040 Utah Circle would be devastated by the 54 proposed houses in the driving range, the nearest being only 160 feet away. The proximity would cause loss of privacy, noise and light pollution. We have not been compensated in any way by the developers nor will they remove any homes to accommodate us although others only had to ask and homes were removed. It is our hope that the Palm Desert City Council will turn down the proposed development and help the citizens of Palm Desert Country Club return our community to the jewel it once was. We need our golf course to have simple maintenance and watering of which it has lacked since being purchased by Dahoon Investments. Please help us save our community! Lisa Theodoratus & Max Williams 77040 Utah Circle March 16, 2004 Palm Desert City Council and Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive (-' Palm Desert, CA 92260 > c Ladies and Gentleman: - �a Nrri un ; I waited until this morning to write this letter because 1 wanted to see the staff 3 xac report from the planning department before doing so. I sit at my desk in the living c,,, -n room of what was to be my retirement home watching the sunrise and the, shadows of light hit the beautiful mountains behind the clubhouse. My home sits -I rn at the end of a cul-de-sac at 77-040 Utah Circle to the left of the driving range. From my home there are also views of four fairways, the fountain at the first tee, large mature trees (of which we have so few left), and what amounts to a double fairway in distance of open space. The development plan before you would take all this away from my husband and myself and leave nothing but a virtual wall of homes with only 5 feet between them, the closest being within 150 feet of our property line, facing directly into our backyard. Many of my neighbors sold their homes in the last few months saying they had to get out before this project began. Indeed even the current owner of the golf course has sold his home at the end of the driving range. We felt that we had to try to save our dream home, which we decided to purchase three years ago before ever going inside based on the existing view corridor and yard. I believe there are many obvious problems with the developers' proposal. One of which is that according to the developers, promised improvements to the clubhouse have been a major selling point for this project since its inception. Yet it seems that there is no provision in the staff report for the 1800 square foot addition to the pro -shop or the new cart and equipment facility to be dug underneath the existing clubhouse structure (it simply say relocation of cart storage). The only items senior planning staff were aware of at the clubhouse facility were the new parking lot for cars and an exterior paint job. As the staff report notes that the clubhouse will have a maximum of one $1 million in renovations how will any of these items actually be funded? And in looking at this plan can someone please indicate to me where the storage space for the equipment can possibly be located after the homes are built if not under the clubhouse! We wish to find a way to restore the Palm Desert County Club Golf Course to its original condition. We do not believe that the plan before you will make this the kind of golf course that will be attractive to visiting players. Have you ever played at a facility without a driving range or with residential homes 70 feet in front of the clubhouse? How about sitting in the bar after a round and again looking into a home instead of the first tee and view of the mountains. This overcrowding of the area near the clubhouse will certainly turn off many players. I also can't imagine living under the public address loudspeaker that wakes me up every morning 700 feet further away. My suggestion to the Planning Commission and City Council is to turn this facility into a city managed golf course. With the many land use options at your disposal and funding from RDA Project Area 4 and participation from the home owners in Palm Desert Country Club we could revitalize this area while keeping it the "open vista community" that the original developers visualized and the Riverside County Council Members approved in 1961. On Friday March 12 documents were presented to the Planning Department supporting the legal reasons that should give you reservations about approving this proposal. We hope and pray that the City Council and Planning Commission will do the right thing and reject this proposal in favor of a plan that will be fair to all and preserve our open space, trees, and open vista community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lisa Theodoratus & Max Williams 77-040 Utah Circle 200-8980 May 12, 2004 Palm Desert City Council: Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Jean M. Benson, Council Member Jim Ferguson, Council Member Richard S. Kelly, Council Member City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive 0 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: May 13, 2004 Public Hearing -- 0 m s rn Objection to Palm Desert Country Club proposed zoning change Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: (4) tV Dn For the past 25 years I have lived on the perimeter of the driving range at Palm Desert Country Club. No one ever approached me nor my neighbors regarding residential housing on the driving range. I have enjoyed the panoramic view all those years although at present the driving range is brown from lack of water....I love my location! The view is spectacular from my patio. I can see the Clubhouse, the beautiful mountains, the first tee on the championship course, the first tee, fairway and green of the Executive course and the 9th tee, fairway and green of that same course and the entire driving range. Is that a view lot or what? One I do not wish to trade for a view of rooftops. This proposed project by Palm Desert country Club Development Co. LLC will obliterate all of the above and devaluate my property location. I reiterate, "I don't want 64 houses in my back yard" elyn S.4Cane 43-380 Tennessee Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211-7772 (760) 345-6215 Enc: Letter to Palm Desert Planning Commission March 12, 2004 City of Paim Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Attn: Palm Desert Planning Commission Philip Drell Re: Case Nos. C/Z 04-01 TT 31836 and DA 04-01 This is the 25th year I have lived on the perimeter of the driving range at Palm Desert Country Club. I have been an active member all those years, Twenty years as a member of the Women's Club 18 hole group and the last five years as a member of the Golfing Niners. I have survived four owners of this club. All four had planned to build houses on the ingress and egress of every hole on both golf courses. None were successful. I want a new Club and golf courses for my golfing friends and me. What I don't want is 65 houses in my backyard. Building a nucleus of 65 houses on the driving range will devaluate my property at my expense. Incidentally, I can't imagine a country club without a driving range. What I don't want is a city street coming from Cali- fornia Avenue through the golf course and intersecting Tennessee Avenue at an all ready dangerous spot where the sharp bend is located. What I don't want is 130 cars, that is if there are two car 'families, entering and exiting two doors from my house. Wh'at I don't want is all that extra traffic. We have lots of golf carts traveling in our complex. More cars add up to more hazard on our streets. I never liked my house, but I love the location. As you know real estate value is location, location, location. This project will destroy my location. Mr. Kane passed away last October, but we have six kids who will inherit this location. We all say "Vote NO"! Evelyn . Kane.. 43-380 Tennessee Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211-7772 Telephone NO. (760) 345-6215 12:t Via Z kviinz, v 'ils3S3G WO; d 301330 S,`,4T30 110 03 A 1 3031i DATE: MAY 12, 2004 TO: PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260-2578 FROM: Mr. & Mrs. James C. Evans 72827 Oklahoma Ave., Palm Desert, CA 92221-7704 REFERENCE: Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT31836 AND DA 04-01 Request by PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC for 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; plus other changes. We wish to submit our comments as follows: We purchased our property at 76827 Oklahoma Ave., in May 1986. THE LOCATION of the lot provided an open view of the golf course, with the Santa Rosa Mountains in the background. THIS WAS THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR OUR PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY. We were told at the time of purchase, that the area of the golf course was zoned for an "OPEN SPACE CATEGORY which WOULD ASSURE US THAT IT WOULD REMAIN AS SUCH FOREVER." The above referenced rezoning request would appear to be the start of an attempt to change this situation & SET A PRECEDENT. This is of a very great concern to us, not only in regard to our view, for which we selected our location, but it could materially affect the dollar value of our property . AS SUCH, MY WIFE AND I ARE STRONGLY AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE PDCC Development LLC request, for the REFERENCED ZONING CHANGE. -071 THANK YOU. Jeanne G vans r _ eM L u, c cv v 0 mes C. Evans -� rn 77-020 Utah Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 May 13, 2004 Palm Desert City Council City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Madams and Sirs, I am a resident of Palm Desert Country Club. My home is located at 77-020 Utah Circle, which is located at the end of the driving range. I have been a resident of Palm Desert since 1968. I have lived at 77-020 Utah Circle since 1970. I completed purchase of this property in 1972. I was fully aware of the declaration of restrictions when I purchased this home; I was told that this would protect my view in perpetuity. My plan is to retire here. Where else could I get such a beautiful view? I planned to stay herein retirement ,because of one reason: the view. When I read the advertisements for home sales in The Desert Sun, a view is always mentioned as a selling point. The plan to develop the driving range by building sixty-five homes will remove my view. I am opposed to the entire project but I would consider supporting the project if the 65 homes planned for the driving range were evenly divided into the other open spaces in the Palm Desert Country Club. Placing these new homes throughout the Country Club is the only way to have this project go through and be fair to all the homeowners. Doing this also allows the developers to build the number of homes they say are needed in order to renovate the golf course. Not everyone who lives here is a golfer. The expectation for a few homeowners to bear the burden of losing their view is wrong. Some of us live here for other reasons. The current thinking does not acknowledge the needs of others. If the golfers want the new and improved golf course, it is only logical that they should be willing to accept the homes being dispersed throughout the Country Club. We non -golfers acknowledge your need for the renovated golf course. We hope you are willing to acknowledge our needs, also. I hope the Palm Desert City Council will listen to us and I urge the Council to protect its residents by voting against this project. Thank You. Sincerely, Suzanne Tracy 8Z:£ !d Zl AVWhQOZ v o '.L 3S30 W1V d 3313:0 S.' tl31O A113 `l3VN May 13 04 02:19p Village Counseing [760)773-0569 p. 2 ilhu018 Mils impmyem ant Association Executive Officers Dr. Jerry Meints, President John O'Hea, Vice President Richard Fromme, Secretary/Treasurer Mardell Pizzoferrato, Communication Officer To: Palm Desert City From; Dr. Jerry Meints ovor Board President Cahuilla Hills Improvement Association We expressed our stcont; feelings last year that we oppose any attempt to restrict the size of our homes, garages and gies.:houses below limits placed on all other Palm Desert residencies. Council agreed home size was to be taken on a lot -by -lot basis to insure that no offensive construction occurs. Also, a 10,000 square: foot building pad restriction is unrealistic given our large 5-acre parcel size. Finally, last time when w e were given proper public notice via the mail we showed up in mass, and expressed our desi-e f.)r Alternate A. This lack of postal notice- to us concerned property owners is unfair, perhaps illegal and will cause financial damage to our property values, exposing the city to angry litigation. We strongly protest this ;action and request proper notice so our neighbors can once again express their opposition to tli s d evaluation. �i+� :Z Wd C I AVW hOfll rs v rn Received May-13-04 02:18pm From-760 773 0569 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 02 May 13 04 02:19p Village Counseing (760)773-0569 p.1 Village Counseling 73-302 Hwy 111 Palm Desert, Ca.92260 (760) 773-0669 - Phone (760) 773-0569 - Fax C E1�TD TO Company Name ,�� /i-y'6r%`�yj FROM i�:i2 eG-'J ,/ Attention d:t/ tsvib�� IDate1 I erg 5rOffice Location Office�l=�tl ly, i)e„sie.4.74— Fax Number . -_ r:-rr 7v Phone Number ❑ Urgent ❑ Reply ASAP �•1 61ease Continent Please ReviewFor your Information Total pages, including cover: Comments 1ft ALERT — CONFIDENTIAL The information convey::d in this facsimile transmission is CONFIDENTIAL. Disclosure of this inforniaton to person(s) other than the fax addressee is prohibited under sections 10850 and/or 827 of welfare and institutions code and is punishable as a misdemeanor. Received May-13-04 02:18pm From-760 773 0569 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 01 05/12/2004 14:21 7607581038 ROBERT PETERSON PAGE 01 iitalC10 Bet) N FLIIIMALXV 41.6a $usigswt =rtvw, sta., CA. 9140A3 760 7aIS- 1a 1St To• A 1/ ,�CSi+'v 6/2/ G"�'�G/ J Fax: %eCd """ 3 gi -4.?"913/ From: Bob Peterson Fax: 780 ZS'S-PAU V Date: 647.;VS Number of paggrtuolu.diag this page: �" Time i'q- CC: Message: ifiiejiA14 fi-44:6,(1‘/Af; die?' lAtige. lee /141NeefrM/4 6,123 210i 4#1/10-e (/ re PIA ihiLie--t 6.01 ezi/ 'i% e9r-A' 44 AShi /e• left--' »{ile. Will,1S' %'I L 110 "Aro-se'- ,ecc4te *//holielid,91;104G-;* Pyizatr stf‘ ave Ad. 'lei t914,4W66 litz. 'so/1410A .64t.' 1)1 Alt L 1 is f je t'>' ir/ 6 U_S 641 r AeA i do 41-4, .16' owy • e .196404Afroy'1 6 -41JI4 Owner Broker Robert L. PetersoI5 ;£ bdd Z 1►vw it00z Fax: 760 ,45-8 -- !o S V3 J, 3S3c HIV 301JJ0 S, 31O Ali° 03 3 )3 Received May-12-2004 13:33 From-7307581030 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 ROBERT PETERSON PAGE 02 05/12/2004 14:21 7607581038 ettilrndi‘ewe /2°' ez-P shai AO.;‘ a 4 /A: 44 )4414104/ mom Icif k"-7-fic p4,„ / - . Y/ ,r/J, ,ram, J d 6‘e.0,4(4.-/.1 ,s.ko Aie ///i& 644 Al# "1,, /4, ,eij 16_i2f/ 1491-4,7 rtAlf1,104>sterifirh, ye `• 4!I 0 f ,tea. 1,4 AP' i•ve ot4 t40/ ,oh.fp A 4 %era /4111.44e 141 46 /a/al led/raftor / liri74 S 0,1 4 A 'Weird , 1 ler, .ram 4e< pe 4," �� ��/�lciL 1 y� t/air, - K/1( d ie 14 . A14 .. 44 Wei _ di F" / 6M;#14Y1-1 411146kik 1K6/4-4�t ECG etrS 6 -"I( iii/or A/e41 Amas„ zutale.(h, Zd-f'.441 .441'1 d/ 6 i•-,;•0/-A4 Al 40-0e4/ 74- lel441C-4°/ eele a‘4" lijei414, Received May-12-2004 13:33 From-7607581038 To —PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 Ladies & Gentleman City Counsel Architecture Committee Zoning Commission To Whom It May Concern: I am a homeowner on New York Ave. and this project will affect my wife and I directly. This is my home. When I bought it; it came with a view. (plain & simple) I have had this view for several years. This is my view! I bought it; it came with the house. If this project is allowed to proceed my home will loose value; (plain & simple) because I will loose my view. The way that Kosmot is trying to push this through suggests that there roughshot way of handling this is no better than the current owner. Nowhere does Kosmot present a case that they can manage, run or develop a golf course any better than the current owner. In fact the homeowners I have spoken with truly believe that there is coercion between the current owner and Kosmot to intensionally run the golf course into a dilapidated state in order to persuade course members and homeowners to get on there knees and be in favor of this very real travesty. There is still nothing to suggest that once Kosmot gets what it wants; it will then turn right around and sell the course to the next bad owner that will run any new improvements right back to where they are now. Provided the improvements get made at all. I have never seen anything get to city hall so fast. 5 weeks ago a neighbor spoke with Philip from the city zoning department and Philip said that he had never even heard of this project. The mere fact that it is here now only proves that Kosmot is trying to push its plans through the city as fast as it can. This property has been zoned this way since this property was conceived in 1961, and has remained this way for about 43 years! Why now is there a sudden push to change zoning around a fully developed community. This would be like putting a road through a public park and building houses on it. If Kosmot is allowed to proceed with this development project existing homes will lose there value immediately; my home will loose l Os of thousands of dollars in value. Why is a zoning change even being considered? It would be unheard of to consider putting a road & houses down a fairway at Bighorn. Why? Because they have a lot of money. To suggest that you were going to ruin the view of a homeowner at Bighorn simpley would not happen! Why then are they allowed to ruin my view! Is it because we don't have that kind of money! If that is the case then this whole proposed development is purely about money & profit. So then isn't it fair to say that all Kosmot wants to do is to turn a profit and get out as fast as they can and take there money to Bighorn. And all they have to do is pray on people who don't have as much money as they do! Don't get me wrong. I am a small business owner and we have to make money in order to survive. But we should not have to do it at the expense of others. I would also like to say a few words about the traffic situation. With approximately 200 more cars leaving for work and coming home everyday will create excessively more undue burden on street that are already in disrepair. Last time the traffic assessor looked at our problem was not that long ago. When no one could figure out what to do with the corner of Hovley & Kansas. These changes have made it practically impossible & extremely congested at the corner Hovley & Warner Trail. Not to mention the speeding problem down my street New York Ave. is outrageous. Now adding 200 more cars to the mix will only congest this corner more & turn my street into a larger racetrack. Lets also go back to the traffic assessor who at the time did not know what to do about the speeding & basically said that we would just have to live with it, or we could raise the speed limit to 30 m.p.h. & then the police would be able to write tickets inside our community. This has been done but to no avail as the speeding cars can now go 5 m.p.h. faster & there are no police to write tickets. So for Kosmot to say he has a traffic assessor looking at the into it must be entirely untrue. Are these the kind of lies we can expect throughout this entire development. When I told someone that this was happening, they replied that with enough money the city of Palm Desert would push anything through. I hope my home, view, and way of living; has not come down to being pushed through the city of Palm Desert It is truly not my nature to react this negatively, But I feel that I have to do everything necessary to preserve my way of life. Now the only question is can the city of Palm Desert see that this rezoning should not be allowed to happen. Sincerly r d John Grey 76963 New York Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-772-6284 8Z :Z bid Z I ),V171tOZ V) '183S a0 l►, LIB i3133O Si 3-10 Q3_Yl...,.. May 4, 2004 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert California 92260 Re: Palm Desert Country Club Rezoning. My husband and I are homeowners in this Country Club. Actually we are one of the houses affected by the zone changes. We live on the 7th Tee of the golf course, 77285 Indiana Avenue, and have beautiful views. As this project has progressed the Development Company has worked with us so that a compromise could be worked out so that we would not loose our views. The golf course is definitely in a sad state and could use a major overhaul. We are not golfers but realize that this is needed as we live on the course and enjoy the beauty of it when kept up. We support this project fully as it is now being presented. Sincerely, Rick and Tish Slavens Palm Desert City Council: 1.3 obert 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. PalmDesert, CA 92260-2578 RE: May 13, 2004 Public Hearing Objection to Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Proposed Zoning Change Case Nosy. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I urge you to vote "No" on the above change of zoning, tentative track map, and development agreement for the PDCC Development LLC project. Please see the attached letter to the Planning Commission dated March 13, 2004, that serves as a background to this letter. The following information relates to the recent, 2004 appellant court decision in Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District, 116 Cal. App. 4th 396. There are substantial visual aesthetic impacts involved in this project. These visual impacts have been minimally portrayed to the residents of the Palm Desert Country Club so that most homeowners and residents do not readily understand the severely degraded streetside view, negative impact of the destruction of open space and increased traffic impacts on residential streets. These visual impacts have not been properly documented by the developer. The result is that you, the decision makers, the Palm Desert County Club residents and the public cannot visualize what the true effect of this project will be. The visual impacts are not limited to the destruction of private views. Significant public views will be obstructed and most residents do not understand this degradation. Appropriate photo -simulations, story poles, viewshed studies, balloon flights, sight line analysis, etc. have not been done to document where and to what extent this project will obstruct open space views and the general beauty of our area. This important and detailed visual documentation has not been done because it would generate expanding, negative public comment. At the Planning Commission meeting, the developers had all of those favorable to the project wear green tee-shirts that the developers provided to those in attendance. The majority of these "green shirts" were residents who live on the golf course. The upgrades to the private, golf course views of these homeowners and residents would be provided free, at the expense of public views, the apartment dwellers on California and the homes surrounding the driving range. It is dishonest for private homeowners to "take" substantial benefits in this manner which harms the public. The actual traffic impacts have not been adequately evaluated and communicated to those who will be affected. There was a fear implied by the developers at the beginning of the hearing to the Commissioners, that the City of Palm Desert would be responsible for this golf course if this private project did not go through. This assertion is completely untrue. In fact, the beneficiaries of any golf course upgrades must bear the costs in proportion to the benefits received. This is clearly not being done with this project. The homeowners and residents of the homes on the golf course are laying the burden on others, namely other private home owners, apartments dwellers and the public in general. The City of Palm Desert is in a rush to meet a self imposed deadline to build thousands of homes in the next 10 years. This worthy goal should not degrade the existing community's public views. It is unprincipled and illegal to move forward on this project for the reasons stated in this letter and in our previous March 13, 2004 letter. Good character and ethical behavior by our citizens and elected officials is critical to create a positive and healthy environment for all! This project is diminishing the public views in our neighborhood that are valued by residents and non-residents alike. Changing the welcoming, open ambience of the Palm Desert County Club into a crowded, urban setting from the public viewshed is reprehensible. Please vote "NO" on this project. Thank you. Sincerely, 6-&114)44491 Richard and Lola Green 42025 Tennessee Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Email: Iola.green@earthlink.net 2 March 13, 2004 Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Commissioner Jim Lopez, Commissioner Dave Tschopp, Commissioner c/o City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: Objection to Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Proposed Zoning Change Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, Please vote "NO" on the proposal by the PDCC Development LLC request for change of zoning from open space to residential and for a development agreement for the following reasons. 1. Illegality of zoning change: In 1961, the PDCC application went before Riverside County for approval. The plan was approved only by dedicating, in perpetuity, the open spaces on the golf course and driving range. This was granted so that the homeowners whose homes are adjacent to the golf areas would be assured forever that the value of their homes, which largely rests on the view of the golf course and driving range, would remain intact. It is not only unethical to remove entitlements from the PDCC homeowners, it is illegal. 2. Traffic: The zoning change allows 54 houses to be built on the driving range, which will direct traffic onto California and Tennessee Avenues. Tennessee will receive one-half of this traffic, which equates to an additional 270 traffic trips per day - an increase of 31 %! 1 Tennessee Ave. cannot absorb this large amount of traffic without significant, negative impacts to the residents of Tennessee Ave. Tennessee Ave. has no sidewalks and was never intended to accommodate more traffic than that of the immediate residents on the street. (Unlike Kansas Ave. that directs traffic to Hovley, which has sidewalks on both sides.) Tennessee Ave. is an attractive area where residents walk at all hours in the moderate weather, and at night and early morning in the summer. The additional 270 traffic trips/day will be competing for road space with exercise walkers/hikers, bicyclists, children, pets, occasional wheelchairs, both motorized and the traditional type, garbage cans/garbage trucks, and parked vehicles of residents and visitors 1 870 current traffic trips/day, plus 270 traffic trips/day equal 1,140 traffic trips, an increase of 31%. Page 1 of 2 The entrance and exit points for the 54 houses is at the point where the road makes a "U" curve at the top of the hill, so the vehicles' line of sight is severely limited. Additionally, the vehicle drivers of these 270 daily traffic trips will have a tendency to speed up on Tennessee because they are headed down hill and are not driving on their own street, where they live and know the neighbors. 3. Quiet Enjoyment: Purchasing and renting a home gives the occupant the legal right to the "quiet enjoyment" of their residence. The 31 % increase in traffic will diminish the Tennessee Ave. homeowners/renters' rights that they purchased in good faith, by increasing traffic noise and decreasing the safe use of Tennessee Ave. 4. Destroying aesthetics: By crowding houses into most of the smaller green, golf course entrances, the beauty of the PDCC will be severely decreased from the street side view. The value of the open space in PDCC as currently designed, is inestimable. Please do not destroy the ambience of our neighborhood of 1,800 homes to satisfy the monetary desires of a very few individuals. 5. Limited Benefit of Golf Game Improvements: Any golf game improvements will only benefit a small minority of the PDCC residents. Out of the 1,800 homes in the PDCC, only 200, or 11%, are members of the PDCC golf course.' Any limited, improvements will affect one sport, and only those who can afford the high cost of green fees and equipment. This sets up an exclusivity where a very few, privileged individuals receive some benefits, while the majority are burdened with the negative impacts. Therefore, the limited, golf game improvements do not mitigate for the negative impacts for the majority of residents. 6. Violation of Environmental Justice: The U.S. EPA requires that the practice of environmental justice be followed. Environmental justice is fair treatment to all when development occurs, so that no group of people bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from commercial projects or governmental decisions. This project violates the environmental justice initiative as described in # 5 above. Please do not destroy the good quality of life that we enjoy in PDCC. Vote "NO" on March 16 to preserve our safety, open space, and quiet enjoyment. Thank you for your consideration and common sense. geicat(2> „9144. Richard and Lola Green 42025 Tennessee Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Email: lola.green@earthlink.net ' Note that even the PDCC homeowners association represents only 50% of the PDCC homeowners. Therefore, one-half of the PDCC residents do not have voting rights at the PDCC Association. Page 2 of 2 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. lames S. Ellis 43340 Illinois Ave APN 637-211-018 PALM DESERT CA. 92211 Riverside May 10, 2004 Palm Desert City Council City of Palm Desert 73-501 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Case No's C/Z 04-01, TT31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Council Members, I voted NO on the proposed zoning R-1,9000 for 41 lots around the golf course perimeter, and a change of zone for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range. In the 1984-1985 proposed zone change to the open spaces, the Riverside Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County, turned down the request for approval of the zone change for the open spaces, Stating their could be many Law Suites against the county if these open spaces were re -opened, as those open spaces were zoned in perpetuity from the beginning of the development of Palm City. The Palm Desert City Council should NOT consider a change in the open spaces as proposed for the same reasons as the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County elected not to change the zoning. I HOPE you as the Council Members of the City of Palm Desert do the same. Sincerely, James S. Ellis Resident at this address for 40 Years 91 C Wd Z I A VW hOOZ a3 '1Ul3S30 dlad 301330 S, ci3-lo A LIO 03Ai3 '