HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 06-141 HPD/PP 04-21 Amnd 1 - Hagadone Family TrustCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a Hillside Development Plan/Precise
Plan to expand the approved graded area from 38,000 square feet
to 61,110 square feet for a residence located at 706 Summit Cove
in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn Golf Course.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Associate Planner
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
APPLICANT: Hagadone Family Trust
P.O. Box 6200
Coeur D' Alene, ID 83816-1937
CASE NOS: HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
DATE: October 26, 2006
CONTENTS: Recommendation
Executive Summary
Discussion
Draft Resolution Nc06-141for HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 19, 2006
Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 19, 2006
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 3, 2006
Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 3, 2006
City Council Minutes, dated September 23, 2004
Plans and project Exhibits
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No 06-141approving Hillside Development
Plan/Precise Plan 04-21 Amendment #1, subject to conditions designed to address
the visual impacts of the original approval.
Executive Summary:
The request to expand the graded pad area from 38,000 to 61,110 square feet will (1)
correct deficiencies in the original grading and (2) provide for expansion of landscaping
area, pool area and a new sportscourt. Except for the pool that has been built, the
proposed grading improvements including the sports court will not be visible from public
view. Based on public testimony at the Planning Commission meetings, many of the
Staff Report
HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Page 2 of 7
October 26, 2006
expectations of the original approval have not been met. Since the applicant is requesting
an amendment to the original plan, reasonable conditions of approval may be added which
address unforeseen visual impacts of the project.
On September 19, 2006, the proposed expansion was presented to the Planning
Commission. There was considerable testimony from Ironwood residents objecting to
many aspects of the existing building and the proposed expansion. Staff recommended
denial, but was directed to prepare a resolution of approval based on the conclusion
that the expanded area would not result in any negative visual impacts.
On October 3, 2006, the resolution of approval was presented along with a staff report with
proposed conditions of approval to mitigate the concerns from the public testimony. The
Planning Commission approved the resolution on a 2-1 vote (Commissioner Finerty
opposed, Commissioner Lopez abstained, Commission Tschopp absent), without any of the
proposed staff conditions.
The Council may choose to add the conditions of approval to address issues outlined in the
staff report to help blend the residence into the natural terrain. With appropriate conditions,
staff is recommending approval of the request.
I. BACKGROUND:
A. Section 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District (HPR):
The intent and purpose of Section 25.15 is to encourage minimal grading
in the hillside area as it relates to natural contours, encourage
architectural and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain and
to protect undisturbed viewsheds and natural landmark features including
vistas and natural skylines.
The development standards for the hillside planned residential district are:
• Density: One (1) unit per five (5) acres.
• Grading: Building Pad Area -maximum of 10,000 square feet.
Access Road/Driveway-maximum of 3,000 square feet.
• Maximum Dwelling Size: Total dwelling unit with garage and
accessory building shall not exceed 4,000 square feet.
• Exceptions: Standards of Section 25.15.030 A, B, and C may be
modified by the precise plan of design, taking into consideration
any and all circumstances, including, but not limited to, viewshed,
topography, color, texture, and profile of any structure that the
Planning Commission or City Council may approve.
Staff Report
HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Page 3 of 7
October 26, 2006
B. GPA 04-02 / C/Z 04-041 HDP/PP 04-21:
On September 23, 2004, the City Council approved a general plan
amendment and change of zone associated with a hillside development
plan/precise plan for a 32,016 square foot residence with a 38,000-pad
located in the hills of Canyons at Bighorns. The precise grading plan
prepared by Feiro Engineering was approved by Public Works on January
20, 2005 and the building permits were issued on March 9, 2005.
In August of 2005, the contractor submitted pool plans to the Department
of Community Development/Planning that did not match the original site
plan. When the plans were reviewed it was believed that the pool was
within the original approved graded area and that there would be no
negative visual impacts. The pool plans were approved and submitted to
the Department of Public Works for approval. Public Works determined
that the pool was outside of the approved grading plan and informed the
contractor that the pool plans would not be approved until a revised
grading plan was submitted. RCE Consultants Inc. submitted a revised
grading plan on September 23, 2005, and the pool permit was issued
before the revised grading plan was reviewed. The pool was built and is
complete.
During the review of the revised grading plan it was determined that in
addition to the pool being outside the approved area there was grading for
a sports court and additional landscaping. It was determined that the
revised grading plan was not in substantial conformance with the original
approval and required Planning Commission and City Council approval.
On July 1, 2006, RCE Consultants, Inc. submitted the application
requesting an amendment to the original approval to increase the graded
pad area to 61,110 square feet. During the review of the application, it was
discovered that the additional pad area had been rough graded without
City approval. In addition, it was learned that the original approved grading
plan prepared by Feiro incorrectly identified 38,000 square feet as the total
disturbed area while it scaled out to 44,870 square feet. The total
disturbed area described in the previous staff report and presented at the
public hearings was 38,000 square feet.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the original hillside development
plan/precise plan to grade an additional 16,240 square feet to provide for the
pool, sports court, expanded water feature and landscaping with planter areas
Staff Report
HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Page 4 of 7
October 26, 2006
beyond the original grading plan. The pool area is 3,071 beyond the approved
grading plan. The sports court is approximately 1,500 square feet and the
remaining 11,849 square feet will be used for a grass area, a pond with streams
that connect to the water features through the residence and planters with annual
flowers.
The expansion area is north and east of the main residence compound. The
proposed sports court is east of the residence behind an existing rock
outcropping.
The applicant has submitted a landscaping lighting plan for walkways and planter
beds. There is no lighting proposed for the sports court. Any disturbed area
beyond the approval sought will be renaturalized to blend into the hillside.
III. DISCUSSION:
The approval of the original plan was based on information and representations
provided by the applicant which indicated that the home's unique design would
blend with the natural terrain. Based on the public testimony at the Planning
Commission, many of those expectations have not been met. Since the applicant
is requesting a discretionary amendment to the original plan and an exception to
the development standards of the Hillside Planned Residential District,
reasonable conditions of approval may be added to address unforeseen
problems identified in the original plan, including:
A. Visibility, shape, color and texture of the office.
B. Expansion of the infinity edge of the pool creating an extended straight
horizontal line contrary to the irregular nature of the natural terrain of the
ridgeline.
C. Appearance of the pool pavilion roofline above the ridgeline.
D. Lighting of the house, pool, pavilion, office and landscaping which serves
to highlight these structures at night.
In the second staff report submitted to the Planning Commission along with the
resolution recommending approval, conditions were suggested to address these
issues (see Planning Commission report dated October 3, 2006). Although the
Planning Commission did not include these conditions in their action, the
applicant has agreed in concept to address many of the concerns.
Staff Report
HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Page 5 of 7
October 26, 2006
A. Office shape, color and texture. Although the applicant has already spent
considerable effort to improve the original design of the office rockwork,
the results have served more to draw attention rather than to camouflage
the building. He has agreed to submit plans to further enhance the faux
rockwork to better match the shape, color and texture of the adjacent
ridge. These plans could be reviewed by staff and the Landscape
Beautification Committee with decisions appealable to the Council.
B. Pool. The infinity edge of the pool has expanded from 43 feet in the
original plan to 180 feet. The straight horizontal edges stand out in
comparison to the irregular rounded edges of the natural terrain. There is
also some concern that when lit, the infinity edge will show up at night as a
glowing blue line.
The applicant has agreed to install intermittent rock outcroppings below
the edge to break up the horizontal line. The plans would be subject to a
similar review and approval process as the office mitigation.
C. Roof structures visible from the north. The sweeping curved rooflines are
visible above the ridgelines from the north. While screening of structures is
impractical, the use of copper fascia and natural wood ceilings lessen their
visual impact.
D. Lighting. The Hillside Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting shall be
limited to that which is absolutely necessary for safety, security and shall
be in compliance with Chapter 24.16, Section 24.16.060 of the Lighting
Ordinance which prohibits any light over 4050 lumens and requires down
shining full cutoff fixtures.
The original lighting plan includes several lights in violation of these
standards. The applicant has agreed to submit a revised lighting plan
eliminating all nonconforming exterior lighting visible from the west, north
and east. Certain up -shining fixtures located on the west facing decks, but
under the roof overhang, are already installed and can be evaluated once
they are turned on. If the Council finds them to be objectionable, they will
be turned down or off.
The proposed landscape lighting behind the house meets ordinance
criteria.
The remaining lighting issues involve the visible underside of the pool
pavilion roof structures and the appearance of the office windows when
the interior lights are on.
Staff Report
HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Page 6 of 7
October 26, 2006
Pavilion Roof. Since the pavilion roofs curve upward, any light fixtures
installed in the ceiling may be visible from below. The applicant has
agreed to significantly reduce the number of ceiling lights, but their
ultimate impact cannot be evaluated until they can be observed. Their
impact may be accentuated when contrasted to the black background of
the adjacent night sky.
The same issue effects the impact of the internal illumination of the office
windows. While the interior lighting has been substantially reduced from
the original plan, it is difficult to predict how the 270° band of window will
appear in contrast to the darkness of the surrounding hillside and the night
sky. The combination of light fixture design, dark interior surfaces and the
tinted glass may mitigate the concern. Interior lighting is not regulated by
the Lighting Ordinance. On the other hand, we did not anticipate a lit
structure on a prominent ridge top. A final determination as to the
magnitude of the problem and appropriate solution will have to wait until
lights are turned on.
IV. CONCLUSION:
While the specific hillside development standard exception application (the sports
court) will not result in significant negative impacts, several aspects of the original
plan now appear to be in conflict with the spirit and in some cases the letter of
the Hillside Ordinance. In general, the applicant has been very responsive in
attempting to address these issues. Given the unique nature and timing problems
associated with applying new conditions to a project which has been substantially
completed, the process for reviewing, approving and enforcing new mitigations
will require unique solutions. The city attorney and the applicant's attorney are
working on an acceptable process which will allow for reasonable and effective
mitigation consistent with the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance.
The specific mechanism for implementing these mitigations will be presented at
the hearing.
Staff Report
HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Page 7of7
October 26, 2006
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has
determined that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class
32, Categorical Exemption, and no further review is necessary.
Submitted By: Department Head:
Tony Bagato Phil Drell
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval: Approval:
Homer Croy Carlos O ga
ACM for Development Services City Manager
::ITY COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED V1 * DENIED
RE C IVED OTHER oq,!�ioOea
S-,A10. //o-i
MEETIN DATE - /('
AYES: ��
NOES: AhW
ABSENT: /l�r?
ABSTAIN:rja "'--'
VERIFIED BY: /4K%
Original on File %dth City Clerk's Office
* Adopted Res. No. 06-141, subject to: 1) Applicant working with a City Council Sub-
committee consisting of Mayor Pro Ten Kelly and councilman Spiegel to recommend
measures that will mitigate the identified issues to the satisfaction of the City,
with the Applicant agreeing to remove the Sport Court included in said approval if
successful resolution is not achieved; 2) said conditions to be memorialized in a
legally binding agreement; 3) City to review noticing requirements and its Hillside
Ordinance. 3-1 (Benson NO)
RESOLUTION NO. 06-141
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRECISE PLAN TO EXPAND THE APPROVED
GRADED AREA FROM 38,000 SQUARE FEET TO 61,110 SQUARE FEET
FOR A RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 706 SUMMIT COVE IN THE FOOTHILLS
OF THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN GOLF COURSE.
CASE NO: HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT # 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th
day of October 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2421 has
recommended approval of Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the a mitigated negative declaration was previously adopted
and the improvements are within the mitigated area and no further review is necessary,
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 approving the said request:
1. That the proposed amendment to expand the graded area to allow certain
improvements to the site are located between the main residence and an
existing rock outcropping and will not be visible from adjacent properties,
which will not negatively impact the adjacent properties.
2. That the proposed improvements will comply with City's Zoning Ordinance
and will not be detrimental 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 constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve Hillside Development Plan/Precise Plan 04-21
Amendment #1, subject to conditions attached.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-141
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 26th day of October 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-141
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
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. The applicant shall re -naturalize any and all disturbed hillside area of the project
with native landscaping and materials to blend the project into the natural terrain.
3. Landscape and water features lighting shall be designed and located in such a
manner that does not negatively impact the surrounding area.
3
CITY Of Pfll�i DESERI
I 7j-510 FRF.D WARING DRIVE
iPALM DESF.Rl, CALIFORNIA 92260-25]8
TEL: �60 ;�6—o6�i
Fnx:76o ;qi-7og8
. info@pilm-desen.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a request by HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST for an amendment to
a hillside development plan/precise plan to expand the approved graded area from
38,000 square feet to 61,110 square feet. The property is located at 706 Summit Cove
in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn Golf Course.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, Califomia, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and
be heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice
shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed
project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at 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 may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, ar in wsitten cosrespondence delivesed to the City Council at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
October 16, 2006 City of Palm Desert, California
�
� CfTY OF PALM DESERT �
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 19, 2006
CASE NO: HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a Hillside Development PlanlPrecise
Plan the graded pad area for a residence located at 706 Summit
Cove in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn Golf Course.
APPLICANT: Hagadone Family Trust
P.O. Box 6200
Coeur D' Alene, ID 83816-1937
BACKGROUND:
A. Section 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District (HPR):
The intent and purpose of Section 25.15 is to encourage minimal grading
in the hillside area as it relates to natural contours, encourage
architectural and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain and
to protect undisturbed viewsheds and natural landmark features including
vistas and natural skylines.
The development standards for the hillside planned residential district are:
• Density: One (1) unit per five (5) acres.
• Grading: Building Pad Area-maximum of 10,000 square feet.
Access Road/Driveway-maximum of 3,000 square feet.
• Maximum Dwelling Size: Total dwelling unit with garage and
accessory building shall not exceed 4,000 square feet.
• Exceptions: Standards of Section 25.15.030 A, B, and C may be
modified by the precise plan of design, taking into consideration
any and all circumstances, including, but not limited to, viewshed,
topography, color, texture, and profile of any structure that the
Planning Commission or City Council may approve.
B. GPA 04-02 / C/Z 04-04 / HDP/PP 04-21:
On September 23, 2004, the City Council approved a general plan
amendment and change of zone associated with a hillside development
plan/precise plan for a 32,016 square foot residence with a 38,000-pad
located in the hills of Canyons at Bighoms. The precise grading plan
{" �
STAFF REPORT
HDP/PP 04-21 AMENOMENT #1
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
�
prepared by Feiro Engineering was approved by Public Worics on January
20, 2005 and the building permits were issued on March 9, 2005.
In August of 2005, the contractor submitted pool plans to the Department
of Community Development/Planning that did not match the original site
plan. When the plans were reviewed it was believed that the pool was
within the original approved graded area and that there would be no
negative visual impacts. The pool plans were approved and submitted to
the Department of Public Works for approval. Public Works determined
that the pool was outside of the approved grading plan and informed the
contractor that the pool plans would not be approved until a revised
grading plan was submitted. RCE Consultants Inc. submitted a revised
grading plan on September 23, 2005, and the pool permit was issued
before the revised grading plan was reviewed. The pool was built and is
complete.
During the review of the revised grading plan it was determined that in
addition to the pool being outside the approved area there was grading for
a sports court and additional landscaping. It was determined that the
revised grading plan was not in substantial conformance with the original
approval and required Planning Commission and City Council approval.
On July 1, 2006, RCE Consultants, Inc. submitted the application
requesting an amendment to the original approval to increase the graded
pad area to 61,110 square feet. During the review of the application, it
was discovered that the additional pad area had been rough graded
without City approval. In addition, we learned that the original approved
grading plan prepared by Feiro incorrectly identified 38,000 square feet as
the total disturbed area scaled out to 44,870 square feet. The total
disturbed area described in the previous staff report and presented at the
public hearings was 38,000 square feet.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the original hillside development
plan/precise pian to grade an additional 16,240 square feet to provide for the pool,
sports court, expanded water feature and landscaping with planter areas beyond
the original grading plan. The pool area is 3,071 beyond the approved grading
plan. The sports court is approximately 1,500 square feet and the remaining
11,849 square feet will be used for a grass area, a pond with streams that connect
to the water features through the residence and planters with annuals.
The expansion area is north and west of the main residence compound. The
proposed sports court is west of the residence behind an existing rock outcropping.
2
STAFF REPORT (�
HDPIPP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
�
�
The applicant has submitted a landscaping lighting plan for walkways and
decorative lighting, which wil! be will reviewed by staff. There is no lighting
proposed with the sports court. Any disturbed area beyond the approval sought will
be renaturalized to blend into the hillside.
ANALYSIS:
The following table compares the development standards with HPR standards,
the approved plan and the proposed amendment.
� STANDARD I HPR l APPROVED PLAN � PROPOSED PLAN �
Density
Building Pad Area
Max Dwelling Size
10,000 sq ft
4,000 sq ft
38,000 / *44,870
32,016 sq ft
61,110
32,016
*The original staff report and grading plan cover sheef indicates 38,000 square
feet, but the actual grading plan measures 44,870 square feet.
Except for the pool that has been built, the proposed grading improvements
including the sports court are located between the main residential compound
and an existing rock outcropping that will screen proposed improvements from
the public and from adjacent lots within the Canyons of Bighorn. The pool
located north of the residential compound is built along a ridgeline, which is
visible to the north (Ironwood).
Although, adjacent properties owners will not see the proposed improvements
beyond the pool, staff does not support the proposed amendment for the
following reasons.
The intent and purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential development
standards is to encourage minimal grading in the hillside to preserve natural
terrains. The original approval significantly exceeds the parameters contained in
the HPR zone and allowing additional grading, which by itself exceeds the
maximum pad area in the zone, does not meet the intent and purpose of the
zone. In addition, HPR standards were developed to allow a property owner to
grade only that area necessary to accommodate a house with limited
landscaping and small pools. The standards did not anticipate the possibility of
allowing a property owner to build a spo►ts court. Allowing 61,110 square feet to
be graded for this project will make it difficult for us to evaluate future hillside
homes.
3
�
STAFF REPORT
HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
IV.
�
VI.
C
Given the confusion of the grading plan errors, staff is recommending an as-built
grading plan be submitted including the new pool bringing the total graded area
to 47,941 square feet. The expanded area for the sports court and landscaping
that has been rough graded will need to be renaturalized before the project is
complete and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is being recommended for denial, therefore are no environmental
impacts. If the project is approved a Negative Declaration of environmental impact
will to be adopted for the purposes of CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission deny HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1 based on the
reasons outlined in the analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Comments from other agencies
D. Plans and Exhibits
Prepared by:
Tony Bagato
Assistant Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
Philip Drell Homer Croy
Director of Community Development ACM of Community Development
0
(
STAFF REPORT
HDPIPP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
IV.
V
�
Given the confusion of the grading pfan errors, staff is recommending an as-built
grading ptan be submitted including the new pool bringing the total graded area
to 47,941 square feet. The expanded area for the sports court and landscaping
that has been rough graded will need to be renaturalized before the project is
complete and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is being recommended for denial, therefore are no environmental
impacts. ff the project is approved a Negative Declaration of environmental impact
will to be adopted for the purposes of CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission deny HDPIPP 04-21 Amendment #1 based on the
reasons outlined in the analysis.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal Notice
B. Comments from other agencies
C. Plans and Exhibits
Prepared by:
C.� ---�
"�
Tony B�gat ��
Assistant Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
�
P ilip Drell
Director of Community Development
/
;`
;
.
, �
Homer Cr y
ACM of Co m nity Development
4
(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C�MMISStON OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO AN
APPROVED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRECISE PLAN HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PLAIWPRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
GRADING FOR A RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 706 SUMMIT COVE IN THE
FOOTHILLS OF THE CANYONS AT BiGHORN GOLF COURSE.
CASE NO: HDP/PP 0421 AMENDMENT # 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pa1m Desert, California, did
on the 19�' day of September 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST for approval of grading an additional 13,169
square feet; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality AcY',
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the project is being denied and hence is not a project, 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 denying the said
request:
That the Hillside Planned Residential standards were established to limit
grading in the hillside area. The original approval included an exception that
increased the permitted graded area above the original approved map. This
current proposed grading expansion by itself exceeds the hillside planned
residential grading limit (10,000 square feet) and would bring cumulative total
graded area to 1.4 acres.
2. That the Hillside Planned Residential standards were established to allow a
property owner to grade only that area necessary to accommodate a house
with limited landscaping and small pools. The standards did not anticipate the
possibility of allowing a property owner to build a sports court.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1.
2.
That the Planning Commission does hereby deny HDP/PP 04-21
Amendment #1.
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
i (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of September 2006, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
�
l�
�.
�
MINUTES
PAL�M nESERT P, , NI C ---,- ----- - —.- ---,_ ER. . ,�..
L,A�V,. f� � r , .M ,,.>e��N _ . . _ _ . _, SEPTEMB, �_ 19, 200F
and with living up to the structure of the wails and sights to be maintained.
With that, he was also in favor of the project.
Commissioner Campbell also concurred. She thought the architect did a
wonderful job. The encroachment she saw in this area was Lot 6 to have a
terrace in the middle so that they wouldn't be encroaching on the neighbors.
As Architect Hanson stated, they really didn't ailow anything like that and she
was also in favor.
Vice Chairperson Finerty appreciated the cooperation of the neighbors being
willing to work with Bighom and the Bighom architect being amenable to the
neighbors' concems. They do have standards for tennis court lights. It is an
approved use and those standards would be adhered to. She thought with
notice to the residents when the project goes to ARC, they could Iook at the
house, they could look at the shrubbery, Iook at the landscape plan and
make their determination. Also taking into consideration the integrity of the
wall, she thought the architect, Ms. Hanson, addressed the concerns of the
neighbors and concurred with her fellow Commissioners.
Action
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0
(Chairperson Lopez was absent).
{t was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2418, approving
Case No. PMW 05-12, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0
(Chairperson Lopez was absent).
�••� C. Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1 - HAGADONE FAMILY
TRUST, Applicant
Request for approvai of an amendment to a Hillside
Development Plan / Precise Plan hillside development
increasing the graded pad area for a residence located at 706
Summit Cove in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn Golf
Course.
Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that when the Commission arrived at the
meeting they received a packet of information which they had not had
adequate time to review and it was important that they be able to review all
11
�
MINUTES
PALIV� nFSFR.T PLANN�NC ,C,nMMI�SIAy ,. _ _._ , . _ . ., . _ .._ .�FPTEMBE�219;� �OOF,
information in order to make an informed decision. Therefore, she was
asking the Commission if they would want to take a 15-minute recess to
review this information. Commission concurred.
Action
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, calling for a 15-minute recess. Motion carried 4-0. The
Commission recessed at 6: 53 p.m.
AT T:1Z P.M., VICE CHAIRPERSON FiNERTY RECONVENED THE MEETtNG.
Vice Chairperson Finerty explained to the audience that the Planning
Commission receives their packets on Friday and when they walked into the
meeting they received additional correspondence to review. They needed to
either take a recess or ask for a cantinuance and since there were so many
in attendance, they opted for the recess. She thanked the audience for their
patience while they reviewed the additional information and asked for staff's
report.
Mr. Bagato addressed the Commission and reviewed the staff report, noting
that at this time there were no lights proposed for the sport court. And for the
reasons stated in the staff report, Mr. Bagato recommended denial of the
proposed expansion, but did recommend that given the confusion with the
pool and the error with the rough grading plan, that an "as-built" plan be
submitted totaling 47,941 sguare feet, so it would allow the pool to remain
and any grading that was miscalculated in the original plans. For the
additional area for the sports court, landscaping and water feature, staff was
recommending denial. He asked for any questions.
On the problems with the grading plan, Commissioner Tschopp asked i� staff
independently calcufated the square footage when they receive plans from
a developer. Mr. Bagato said that when they are identified on the cover
sheet, typically staff didn't. It was identified at 38,000 square feet and they
tn�st that the application and the applicant is submitting accurate information.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was correct that the pool was permitted.
Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp summarized that
what the Commission was requested to deal with now was the 16,240 square
foot property addition. Mr. Bagato said it was the 13,091 minus the pool,
because the poo! wasn't or� the original plan, so they were kind of approving
the pool, but minus it was 13,091 square feet. Commissioner Tschopp said
that was what they were dealing with tonight. Mr. Bagato said that was
12
r"
MINUTES
�l.M DE,SEeRT�P_LAI�NINr CnM�VllS��n�
C
.. ,_ ._ . _ _..,, . ,., ., . _ SE�TEMBER 19, 2At1R
correct. Commissioner Tschopp said the pool would remain and asked if
there were any plans or suggestions for screening the pool to the north. Mr.
Bagato said that was something that wouid have to be looked into. It wasn't
part of the application tonight.
There were no other questions for staff and Vice Chairperson Finerty �e�g�,
the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. JOHN BARLOW, Trustee for the Hagadone Family Trust, owners
of the Hagadone residence, 3403 Femandhill Road in Coeur D'Alene,
ldaho, stated that he was present to request approval of an
amendment to the hillside development plan and precise grading plan
for the previousfy approved residence at 706 Summit Cove. The
approval of the precise grading plan submitted by RCE Engineers was
sent in on July 1, 2006. It involved the addition of 13,169 square feet
as Mr. Bagato alluded to, to be used for landscaping and features
including a sport court and adjacent flower beds.
He stated that he would like to give a chronology of what occurred to
get them to this point. The rough grading plan that was prepared by
Feiro was sent into the City of Palm Desert on October 15. The
square footage was noted, as Mr. Bagato indicated, the accurate
square footage as measured was the amount he said as well. The
precise grading plan prepared by Feiro was approved by the City on
January 20. In early 2005 they retained RCE Engineers to act as their
civil engineer to help them with the discrepancies and the conditions
they had with their previous engineer. During that time when the pool
drawings were submitted, RCE, working with the City, received
direction. Due to these discrepancies, the City would like to have them
prepare an as-buift drawing condition of what was actually built and
they proceeded accordingly.
The pool permit drawings were approved by the City in October of
2005 and the pool as revised was constructed per the approved and
issued and amended pool permit at that time.
At the request of the City's Public Works Department after the
completion of the checking process, RCE submitted the final precise
grading plan on mylar on January of 2006 for signatures. When the
mylar was submitted to the Planning Department for signature, the
Planning Department raised the issues of concern. As a result of that,
in February of 2006 at the suggestion of Planning, a meeting was held
13
t
MINUTES
PA,I_M DESFRT PIrANNINC f:nl)AMIS�ION
�
SFPTEI�ABER 19,� 20(lfi
,. . _. ,. , , , . . • ,
at the City offices with representatives of Public Works, Building and
Planning. The direction from that meeting was to prepare the
documentation, present it to the Pfanning Commission tonight, as well
as the request for them to continue to work with the representatives
of Ironwood on the look of the office. Even though the issue of the
office was not before them tonight, he thought it was important to go
over what they have done in that regard.
Prior to this time, they heard from folks at Ironwood via their
President, Mr. Ron Dahl, and their concem was focused on the office
and the form of the artificial rock placed on top of and around the new
structure. A number of representatives from Ironwood, himself and
representatives from Bighorn met to review and discuss their
concems. In fact, they met several times. They were always proactive
and wanted to be good listeners. Part of the issue was they
(themselves) weren't happy with the look of it as well. These meetings
took place in November of 2005 which was well before the meeting
that was held with the City by some three months. So they had
already started that process and were involved with trying to make
some corrections.
These meetings were monitored by City Planning as they were
directed by Planning to do the following: Work on the o�ce to get the
shape of the rock more natural looking, which they concurred needed
to be done; Prepare photos of the then existing condition, have them
computer generated to show corrections that they would propose and
get approval prior to doing any corrections. And then also submit a
revised precise grading plan for the additional site disturbance area
which was the technical and objective purpose of their meeting
tonight. This they did.
He showed several photos that he said were submitted at that time to
the representatives of lronwood. They included actual photos taken
from various locations, views of the proposed improvements they felt
they could do to make the rock more natural, and actual photos taken
last week. Another photo was taken from the direction north by
northwest, the next a similar view. They could see from the original
the shape of the rock was very vertical and unnatural, and an actual
photo that looked considerably better than the proposed photo. One
photo was from Bighorn as they were not happy with it as well.
Another view was similar from the Ironwood direction.
14
MINUTES
PALI4� DFSF�T Pt,�4I�N)N(� rOM,I�A,I;��ln�l, ,. _.. ...-- -- -.. SE�TEIVJBER 19;, 2(106
He noted that aif this was done at their expense. They spent an
additional $350,0�0 with this additional rock. They wanted to be good
neighbors. There are portions of the office that now don't have a view
that it used to have to the northeast. At the same time they completed
the revised grading plan and submitted it to the City in July.
Mr. Barlow stated that the sport court is 1,500 square feet, 30 x 50,
the rest was flowers, sidewalk and water features. As shown on the
contours of the map, all of the grades were extensively higher than
this location, so there was no view from any direction other than the
home itself that would visualize this area.
During this process, as pointed out and as requested by Planning,
they had been asked to continually communicate with lronwood and
in January they were asked to do so via their attorney. They have
correspondence that indicated their position such as, at this time,
Ironwood's Homeowner Association's concem with the high visibility
of the separate office structure. Further that communication indicates
the Ironwood Homeowners Association does not take issue with any
other features of the project.
There were some comments from audience members. Vice Chairperson
Finerty stated that they needed order and the applicant has the opportunity
to make his case and then the Planning Commission would listen to each of
them, so they needed to please show respect to all parties.
Mr. Barlow stated that they continued from March and on into June.
ln March they had correspondence back and forth indicating the sport
court and the other landscaped area. They had every reason to
believe that they were familiar with what they were doing. They had
several meetings with the Ironwood people onsite showing them the
area and the fact that it did not have a visual impact and again, it
always focused back on the office. They were very proud that what
they said they would do they did. They got their blessing before they
did it and they thought it looked substantially better than it did at that
time.
Mr. Barlow said they agree wholeheartedly with the Planning staff that
the way to handle the finalization is an as-built drawing where the
improvements are. They were here to say in effect that the drawing
in front of the Planning Commission that was part of the application
is an as-built because it is a complete detailed plan that they hoped
15
�
MINUTES
PALM DFS�RT PL,14NNINC COMMISSInN
, _ _ ., _S,E�TEMBER 1,�;� „200,fi,
to build to that does in fact have every item that has been discussed.
So technically the as-buiit has already been completed.
The next drawing he said was one also shown by Mr. Bagato
indicating the area in question tonight at 13,169 square feet. He
showed a landscaped plan for the benefit of those interested in the
use, that showed the types of materials to be used. The flower beds
were afl designed by designer Bill Shinkle, a world-renowned flower
botanist who did all the work at the Bellaggio and at the Wynn
Resorts. There were no trees. One of the Ironwood residents they met
with in January who lives immediately below the office said the only
concern he had was that he didn't want to see any trees. So there
was a lot of discussion that took place and a lot of peopie in Ironwood,
and obviously they couldn't meet with all of them, but they started with
their President and representatives. Whenever they wanted to meet,
they were happy to do so.
Finally, Mr. Barlow wanted to point out that in spite of the request, a
part of the original approval from the City included the deeding to the
City in the form of a conservation easement of 4.13 acres. That would
remain exactly the same. Referring to the map, he showed the area
of improvement and the conservation easement area, which remained
exactly the same. So they forma{ly and respectfully requested
approval of this amendment to revise the site disturbance plan and
the approval plan for the additional 13,169 feet.
Commissioner Tschopp said that Mr. Bagato pointed out that the poof was
not part of this hearing, but Commissioner Tschopp was interested to hear
the plans what plans they had to screen the pool to the north, if there were
any. When he looked at it from below, there was a lot of plastic up there, so
he questioned if it was a misleading view at this point in time.
Mr. Barlow said yes, the pool itself has the same edge detail as the
pool as it was originally approved. It has an infinity edge and about 30
inches of exposed structure on the north side, the Ironwood side. That
edge was all done in a bevel creek material that will match the color
of the hillside. Up to and below that they already placed natural rock
and recolored the rock to put it back into its natural state. Here in the
desert, it gets very warm and the pool on the interior is all tiled and
they were required not to allow the temperature to exceed 90
degrees. So to work through the summer, they built a temporary
structure over the pool and have large air-conditioning equipment
16
(
MfNUTES
PALM DE,SERT PL�ANNINC CnMMI. . I N , PTEMBER 19. 200R
_ � , o . ��� � . .. _ _,. _.. __. _.. .. _.. SE __. _ _ , ---._.,..... .
there to cool that area so they could install the tile. W hat they see
now is a temporary structure that is within a week or so of being
removed. It would be gone forever. The amount of area that wouid be
eventually seen is the small area where the infinity edge comes over
and the rest blends into the natural rock.
Commissioner Tanner asked when the Feiro group did their original plan, if
they were held accountable for the additional 6,000 feet that really was
encroached on. If they went through the process and granted 38,000 square
feet of grading and it actually ended up being 44,000, he asked if there was
accountability on their part. They oouldn't to go back and get that back now.
Mr. Barlow stated that the drawing was correct, as indicated by the
model. ft had the appropriate amount of area. For some reason, and
they didn't know about it until a week ago when Mr. Bagato and staff
found out, that it had the wrong square footage number on the plan.
That was one of the reasons they were removed two years ago. But
it was because they had other errors where the building didn't fit the
site exactly right and it had to be nestled in. But the plan they
approved was accurate and the same. The label of the square
footage was incorrect. The part of the approval, from his
understanding two years ago, was for the plan the Commission saw
in front of them and that was correct.
There were no other questions. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for any
testimony in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Vice
Chairperson Finerty asked for testimony in OPPOSITION. Before starting,
Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that she understood that there was a lot of
emotion and asked speakers to limit their comments to five minutes and
please not repeat comments that have already been made and thanked
them.
MR. GUNNAR HAASE, 73-203 Ribbonwood Court in Palm Desert. He
stated that he looked at this project from the beginning almost like a
comedy of errors. One of the things in the meeting they had back in
December with certain people from the City was that there was going
to be mediation for the office. He could see the pool, but they weren't
supposed to be able to see any roof lines from the Ironwood property.
If they go out there now, what they see are roof lines from the
Hagadone residence.
17
MINUTES
PALM DES�R,T PLAIV,N�NC C(�MMlSSIAf�, . _. _ _,,._. . ...._, __ �E�TEMBE� 19,,.20(1R
He really felt that when going through this process there have been
a lot errors and omissions by people, both probably in the City and
from the Hagadone people. They talked about 38,000 square feet that
grows to 44,000 square feet and now they want 47,000 square feet
to be approved. They grade before they have approvals for that. They
put in pools larger than what was authorized. It seemed to be once
something is approved, once something is done, it gets approved.
What would they do if they had a homeowner that was only supposed
to build 20 feet high in the roof who built his house 30 feet high?
Would they then say they'll approve that because it is an exception
and he already has it built? IYs already in place? Why did they get
grade before they got approvals to grade? Why do they do things? In
other words, he assumed there was an inspector that went up there
and looked at the grading and would be able to then say this isn't
38,000 square feet, it's closer to 47,000 square feet.
They allowed them to destroy the ridge{ine that was pristine to
Ironwood. IYs gone. It can't be recaptured. They can't tear out the
pool, but they're approving a pool that was larger than what was
originally on the plans. That's what he was hearing. From his
standpoint he couldn't see the sports court, he couldn't see anything
else, but his feeling is enough is enough. The plan should only go to
what the Planning Commission approves or what was recommended,
47,000. They should take the land they have graded and put it back
into natural conditions, forget about a squash court and only allow
them to have the additional area for the pool that has been
completed. To him that was giving them something because if
somebody else had done this, maybe they would have them modify
the pool to make it smaller to fit within the grading plan. So he
appreciated what they've done for the office, but to him the City
aflowed them to destroy the ridgeline.
MR. JOHN GODFREY, 49-771 Canyon View Drive in Palm Desert,
stated that he is the President of Ironwood Country Club. In all due
respect to the statements made earlier, he has been the President for
the last eight months and he has had no communication at all from
any Hagadone representatives. Ironwood Country Club presently has
800 members. With their spouses that totals about 1,500 people. The
Board of Directors of Ironwood Country Club on behalf of their
members vigorously object to the petition by the Hagadone Family
Trust to expand the approved graded area of the project from the
approved 38,000 square feet to over 61,000 square feet. The
�f:7
{'
MINUTES
PALM, DF�SFRT PL.ANNING COMIV�ISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006
expansion is in conflict with the Hillside Development Ordinance. They
feel strongly that the City of Palm Desert should start enforcing the
Hillside Development Ordinance with more strength to protect their
hillsides from such intrusive developments.
Ironwood homeowners and club members have had their hillside
views seriously compromised by the development of the Hagadone
property. Denying the current request for expansion would prevent
further compromises to the hillside and their views. He thanked the
Commission for their consideration in this matter.
MR. LAURENCE SUTTER, 49-220 Quercus Lane in Ironwood, stated
that he is a full-time Ironwood resident, President of one of the
Homeowner Associations that has 89 homes very close to the
Hagadone property. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of
the Ironwood Master Association which represents 1,100
homeowners including the HOA's for central facilities. They were here
to also object to this extension.
He said they couldn't really talk about this extension without talking
about where they are today and he thought some of the frustration
from the people present is they feel they didn't have a forum. He just
learned about the project when they saw the crane one moming
around a year ago. He was part of the team of three or four people
who visited with John Barlow and Hagadone development people last
December. He said that John's description was correct. They were
very accommodating and listened to their concerns, which were
primarily the office and the pool. They were responsive and did make
efforts to minimize the impact on the hillside. They were also told, as
mentioned earlier by someone else, that they would not see any of
the roofs, but they would just see a fittle foot and half or two feet of
the pool and some version of the office.
They really appreciated the effort they made and they were
responsive, but if they looked at it today, it was still a major major
intrusion on the hillside. It was sure not what they expected.
He said he talked to Bill Ebert from The Reserve the other day and
Bill asked him to come by tonight with photographs and things. (Note:
The letter and photos referenced were submitted by Marie Mack later
in the meeting and are on file in the Department of Community
Development.) The President of the Reserve wanted to be present,
19
f�
MINUTES
PALM D�SERT LAN�INC,(;OMyIISSIO,N, ,_._.. .,._____ ,_ _,. SEPTEMEiFR, 1�;, 2�(16
but it was off season and he wasn't around and didn't have a chance
to cespond. He thanked the Planning Commission peopie who he
assumed were responsible for mailing notices on this petition to
individual homeowners in Ironwood. There was a big mystery last time
about notification and individual homeowners were never notified.
This time someone took it upon themselves to notify 200 of them and
they really appreciated it.
Mr. Sutter said he had four quick points. Serious errors have been
made with this proje�t before, one after another. They feel the City of
Palm Desert made a very serious error in approving this project and
the development standards should have been applied to be in
harmony with the stated intention and that didn't happen. He was
going to read his four points, but Mr. Bagato referred to some of them.
He would highlight one or two.
The intent and purpose says to encourage only minimal grading in the
hillside area and it talked about blending with the natural terrain and
retaining and protecting viewsheds and natural landmarks. In their
opinion, all of these provisions were greatly compromised.
They felt the expansion should be stopped. The ordinance talks about
10,000 square feet. If they were to okay this, it would expand it to
61,000 square feet which is a huge amount and they think it is grossly
excessive and unnecessary. They also felt that if they stretch these
development residential standards beyond thei� intention, that creates
an exception that will devour the rule and become a very bad
precedent for future projects.
Mr. Sutter said they request that they provide some protections.
Should the Planning Commission in their wisdom elect to approve
this, they have concerns about the sports court, the water features
and landscaping. Right now they don't appear to intrude on Ironwood
views, but if they add lighting to a sports court or to a landscaped
area, he didn't want to look up at the hill and see some unnatural
lighting up there. They were concemed actually as it stands that once
the compound is occupied, there will be lights in that office and that
will further intrude on their situation.
if they should decide to approve this, they requested a condition of
approval that such elements are forbidden.
20
(
M' LM DES�RT PL.ANNII�G COMMISSION _.. ... ._„ „. SEPTEMBER 19�,,20Q6,
PA .
They thought the Commission really needed to strengthen the
standards of compliance. This project already has had the benefit of
great indulgence from the City for what is an architecturally
challenging and unique project. They have an opportunity now to
prevent needless disturbance of the mountain terrain and set a
standard for stricter compliance now and in the future for hillside
development.
Therefore, the Ironwood MasterAssociation representing 1,100 home
owners in Ironwood respectfully requested that the Planning
Commission deny the application for amendment to the Hagadone
plan to expand the previously approved area.
MS. MARIE MACK, 74-399 Highway 111, Suite M in Palm Desert,
stated that she is the attorney retained by the Ironwood Master
Association to assist in interfacing with the project applicant
concerning this project. The Commission had her letter on her firm
letterhead conceming her points, so she wouldn't reiterate those. She
did want to talk a little about the interactions she has had with the
applicant concerning the project up until this point.
When the members of Ironwood realized what appeared to be the
scope of this project and how it would truly be impacting their
mountain viewsheds and vistas from the north, they became quite
alarmed and retained her to interface with them, particularly with
regard to the office. She put up a picture of how the office looks now
from The Reserve, the neighboring community. The Reserve also
asked her to speak up on their behalf tonight in opposition to the
project.
Nobody seemed to have a great picture showing quite, from
Ironwood, how prominent the office is. She showed the office now
with the rockwork that has been done. She commended the
Hagadone people for responding to their concerns. When this office
was first built, they called it the flying saucer. There was just a large
glass structure up there that was transparent and completely not
naturalized with the surrounding mountain and it was quite quite a mar
upon the natural scenery.
She met up there with some Ironwood representatives and they all
expressed that they would like to see some serious rockwork to blend
that in with the natural rock up there. If they had ever been up there,
21
�
MINUTES
PALM nFSFRT PLANNINC COMMI�SInN ,_ __„ ,SEPTEMBER,,19, 2�OR
it was completely pulverized up there. They have done a serious
amount of work to blend it with the mountain and she understood it
cost in excessive of $300,000 to do it. They also understood that it
was always Mr. Hagadone's intention to have this sort of rockwork
and they may have been reacting to a preliminary or first stage look
of that office when they were so unhappy.
Having said that, and her pictures might not make it crystal cfear and
she would submit the rest of the photos for the record, the work that
has been done while expensive and extensive was not blending. If
they looked at it from Ironwood, it was not blending in texture, it was
not blending in color and was still very obviously an artificial
imposition on what was formesly a beautiful undisturbed view. She
was wondering whether the Commission doesn't have the ability at
this point if they wanted to approve this application to condition it that
they do some further softening or mitigation or something cosmetic
with the rockwork that has already been done. She wasn't proposing
that it be demolished and understood it was permitted, but possibly
something could be done to better integrate the look. Far be it from
her to say what that might be, but they have some great experts on
their staff and maybe it could be further blended.
Ms. Mack said those were her comments about the office and. she
submitted her photos (and The Reserve letter). She stated that they
have the concem that although in the future the sport court was not
proposed at the present time to have lighting, who knows five years
down the road someone could decide thaYs a good idea. They don't
ever want to see lighting up there. They were hoping that the
landscape plan she understood had been proposed wouldn't involve
any lighting that would be intrusive from the north. They wanted to
make sure that Ironwood was fully involved in weighing in on that and
also weighing in on whether or not there are ever any trees that
artificialty intn.sde above the ridge{ine. Those were concerns they had.
They understood that the project proposed tonight did not include
those elements, but if they were inclined to approve it, they would love
to see those sorts of conditions attached.
In general they didn't favor the project, notwithstanding their attempts
to be responsive. She thought everyone felt it was just one step too
far and they would like to see the line drawn somewhere to enforce
this ordinance. It was more than just a matter of principal. These are
our mountains and grading and disturbance that happens up there is
22
�...
MINUTES
P�11_M DF�RT PLAN�II(�C rO,M,MI�SION .__ ._. .. ..., .,�EPT�,MBER 19 200�i
forever and they needed to get busy enforcing that ordinance. She
thanked them.
MS. SUSAN PAULL, a home owner in Monterra, stated that she is a
past President and HOA Board of Director acting right now. She was
here on behalf of herself and members of her Homeowners
Association and the entire Palm Desert community for people who {ive
out as far as Portola and out on Country Club who can see this
project. She was sure some of them come down the street and can
see it too. She said it was ironic that the last time she was in this
building was begging for access to the mountains because it was a
CVAG hearing and they were restricting hikers' access to these
beautifu! mountains as pictured on the wall behind them. The goal,
she felt and which the City of Palm Desert was a signature of, was
CVAG's ordinance on mountains and the protection of them.
Ms. Paul stated that she was really disappointed. She fe{t that if they
as a Planning Commission had actually made a visit to the site prior
to the development, it never would have been developed. She
pictured these beautiful mountains as pictured on the wall and asked
how they would if she walked up there with a black marking pen and
on the ridgeline drew a big house and thaYs exactly what they look at
when they're in their car driving up Portola toward the mountains or
Monterey. It is a blight.
But they weren't here to discuss the past mistakes. As far as the
expansion is concemed, they weren't happy with what has happened
already. They feel it was done irresponsibly. Give an inch, take a mile.
They didn't properly oversee what was being developed. )t just kept
going on and on and on. It was give an inch take a mile. She was
disappointed and was afraid if they didn't put a stop to it right now
what they would be looking at is even more destruction and disaster
to our mountains. She thanked them.
MR. RICHARD SEARLE, 73-380 Poinciana Place in Ironwood, stated
that he supported all the officials of their corporation, membership
committees and other speakers. As an individual he supported what
they had to say. He thought what has happened here has caused a
blight on the mountain top. He wouldn't add anything new which they
haven't already said; however, one point he did notice was a
comment on the map regarding renaturalized areas. If the
renaturalization of the area was similar to what they've done to the
23
�
MINUTES
PAL.M n��ER,T PL,AI��I�NC C�MMI�SION
--,.---,..---. _...... SEPTEMBER1.9 ?���
office, that wasn't really going to make the appearance like it is today.
He thought this should not be approved to go forward. He thanked
them.
MS. CONNOR LAMONT, 72-720 Bel Air in Palm Desert, stated that
to say they made a mistake was an understatement. They all agree
with that and all they have left is to ask them to please stop it now.
They were a{I that was standing befinreen going forward and
continuing the mistake. She asked on behalf of the residents that they
please vote no on this. She thanked them.
MR. PAUL BLUME, 73-155 Crosby Lane in Palm Desert, addressed
the Commission. He said pretty much everything had already been
said. The important thing is the future. He just found out tonight that
there's no law saying that they have to inform the residents
surrounding such a structure as this except within 300 feet and
obviously this is beyond the limit for Ironwood Country Club. But for
realism, the entire Coachelfa Valley has been affected by this
structure and he thought there should be something in the future for
them to do to inform them, the constituents that put them in office, to
keep them informed as to what this is going to be like. He thought
they would find a lot more people objecting to what has been done
already. He thanked them.
There was no one else requesting to speak. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked
if Mr. Barlow would like time for rebuttal comments.
Mr. Barlow said that they were obviously sorry that so many people
were upset with the house that's there today, but he thought it was
important to remember that they went through due process. Two
years ago they came to the Planning Commission and City Council
with full disclosure of what they were going to build and got approval.
In fact, unanimous approval. And again, he couldn't change that and
who was noticed then and who wasn't noticed is not really their
responsibility. They liked to be good neighbors and wanted to be good
neighbors and thought they would find them to be excellent
neighbors. He hoped that none of these people were upset with them
personally.
The roof lines heing said that they would not be visible was not an
accurate statement. They never represented that at all. The majority
of the building is not visible, but there are a handful that are. All of
24
�
�
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLAN �NG CO MISSION_. _____ .,.,.,_ ,. ,_.,_ _ SFPTEMBER 1.9�2�06
„ � _.. . �
those that are are covered with the copper material they bought from
Germany that comes precolored with the color of that mountain. He
wanted them to at least wait until it is completed and see the finished
product and then be a little more objective in their decision because
they have done a lot to try and blend this into the mountain. Stone on
the siding that blends into the mountain was brought in from India. All
of this was part of why they approved this in the first place is because
the construction and design presented to them and what they have
built was to be able to blend into the hillside.
There had been discussion about minimal grading in the hillside and
not allowing any more per the ordinance. If they read the ordinance,
it says minimum grading in the hillside areas that relate to the natural
contours of the land, avoiding extensive cut and fill siopes that result
in padding or staircase effect within the development. None of that is
what they were proposing. There was no padding or staircase effect
involved. In fact, none of it was visible from anybody. So it is not in
conflict with what the ord'+nance says.
Mr. Barlow noted that there was a comment that they graded before
approvals which was not true. The project like any project has to have
access and lay down areas to be built. Those same areas if not
approved would be renaturalized, but in order to have access to build
the building, those areas were graded. So they didn't believe that to
be an accurate statement.
The pools as they knew were already approved and that was a matter
that has been taken care of previously. And contrary to the opinion of
what was said, they were directly told in writing to deaf with the
attomey, Marie Mack. And as she testified, they have. Even beyond
that and after they were told that, he made several calls to the only
contact he had to Mr. Ron Dahl and indicated that he wanted to make
sure that if there were any questions, they still had an opportunity to
meet with him. The last time he talked to him he indicated that he was
no longer President and he asked Mr. Dahl to please pass along that
invitation to anybody else that's appropriate.
Mr. Barfow thought they went out of their way as has been testified on
their side that the communication was wide open. And this was all
with respect to the office, which as they knew tonight was not even
part of what the request is regarding. The request in front of them
tonight dealt with this 13,169 square feet. It wasn't visible to anybody
25
C
MINUTES
PALM DF.SER7 PLANN�(V�,COMMISSION
... ... .._. _.. SEPTEMB��?, 19,_?A(1R
but the Hagadones. That was the question in front of them. And that
is their request to the Cornmission. If they would like to, and they'd
already made comment to staff, the Commission cou{d condition that
there wou{d be no sport court fighting. At one point in time they had
intended to do so and Pianning had great concern about that. His
initial response was that they would put it in in a mock up condition
and they would look at it and they could decide if it was offensive or
not. And later, as they reconsidered, they decided it wasn't. They just
wouldn't do it. So if they wanted to condition it, there would be no
lighting for the sport court.
Mr. Barlow said there had been comment made regar�ing that they
were running amok without any contact with the City. Nothing could
be further from the truth. They have had constant contact with the
Cify. They had with all departments. The Building Department is up
there virtually every day. They had many meetings with the Planning
staff when they had thei� original concems. There were meetings with
the Public Works Department when they dealt with the poof and got
the pool permitted. Whenever they had a discrepancy, they taiked to
them and asked what to do. That's where the conclusion came that
it was suggested that an as-built drawing be done to clarify exactly for
the record where the grading limits were and where they would be
eventually and that's exactly what they did.
So they felt like they �ave been as responsive as they could. They
realize there are people who are not happy with what they see and
they really are sorry about that. They'd like it to be judged when it is
completed and would like them to realize that they did go through due
process and got the proper permits and went through the proper
hearings and it �ad the proper legal notice and had built this building
accordingly. So again, the question tonight in front of them is if it is
okay for them to extend the landscaping and the sport court into the
area 13,169 square feet that is not visible to any other party but the
Hagadones.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the sports court was always part of the
original plan and if the additional water features that are part of this 13,000
feet they were talking about now, if they were on the original plans.
Mr. Hagadone said the water feature that came out of the hillside in
that area was always a part of the plan, but not in that location. It
wasn't that far away from the structure. The fish pond it comes out of
26
��
MINUTES
PALM nES��iT PL �ANf�ING, COMMISSION
�..
, .....,_. ,._._SEPTEMBER 19�,_2t10fi
is new. So that was not part of the original plan. The sport court has
always been in the owner's plan, but it was not in the plans submitted
to the City. It was a desire that the owner had and talked to their
architect about. Schematic design plans they had almost three years
ago still showed the note of the trail that goes to the sport court. It
never got designed, it never got included and was never permitted. So
that's why they were here tonight. It was a desire they had and
something they wanted, but was not part of the original submittal.
He said it's a very complex site if they had seen it. It was not fike a
developed, graded flat piece of ground that they do a drawing on and
they layout what they want to put on it for improvements. It's very
irregular. It has little crooks and nooks, hills and rocks and to nestle
a structure into that site on a piece of paper, even to survey it, was
nearly impossible. So that was part of how some of this came to be
at a later date because once it is nestled in and they see how it fits
with the lay of the land, there was an area that could be developed
that was just sitting there.
Commissioner Tschopp said that when he walked the project site, he
remembered the area where the sports court would go, where the water
pond would go, was relatively flat and very unattractive. If they had to
renaturalize it, he asked what they would be doing exactly.
Mr. Barlow said they would be putting native rock back into that
location in random patterns and {ocations.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would remain relativefy flat as it is now.
Mr. Barlow said yes.
Commissioner Tschopp said that basically they would be adding some
desert plants and some rocks.
Mr. Bariow said not much plant grows on that hill naturally.
There were no other questions. Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the pubfic
hearing and asked the Commission for comments.
Commissioner Tschopp said this was certainly difficult. Concerns and
frustrations he heard had to do with the existing house and the office that are
on the ridgeline. The errors that have been made on it have been done. It's
27
�_
,
M{NUTES
PALM D�RT PL�ANNINC C(�M,f�A1S�InN .._.,_
�
-- .. _SEPTEMB�R.1;�; 2�OR,
too late to change that and what they see is what they are going to get now,
hopefully with some better modification to it to hide the pool and some other
things a little bit better than they are. But the piece of property in question is
situated next to the home such that no one else can see it. No one else has
access to it and in essence when you walk around up there, it basically is a
side yard to a single famiiy residence. A very large single family residence
that is not seen, not impacting anyone else, and no one else can get to it. A
couple of questions he asked Mr. Bartow had to do with if they renaturalized
it, what it would look like. Well, it would look like a flat piece of desert with
some rocks and a few extra plants on it. Nothing they would ever see and
nothing that would impact them.
Although the sheer magnitude of the grading up there seemed excessive,
CommissionerTschopp said this piece impacts no one else, no one else has
access to it and he thought to deny this tonight would be a punitive measure
on their part to say they don't like the house, they don't like the office so they
were going to take this as a matter of standing in saying this to take a shot
at them for what else has gone up there that they maybe errored on. So he
was going to have to say at this point in time that he is in favor of the 13,169
square foot area to be used for the court and water features. Primarily for the
reasons he stated. It is not impacting them, it won't change anything up there
right now, no one else would have access to it and it served them no
purpose to deny it at this point in time because what they see right now is still
what they are going to get.
Commissioner Tanner said he wished he had a little more time to digest this
whofe issue. From purefy a standpoint of Ironwood and what they've gone
through and what they would continue to go through as residents there, they
couldn't fix that. They didn't have a way to fix the views they had. They are
sitting there today and deciding on whether or not they grant an additionai
13,000 square feet of pad. He heard their cries and concems about what
happens if they do this and are they opening the floodgate on more and
additional areas growing in the mountains. He was here to tell them that he
is new to the Commission, and he was not going to say he would not have
approved the original Fiagadone designs, he was just here to tell them that
if this does go through, and he was inclined also to say that they should go
ahead and let it happen, and maybe it wasn't beautifying the mountain, but
at feast it wasn't affecting Ironwood from a site standpoint.
He was here to tel{ them that something that comes in front of him at this
Commission witl be explored thoroughly and with due diligence not to allow
this to happen again. Whether it is Feiro at fault for designing the pad and
�
�
(�
�
MINUTES
PALM DESF_R�ANNII�G COM,I�fIISSfON, _—,, ,.._. _._. ,..,._. �EpTEJVIBER 1�; 20�f�,
giving them larger area to expand on, he didn't know, but with the conditions
that the Hagadones are willing to grant them with no lighting, and he would
also suggest that they minimize or eliminate all lighting in the landscape area
as a condition to approve. He would have to go along with his fel{ow
Commissioner here and say that with the conditions that have been
presented, he would approve this. But he wanted them to know, these kinds
of things were not going to happen in the future.
Commissioner Campbell said that what is in front of them is just the 13,000
square feet that aiready has been graded and they could not change the
appearance of the house and that has gone through its due process and
everything that has been done to that has been legal about it. (A couple of
audience members called out comments as they were walking out.)
Commissioner Campbell said she was speaking and continued. She said
after visiting that area, since the land has already been graded, to her it
looked like it was anybody's residential sideyard. It was a private area and
it is a flat area. They would go ahead and have the sports court that would
not be seen by anyone, either Ironwood or Bighorn. It is going to be private
for only the residents. The rock formation and the landscaping that will be put
back to normal again in the areas not used for the flower beds or stream will
be very natural. In due process also, the roof of the house will probably be
changing in color just because of the environment. Again, as far as Ironwood
was concemed, she felt for them, but again, Planning didn't need to send
notices out for more than 300 feet.
Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that one of the speakers tonight talked about
a comedy of errors and that was cfeariy what has happened. She understood
that when Feiro came out there was a plan submitted and the actual plan
showed approximately 44,000 square feet. However, the calculation they
were told was 38,000 square feet. That was error number one.
Error number two was when City staff did not check that calculation and if
they learn anything from this experience, it is that from now on, regardless
of whaYs on the front sheet, City staff needs to recheck the calculation of the
engineer. Then they come to the pool. The pool was permitted before City
staff looked at the actual plan. So they leamed that a permit should not have
been issued until the plans were thoroughly inspected. That is staff's job.
Now they have a pool that is built, more grading than what they thought, and
those conditions exist.
They have an area by the office where there is work that has been done in
an attempt to camouflage and blend into the mountain that outcropping and
29
� ,. .
MINUTES
PALM DFSERT PLANNIN,,C,3.C�MMISSION
Action:
_ SE�TEMBER 19 20�,6
the office. It was her understanding that members of fronwood participated
and said that this would be a better thing to do in an attempt to camouflage
it. But from what they were hearing tonight, what they saw on paper has
really not improved to the extent that we had hoped with regard to
camouflaging the office and having it blend in, She didn't know if there was
any more work to be done in that area. She didn't know if that was the finat
project. From what they were hearing about the pool, there is still more to be
done.
So they have had error upon error and now they are faced with the situation
to allow further grading. They heard the fellow Commissioners talk about this
being an area that does not �ffect anyone else. But the testimony they heard
tonight, despite it not affecting anyone from Ironwood or anyone in Bighom,
their wishes are still to deny it. She stn�ggled with that because it doesn't
affect anyone else. It is not going to �ight the wrong. By denying this it did not
correct these errors.
Vice Chairperson Fine�ty stated that it is important as Commissioners that
they view specifically what is before them. What is before them shows that
nothing wiil be effected. The ordinance states that they are not to have the
views impacted. That is the spirit of the ordinance. What is before them
tonight shows that it has not been and will not be impacted. Nevertheless, in
reading all of their concerns, it was apparent that they all already understood
that. What's in the phrases are that nevertheless they feel it should be
stopped. They still feel this should not be allowed. She couldn't in good
conscience go along with that knowing that this is not going to impact the
view. Their correspondence is relevant in saying when will this stop and she
very much had concern with the hillsides. She did not want them impacted.
And this project has not tumed out as they had hoped when they looked at
the office area. They have some minimal issues with the poof.
But her duty tonight is to look at the application before her. And that
application was not going to affect anyone's view. Therefore, she was going
to concur with her fellow Commissioners. At this time, they have only been
presented with a resolution to deny the project. 1t is their job for the
Commission then to direct staff to prepare a different resolution. She asked
if there was a Commissioner wanting to do that.
Commissioner Tschopp made a motion directing staff to draft up a resolution
of approval adding that any water features and iandscaping proposed for the
extended graded area, make sure that the lighting and landscaping elements
30
c"
MINUTES
�AL.M nESERT PLANNII�G ,C(�MMISSION
�..
_ SEPTEMBER 1�,_20�1,fi
do not impact any surrounding areas. Commissioner CampbeH seconded the
motion. Vice Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0
(Chairperson Lopez was absent). Vice Chairperson Finerty said there would
be no resolution for adoption tonight.
Mr. Haase spoke up from the audience. Vice Chairperson Finerty understood
that the public hearing was closed; however, because of the concem she
would allow him to come up to the lectem and speak into the microphone so
they have it for the record.
MR. HAASE stated that he understood the position they took. It
doesn't impact Ironwood. But he wished the Planning Commission
would put, and their report states and he would read from it and he
was the one who said in the meeting they had that there would be no
ridgeline or no houseline shown and also said that the rough grading
was done without...it says in their own report that the expanded area
for the sports court and landscaping that has been rough graded wil{
need to be renaturalized. To him, what the report was saying was that
someone went ahead and graded it. Now he might be mistaken and
if that was the roads going up there, that was something different. But
he hoped that the Planning Commission would put two companies
under a lot of scrutiny when they submit plans. One is Feiro
Construction and the other is RCE Consultants because to him it was
their errors and submissions and things that were put around he
thought that created all this havoc. He thought that if they did that,
and he understood that he woufd never see the landscaping over
there and that didn't bother him. But it did bother him that their own
report said that the rough grading was done prior to any approvals
and he thought those two companies really created a lot of errors.
They submitted grading plans they knew that the pool was outside the
38,000 square feet and went ahead. He thought those things, and if
he was a contractor and did something like that, that was almost an
act that maybe the City Attorney should look into, is to say why did
they do it before they had approval to build it. If they knew it was
38,000 and it was calculated wrong, why didn't when they found out
bring it to the City's attention and say it is 44,000 but we're going to
need 47,000 and now we want 61,000. He thought those were the
things that bothered him the most about what happened.
Vice Chairperson Finerty agreed with him and that's why in her comments
she said that from now on she believed that staff needs to calculate all of
31
(�
�
MtNUTES
PALM DESERT P „ _ � , _ . _. . . , SE�TEMBER 19_200R
LANN (' COMMISSION
, , . _ _..,.. _ _, .. -- �— -- --- . .. _ ._,. _ .. .---, . . .
that regardless of what's on the front page so they don't have the further
error and before any pool permits or any other permits are issued that the
plans need to be looked at and approved. She regretted the errors that have
been made by all parties.
Mr. Haase said that was all he had to say and thanked them.
MR. JOHN BARLOW stated that he really knew how unorthodox this
was, so he would make it quick. He said the problems were Feiro
Engineering. The problems were corrected by RCE. If it hadn't been
for RCE, they wouldn't have found any of this. Their drawings have
been accurate to the tenth of an inch. He thought the staff could
support that. So for the record, if that went into the record, that was
not accurate. He thanked them.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting.
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that the landscape meeting would be
tomorrow.
C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE
Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that the Project Area 4 was
informational.
D. PARKS & RECREATION
Commissioner Tanner reported on the Parks S� Recreation
Commission meeting.
32
a
� C1�Y 0� ��ll
�
I 73-5 � a FRED WARI�G DR1VE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2575
TEL: �bo 346—o6tt
Fnx: 760 34i-7og8
infoC�palm-deserc.arg
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: October 4, 2006
Hagadone Family Trust
P.O. Box 6200
Coeur D'Alene, Idaho 83816-1937
Re: HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
DESfR1
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of October 3, 2006:
PLANNING COMMtSSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF CASE NO. HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1 BY
ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2421,
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. MOTION CARRIED 2-1-1 (COMMISSIONER
FINERTY VOTED NO, CHAIRPERSON LOPEZ ABSTAINED,
COMMISSIONER TSCHOPP ABSENT).
Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this action.
`��� ,
_'"� � �
Philip Drell, S cretary �
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
�
LD +wn� o� a�auc rou
(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2421
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRECISE PLAN TO EXPAND THE
APPROVED GRADED AREA FROM 38,000 SQUARE FEET TO
61,110 SQUARE FEET FOR A RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 706
SUMMIT COVE IN THE FOOTHILLS OF THE CANYONS AT
BIGHORN GOLF COURSE.
CASE NO. HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT # 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did
on the 19�' day of September 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS� said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the a mitigated negative iieclaration was previously adopted
and the improvements are within the mitigated area and no further review is necessary,
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 denying the said
request:
That the proposed amendment to expand the graded area to allow certain
improvements to the site are located between the main residence and an
existing rock outcropping and will not be visible from adjacent properties,
which will not negatively impact the adjacent properties.
2. That the proposed improvements will comply with City's Zoning Ordinance
and will not be detrimental public peace, health, safety or general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council
approval of HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1.
2. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
1,
PLANNING COMMISS��..a RESOLUTION NO. 2421
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pa{m Desert
Planning Commission. heid on this 3"� day of Octobe�, 2006, by the following vote. to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAlN:
CAMPBELL� TANNER
FINERTY
TSCHOPP
LOPEZ
ATTEST:
-,,,"'-- �/L�.11.X
PHILIP DRELL Secretary �
Palm Desert PI nning Commission
.
��
CINDY FI � R , Vice C�airperson
2
\
,
i
,
, ` (
� PLANNING COMMIS5�t..N RESOLUTION NO. 2421
CONDiT10NS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
Deaartment of Communitv Development:
The development of the property shall conform substantialiy with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. The applicant shall re-naturalize any and all disturbed hillside area of the project
with native landscaping and materials to blend the project into the natural terrain.
3. Landscape and water features lighting shall be designed and located in such a
manner that does not negatively impact the surrounding area.
ll
3
. ' � �. �
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: October 3, 2006
CASE N�: HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council approval of an amendment to a
Hillside Development PIan/Precise P{an to expand the approved
graded area from 38,000 square feet to 61,110 square feet for a
residence located at 706 Summit Cove in the foothills of the
Canyons at Bighorn Golf Course.
APPLICANT: Hagadone Family Trust
P.O. Box 6200
Coeur D' Alene, ID 83816-1937
I. DISCUSSION:
At the last Pfanning Commission meeting staff was directed to prepare a
resolution of approval which currently has standard conditions of approval. The
approval of the original plan was based on information provided to the City which
indicated that the design of the home and mitigation measures would blend it
into the natural terrain. Based on the testimony, the expectations have not been
met and the Planning Commission may add additional conditions of approval
outlined in the staff report. Since the applicant is requesting an amendment to
the original plan, conditions of approval may be added which address
unforeseen deficiencies of the original approval. The unforeseen deficiencies
identified during the public hearing include:
1. Visibility, color and texture of the office,
2. Expansion of the infinity edge of the pool creating an extended straight
horizontal line which is at odds with the irregular nature of the original
terrain,
3. Appearance of the roof structure above the ridgeline,
4. Lighting for the house, poo1, pavilion, landscaping, sports court, and
office.
1. Office:
The original approval was based on information which indicated that the
project would be either partially or completely obscured from valley views
. (_
, STAFF REPORT
HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
OCTOBER 3, 2006
and that rocks from the site would be used to screen portions of the
residence that would be visible.
The office was built on the edge of the ridgeline and faux rocks have been
built around it to create an outcropping with the intent of blending the
office into the natural terrain. However, the faux rock formation texture
and coloring does not match the existing terrain making it stand out which
is contrary to the intent of the mitigation. The faux rock is long, straight
and flat where the natural teRain has rocks that are small, round and
rough. The color of the faux rocks is dark brown where the natural hillside
is a tan sandy color with small dark rocks.
Mitigation condition proposed:
• That the applicant redesigns the faux rocks around the office to match
the natural texture, shape and color of the hillside.
2. Pool:
The original pool was 70 feet long with a concrete pad between the infinity
edge. The exposed infinity edge totaled 43 feet. The new pool is
approximately 190 feet long with 180 feet of the infinity edge exposed
along the ridge. The edge is flat and unnatural on the hillside and can be
mitigated by creating berming or mounding of rocks on the hillside in front
of the pool. A similar condition was placed on the Eddie Babai's hillside
home on Southcliff Road to breakup the horizontal edge of the graded
pad.
Mitigation condition proposed:
• That the applicant construct a berm in front of the pool edge to
breakup the horizontal edge.
3. Roof Structures above ridgeline:
The main residence and pavilion roof structures are visible above the
ridgeline and based on the angles of the roof the ceiling can be seen. The
roof overhang will be designed with a copper facia and the ceiling will be
made out of a natural wood. Screening of the roof structures would be
very difficult, however, the color of the exposed ceiling may be
conditioned to match the existing hillside.
Mitigation condition proposed:
2
�
, STAFF REPORT
HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
OCTOBER 3, 2006
C
• That the color of the exposed ceiling be designed to match and blend
into the natural hillside.
4. Lighting:
Lighting for the home, pool, pavilion, landscaping, sports court and office
is a potential negative impact from the project.
Home: the landscaping lighting plan indicates that there will be six up
lighting fixtures on the decks of the south side of the home that will
illuminate portions of the home. The up-lighting will cause a glow that may
be seen from other properties east and south of the residence. The intent
of the home's design is to bfend it into the natural terrain, therefore it is
inconsistent to highlight it at night. .
Mitigation condition proposed:
• Any and all architectural lighting shall be prohibited from illuminating
the residence and rock formations.
Pavilion: portions of the main residence and roof stnacture are now visible
which indicates that ceiling lights from the pavilion area may be visible
throughout the City.
Mitigation condition proposed:
• Any ceiling lights in the exposed roof structures for the pavilion area or
other portions of the home shall be prohibited.
Pool: the lighting plan for the pool includes fiber optic lights that will
illuminate the tile around the edge of the pool and water features
throughout the project. The lights are covered and should not be a
negative impact as currently designed.
Mitigation condition proposed:
• Lighting for the poof shall be covered or pointed down, no up-lighting
shall be allowed.
Landscaping: there are two types of light fixtures that are proposed within
the landscaped areas. The lights are bollard fixtures that are 2 fvot high or
lower. These lights are directed down and should not be a negative
impact.
Mitigation condition proposed:
3
�
STAFF REPORT
HDPlPP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
OCTOBER 3, 2006
C
• All landscaping lights shal{ be no higher than 2 feet with down lighting
to ensure that there is no impact from landscape lighting.
Sports court: currently the applicant is not proposing any lighting for the
sports court.
Mitigation condition proposed:
• Lighting for the sports court shall be.prohibited.
Office: when the office is being used at night the lights inside will
illuminate through the window that will be seen throughout the City and
parts of the Coachella Valley.
Mitigation condition proposed:
• That the applicant install blinds, or an alternative shading device,
approved by the City to cover the inside of the window and that the
blinds shall be closed after 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time so that no
lighting illuminates through the window.
Due to the unforeseen deficiencies in the previous approvai of the project,
unforeseen lighting issues may arise during and after the construction of
the residence.
Mitigation condition proposed:
• Any approved lighting and illumination plan shall be modified by the
City of Palm Desert to mitigate light impacts from the project.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project was previously addressed with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and the proposed improvements and conditions are
consistent with original approval, and for the purposes of CEQA no further review
is necessary.
III. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of HDPIPP
04-21 Amendment #1, subject to conditions.
4
STAFF REPORT (
HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1
OCTOBER 3, 2006
�
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Comments from public
C. Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 21, 2004
D. City Council Minutes, dated September 23, 2004
E. City Council Staff Report and attachments, dated September 23, 2004
Prepared by:
C� �
Tony Bagato /
Assistant Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
�
�
hilip Dre I ` Homer Cro�
Director of Community Development ACM of Com ity Development
N�
DRAFY
MINUTES
PALM, DE,SE�tT PIr4i�N,IN,C, COMMISSIOy
.. _ „ nCT0�3ER �. 2�OF,
stated at the beginning that he wouldn't be in favor of it, but from the physical
characteristics that were approved by the Planning Commission, he was aiso
in favor of everything. So her vote stands. She approved it the first time and
she would approve it the second time.
Commissioner Tanner concurred with Commissioner Campbell. He said they
looked at this project, looked at it hard, and decided at the time that they
would send it to Council. Seeing that there have been some additionai
concessions made by the applicant, he too would move for approval and
send it back to Council.
Chairperson Lopez also concurred. The applicant worked on iowering the
height and concurred to send it back to Council for consideration. He asked
for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1
(Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
IX.
�
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell� seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2420, recommending
to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01, subject
to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no,
Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
MISCELLANEOUS
Chairperson Lopez stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and
vote on the first matter. He was unable to review the tapes, although he read
the minutes, so he would not be able to participate in the discussion and
asked Vice Chairperson Finerty to lead the discussion on this item.
A. Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1 - HAGADONE FAMILY
TRUST, Applicant
Presentation of a resolution recommending to City Council
approval of an amendment to a Hillside Development Plan 1
Precise Plan to expand the approved graded area from 38,000
square feet to 61,110 square feet for a residence focated at
706 Summit Cove in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn
Golf Course.
C�
DRAF`t
MINUTES
PALIV� DESER,T PLANNINC COMMISSI(�N . . . , _ . _ (�S:TOBER 3., �,�Afij
Mr. Bagato explained that at the last meeting staff was directed to prepare
a resolution of approvai, which was before the Commission tonight with two
basic standard conditions put on every application. Going back to the origina!
approval of the project and what staff was anticipating for the mitigation
measures for the home and the design, and the public testimony, staff
presented some additional conditions that the Planning Commission couid
add at their discretion if they felt they were necessary for the amendment to
the original plan. Since the applicant was asking for amendment to the
original plan, staff felt these conditions could be added at this time.
Some of the issues identified through the public testimony were related to
some of the stuff seen in the photo presented in the Commission packets.
The visibility of the office, the textures and colors of the rocks, the expansion
of the infinity edge pool--right now it was flat where the infinity edge of the
poo{ was going to be, the appearance of the roof structures above the ridge
line. There was lighting discussion relative to landscaping and the pool and
staff identified some other potential light concerns.
With regard to the office, staff s major concem was that the mitigation
measures put up don't necessarily blend into the hillside well enough, as it
should. The rocks around the office are kind of straight and long where the
hiilside has rocks that are short and rounded and the terrain didn't match the
rock formation designed around the office. The coloring was an issue as well.
It appears darker than the natural hillside. The hillside is kind of a sandy
color with the rocks being a darker brown and in this case it was designed all
as rocks so it's aU appearing dark brown and is kind of standing out and not
blending into the hillside as weU as they thought it could. So there was a
mitigation measure being proposed that the applicant redesign the rocks
around the office to match the hillside with shape and color of the hillside.
That was to address one of the office concems.
Mr. Bagato said that the original pool that was approved was about 70 feet
wide on the original grading plan and there was a break in between the pool
of a concrete pad where about 45 feet of the infinity edge would have been
exposed. This new pool was 190 feet long and approximately 180 feet would
be exposed along the ridge. Right now there was a plastic covering around
it so they couldn't really tell, but there's a dark line in the picture that's the
infinity edge that will now be seen and put a flat line across the mountain
which was not natural to the terrain. A condition that could be added that
they were proposing was a berming or mounding in front of the infinity edge
on the hillside. That was done on Eddie Babai's house to break up the flat
forms of the house and the naRowness of the straight edge of his house.
7
DRAF'f
MINUTES
PA,�M,nES�RT P,�_ANN�NC.r(�MMISSIAy ... ., _. C�CTnE3ER, 3� 2AAR
That mitigation worked well, so staff was looking for something similar that
could be proposed or designed in front of that infinity edge.
Mr. Bagato said that for the roof structures above the ridge line which were
visible, there was no way to screen that and their concem was related to the
coloring of the ceiling which would be under the roof. Right now he talked to
the architect and looked at the material samples originally submitted and it
was a natural wood material and they wanted to make sure in the final
staging that there's a condition that makes sure that the ceiling is done with
a material and coloring that blends with the hillside to the best of its ability
given that it would be seen.
The last issues related to the lighting for the project. He said they looked at
architectural lighting for the home, the pool, the pavilion, landscaping, sports
court and the office itself. For the home, there was about six uplights on the
south side of the building. It wasn't visible from Ironwood, but could
potentially be visible from the south side of Bighom and within Bighorn itself.
Those were uplights casting lights onto the building and the rocks on the
entryway. Staff was concemed about glow that might be seen from it. The
Hillside Ordinance's goal is to b{end this house into the hillside and they don't
want it lighted up at night. That was staff's concern and the mitigation
proposed was that no architectural uplighting be allowed on the building
illuminating any features of the building or the rocks themselves.
For the pavilion, the roof lines coufd be seen above the ridge and with that
ceiling there would be some ceiling lights. The applicant told staff that the
original plans have been modified and there were a lot of fights approved in
the ceiling under the construction plans and they reduced them themselves
to try and cut down some of the lighting. Staff was still concerned. Until iYs
built, staff was asking for a condition that the pavilion area lights be
prohibited so that no lights will be seen glowing from the ceilings.
On the pool, there was some fiber optic lighting around the edge of the pool
underneath the tile. He understood it was covered and only illuminated ihe
tile, but there would potentially be a glow from it. Hopefully by proposing the
mounding in front of the edge, that would mitigate any glow seen from the
pool. Staff was just requesting that no uplighting / decorative lighting come
up from the pool as part of the conditions.
Another condition was landscaping. Staff reviewed a landscape lighting plan
that was submitted for the first time two weeks ago. A concem with
landscape lighting was not to have any light fixtures too tall or too bright
�
DRAF�r
MINUTES
PALIV) DE,S��RT PI,.,Af�f�INC f;C1MM15SInN „ . _„ . ..... ,. . .. , _OrTnBFR,r, �i, 2(1t1R
where light could be seen thrpughout the project. In the report, Mr. Bagato
recommended a condition that it be no higher than two feet. In speaking with
the appiicant, he thought they could agree with 3'6" being the max. Based on
the design, staff felt it could be mitigated and there was another condition
that kind of addressed all of the lighting. So staff proposed no higher than
3.5' for any landscape lighting. In various locations that couldn't be seen,
they could potentially have taller fixtures. Staff just wanted to make sure they
couldn't be seen once the temporary structure was removed since they didn't
know what kind of lighting would be visible.
Since the office itself was right on the ridge and there were still portions of
the glass exposed, staff felt there needed to be some kind of shading device,
either blinds or something the applicant coufd propose that could be installed
inside the office and that the blinds would be shut and closed pretty much
after 8:00 p.m. When it gets dark, they didn't want light from the hillside that
could potentially be seen not just in the city, but throughout the valley
because that was a pretty prominent ridge.
Lastly, Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant indicated that there was no
lighting proposed and staff was putting a condition on it that no lighting be
put on the sports court so if there was lighting in the future, the plan would
have to be amended.
Due to the unforeseen deficiencies and issues that came up with the original
plan, they just wanted to address any unforeseen lighting issues and a final
condition being proposed was that any approved lighting and illumination
plan be modified by the City of Palm Desert to mitigate {ight impaets from the
project. That was to adjust all lighting concerns.
With those conditions, Mr. Bagato said that staff was recommending
approval of the amendment and that Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council approval with the conditions proposed in the report.
Mr. Hargreaves stated that the ability of the Commission to condition the
particular amendment before them, the sports court, and go back and
incorporate conditions that refer to the project as a whole is somewhat in
dispute. He had conversations with the attomey for the applicant and he
thought they both could agree that they are in a gray area. Mr. Hargreaves'
interpretation is that there were two reasons. Coming back for an
amendment to the original approval opens up the whole original approval.
The other one is that with any particular project they can require conditions
that mitigate the effect of that project. !n this case, they were asking for an
�
DRAFY
MINUTES
PAL� DFS�RT PLANN'N�, �►nMM�S���N _ ._ . .. „.. , . ....,_. .00TnBFR,�;, ?�OR
expansion to the disturbance of the hiliside, so they were conditioning on
mitigating some existing disturbances to the hilfside in the same way when
someone comes forward and wants to disturb endangered species habitat,
they require them to mitigate somewhere else. That kind of a nexus. But he
wanted them to be aware that the applicant didn't necessarily agree with the
City's ability to go forward and condition, but Mr. Hargreaves didn't think they
were going to strenuously contest that this evening. The hope was that
based on the comments and concerns of the community between now and
when this gets to the City Council there would be some dialogue where some
of these issues can be addressed and they can figure out what is realistic in
terms of dealing with the issues that are of concem to the commu�ity and
hopefully not end up in a big dispute on this.
Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that this wasn't a public hearing, but since
Mr. Bagato gave a staff report, she thought she should ask Mr. Barlow if he
would like to speak. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct and thought she
could open it up to the audience, too. Under the Brown Act that has been our
policy. Even though it isn't a public hearing, people can speak with respect
to items on the agenda.
Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission.
MR. JOHN BARLOW came forward and thanked the Commission for
sorting out the issues in the public hearing and the approval focusing
on the 13,169 feet that was the area of question in front of them. Their
approval motion appropriately pointed out two areas of concern that
they also fee{ are appropriate. As to the landscaping, which was one
of those concems, they were very comfortable in stating to the
Commission that they would not see any landscaping in the area in
question. This was primarily due to the design that the Hagadones
have elected for the entire site of oasis of flowers, lawn and water.
The original landscape plan that was presented and approved with a
building permit had numerous palm trees. All of them have been
removed. So that portion of the reguest that was in the approval finro
weeks ago he believed was easily accommodated.
As to the lighting in the new area, ali the landscape lighting was low
as Mr. Bagato indicated and less than four feet. He had a photograph
of a custom bollard that they actually designed. lt was essentially a
piece of art and they made a fu{I-scale model and it was sitting on a
pallet at the job site. The only lighting within it was the down light. It
10
DRAF`�'
MINUTES
PALM.,[�ES��tT PLAWNJ�C„CnMMISSIf�N. - - -
— �- - - _ . . _,,. �CTnKER 3, 2��R
was a very low-key fixture that sits back far enough away from the
poo{ edge, about 20 feet, to where with the geometry of the pool edge
straight out they would have to be somewhere between Highway 111
and Country Club to even be able to see it because of the angle of
the sight line. That fixture did not provide any direct light that they
would see because all the lighting they reviewed with staff is down
lighting in the landscape areas.
They submitted the landscape plan he had with him to staff in August.
They taiked about it before the public hearing and met again
yesterday and reviewed it again. He believed they have adequatefy
demonstrated that none of the lighting in the area in question is
visible.
As to the landscape lighting, they had presented the lighting also to
Bighorn and received their full approval of the lighting, including
everything on the landscape. So he had that as a submittal to tum in
tonight. (The letter was submitted and is on file.) He stated that the
Bighom letter said, "The Bighorn architectural and landscape control
committee has reviewed the landscape lighting plan submitted on
behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Duane Hagadone. The lighting plan appears
to be consistent with Bighorn's design guidelines and is therefore
approved as submitted." He said it was signed by Joyce Wilkie,
coordinator for the Bighom Architectural Landscape Control
Committee.
Mr. Bariow said that in addition to the areas that he just pointed out
that accommodate the two conditions that were in the motion, he
wanted to talk to the Commission about other commitments that the
Hagadones have made that he believed would help ease some of the
concerns that have been raised. As he said, all of the landscape
lighting is of the same type he just described in the new area and it is
essentially down lighting lighting flower beds, pathways and
walkways.
The number of lights in the ceilings of the office and pavilion that are
part of the building permit that they received, and are shown, have
been substantiaity reduced and eliminated. In the office, for example,
the building permit plans show over 50 light fixtures and there were
somewhere near half that in the final design. In the pavilion, it was
closer to over half that have been eliminated. But the staff comment
that all of the lights in the pavilion be eliminated would eliminate the
11
DRAF'i'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PI.ANNINC C(�MMISSION
. (�CT(�BER, �y 20Ag
use of that area which is a substantial part of the home that was
already permitted in the prior building permit in the prior approvals.
They believed that would not be appropriate to have an area with no
function since there was no light and it would be an extreme safety
hazard. But the lighting that they utilize in all of their design light
objects in spaces (i.e., the top of a tabfe) rather than the entire area.
That was one reason they have fewer fixtures. But when they light
objects and not spaces, there is a lot less ambient light that spreads
out beyond that. It just happened to be the way the Hagadones like
to live and was how this home was designed. So it eliminates a great
deal of lighting that has been approved in the previous permits and he
believed helped accommodate the concern they had.
With respect to the pool, Mr. Barlow said that most of the cover was
removed yesterday as part of their plan for when the weather finally
broke they could take it down and it was removed. They spent time
today looking at the site from below from many different angles and
the pool edge was really not very noticeable at all. But they would like
to volunteer that they will be able to put at the back edge of the pool
some larger stone as they complete the backfill that they believe will
break up that straight line that some people have talked about. So
with that, that concem should be taken care of and they feel very
good about it from both sides.
Also, the staff reported that there was edge lighting on that pool and
he said there is no edge lighting on the pools at the edge of the site.
The only edge lighting are in interior pools that are well within sight of
the structure. The only lighting of these pools is horizontal, standard
pool lighting that lights the water. There was no vertical pool lighting
from the bottom up, so it was their belief that there would be little if
any light emanating from those pools from below.
Mr. Barlow said they believe they have addressed the two issues
requested and placed upon the 13,169 feet approved two weeks ago.
They feel they have also demonstrated additional mitigation efforts
not to mention as discussed in the hearing all the time and effort they
have put into the o�ce and the office rock. They looked at the office
again today and looked at it the day after the hearing and frankly, they
do not agree with the assessment that it is a different color. They think
it is very close and they were with their architect and have a lot of
con�dence with him and know what they saw. It did not have a
different appearance. They also studied it from The Reserve, from
12
DRAF`f
MINUTES
PALM DE�ERT, PI.,ANNING C,nMMfSSInN
. , . ,. ., nCTOBFR 3,� 20Aft,
many {ocations, and they didn't agree that it isn't blending in. That
was for voluntary mitigation at a cost of over $350,000 that they feel
greatly improved the image and they were done at their cost on behalf
of themselves and those that live in the neighborhood. Mr. Barlow
said they also believe that the o�ce is as permitted and is as
approved in this hearing two years ago.
So finally, they would like them to piease allow the project to be
completed before it gets assessed as to color and shape. All of the
building features they see, they could now get a good idea from the
Bighom side their colors that naturally fit the pallet of that hillside, the
coppers, the copper colored stone, the pink in the pink of the hills,
there are oranges, and they were all in this building. They went to
great lengths to do that and blend it in. Naturally today they see
plywood, plastic, edges that haven't been covered or completed and
haven't been coated and he thought it was unfair to judge the project
at that early stage when they know how it will look. Again, if they go
to the tournament at Bighom next week, they could see from the
inside what it will look like because most of that side is completed and
they woutd see how it blends into the hillside. And actually they hoped
at the end that they would be as proud of it as they are because they
think it will be a fine addition to this community. He asked for any
questions. There were none and he thanked them.
Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak.
MS. MARIE MACK, Attorney for ironwood Master Association, stated
that she submitted a letter before the opening of the hearing just
reiterating the Association's stated position that they oppose the
approval of this project expansion; however, at that time she was
unaware that staff had proposed these very important mitigation
measures. Having seen them, they support all of them and urge the
Commission to adopt these mitigation measures all as proposed by
staff, which they thought would hugefy alleviate the problems created
by this project. She didn't think if they went and looked at the minutes
of the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing in
2004 with their staff report where very express representations were
made by the applicant about how well this project would blend into the
mountains. That wasn't what they saw today and she didn't think they
could take the applicant's voluntarily representation that they are
going to cooperatively make sure that happens through project
completion. They had an opportunity now to condition it and didn't
13
DRAF�r
MINUTES
P�►LM D�,S�Rj �1.A1�NINC (;nMMISS�ON, „ , ,. ., _ , . , . , n(;T(,�,�3FR 3; 20(1�
hear the City Attomey saying they couldn't and she wouid just urge
the Commission to do it. She thanked them.
MR. JOHN NICHOLSON, representing the owner, stated that he was
the attomey Bob Hargreaves spoke about earlier. He said they viewed
their role to be a cooperative one and thought they had demonstrated
that they are trying very hard. They worked with Ironwood, worked
with Marie Mack, the attorney for Ironwood, on submitting plans for
the voluntary mitigation. They were told they look good and thaYs why
they proceeded with them.
Yesterday they spent a good amount of time talking with staff. They
plan to continue to do that. He said Mr. Hagadone is committed to
making this project as compatible with the community as he can and
Mr. Nicholson thought the middle ground, instead of adding new
conditions, relying on the administrative ability of staff to go forward
with the owner because there are codes that apply to things such as
lighting and they were working with staff to comply with those codes.
So they didn't believe there was any need or actuaf ability of the City
to go ahead with additional conditions, but their bottom line position
is they are going to work with staff to complete this project consistent
with applicable codes and regulations. He hoped that could help
alleviate some of the concem to the Commission.
MS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, said she was actually present
for the Larrea hotel, but what she found so interesting was
coincidentally she was here two years ago the night at least three of
the Commissioners presented tonight voted on this project and what
she recalled about the night was how little discussion there really was.
Everyone was trufy impressed that this was a huge house but would
blend in so well. She believed the one concem was the reflection of
the light and rem2mbered it being said that there would be big
overhangs and they would not see the light and so on. She lives down
by Ironwood Park and even from where she lives she can see this
house on the hill.
She just wanted to pose the question of how they got to this point.
What happened and where was the flaw in all of this? She heard the
applicant claiming the voluntary mitigation. She recalled that they
were going to be building on the rocks, not adding rocks. She thought
there were rocks there that were going to be built around. So she
could ce►tainly share the sentiment of the attorney from Ironwood.
14
DRAFY
MINUTES
PAL�4jI.DESE�2T P�.ANNINr. C�MMISS�nN
, OCTnBFR 3� 2(1(lFr,
They were all told this would be a wonderful project and they wouldn't
see it, they all agreed and look what they had to look at today. She
certainly thought it was absolutely a great idea to condition things.
Ms. Housken heard Mr. Bagato mention changing of the pool. She
was just curious how things could grow in length. They were doing a
smaN addition at her house and wanted to add four more feet and had
to jump through a lot of hoops here at City Hall to add four more feet.
She didn't see how a pool triples in size and no one seems to notice
and now they have this huge infinity line of a pool that they will now
have to disguise with rocks. So her concem was how did we get here,
which they coufd probably be here all night trying to find that, and how
can they prevent this from happening again? Where was the flaw and
how can they resolve this? She was sure they tried their best and
could certainly sympathize with the Ironwood residents because they
weren't present at the meeting that night. This was supposed to be a
beautifuf thing, it would blend into the hill and no one would see it.
She thanked them.
There was no one eise wishing to speak. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for
Commission comments.
Commissioner Campbell stated that at their last meeting in September this
project was approved 4-0 with Chairperson Lopez absent. The only condition
that was imposed at that time was by Commissioner Tschopp adding that
any water features and landscaping proposed for the extended grading area,
make sure that the fighting and landscaping elements do not impact any
surrounding areas. That was the only condition imposed at that time to be
added. Since there wasn't a resolution prepared for them, she would go
ahead and move to approve Resolution No. 2421 conditioned the same as
their September meeting and disregard any conditions imposed by staff at
this time because as they could see from the developer, Mr. Barlow stated
that they are working with staff to make some of the proposed changes
compatible with the area right now. That was her motion.
Commissioner Tanner agreed that they passed it 4-0. His question at this
point was the City Attomey made the comment that they might be doing this
in vain. He asked if that was correct. Were they really in a position to make
that and vote that resolution if in fact they were operating in a gray area? Are
they there to approve that resolution? Mr. Hargreaves believed they were
able to do that. It fit into his understanding of the law, but he acknowledged
that there is a disagreement and a gray area. Also, what the Planning
15
�RaFr
P INUTES , , . , _, . _
A,LIV�„DESERT PI.ANNINC, C(?,MMISSI(�N _, . . . , . ,.. OCTnBFF�.3j 20AF
Commission was doing was a recommendation. it goes to the City Council
and what the City Council does is what is going to count. So in a sense, he
wasn't going to say what they did was in vain, but they were advising the City
Counci! and thaYs where the real decision will be made.
Commissioner Tanner said in that light, as Commissioner Campbell said,
there was one condition, and he applauded Commissioner Tschopp in
suggesting this and that was the lighting. That was an issue. That expanded
grade, if Ironwood and surrounding areas were able to see any lighting
coming frorr� it, any type of intrusion, then they were definitely not for that.
Apparently the mitigation process is well in hand and they are doing what
needs to be done, so he would be in favor of approving the resolution as it
stands before them.
Vice Chairperson Finerty said the morning after their vote to allow this
increase for the sport court and extra landscaping, she had gone back and
got the actual minutes, the verbatim minutes when the City Council approved
this project back on September 23, 2004. She wanted to read a few things
from it. A statement was made by Mr. Barlow that, "Mr. Dryer, the architect,
has very successfully, in our opinion, achieved both ends of the spectrum
from the standpoint of whaYs important to the Hagadones. They have a
home that has open features, the water features, the living spaces, that they
want to enjoy and at the same time because of the setting, because of the
way it is designed, it's hardly noticeabfe to the public." A little further down he
talks about the community design and views, the spirit of the hillside
ordinance that we have to protect these views. And lastly, Mr. Barlow talked
about it being nearly invisible.
Her concem, as she said two weeks ago, isn't what they can't see, it's about
what they can see. This house was approved 5-0 at Planning Commission
and at the City Council because they believed what they were being told and
what they were being told is that it's nearly invisible. But today what they
have is very visible and the hillside has been disturbed and they look at the
o�ce. She understood the Hagadones' willingness to put up the faux rock to
try to cover up the office and she goes back two weeks ago when Mr. Barlow
showed them the pictures before the faux rocks and after the faux rocks. She
thought that evening that he had taken a bad situation and made it worse.
So she was trying to figure out what they can do when what they actually
voted for is not what they got. At least a po�tion was not what they got. So
she asked staff to look at conditions because she felt that what they voted
for has been very disappointing, not only to her but people from South Palm
Desert, Ironwood, The Reserve and other developments.
16
oRaFr
MINUTES
PALM DESEFjT PLANNING C(�MMISSInN . .
C�CTOBF,R 3,� 2At16
Vice Chairperson Finerty felt strongly that they need conditions, and it may
be because they've never had a house built this big before, and someone
asked how did we get here? Well, they got here based on certain
representations that they thought, which were in large part lived up to, but
they've got a couple of glaring representations that were not lived up to. They
got here because of a grading plan that was submitted at 38,000 square feet
and in reality was 45,000 square feet, but that was not caught. They got here
because a pool permit was issued before the plans were reviewed. And they
got here in large part because they believed that this wasn't going to be
visible. She understood that the Hagadones were willing to work with them
and she understood from their attomey, their counsel said they are willing to
work with us and with staff. And thaYs precisely what these conditions are
for. It's to insure that they do work with staff and that they do have some
recourse for when a project is represented and then what we get is different.
The faux rock around the office needs to be addressed, She didn't know
what the answer was and was comfortable to try the condition as suggested
by staff, but she did know that it was anything but natural and it was anything
but blending into the hillside and anything but visible. She would move that
they adopt all of the conditions and recommend them to City Council.
Commissioner Campbell said they now have two motions. Mr. Drell asked if
there had been a motion and a second yet. Vice Chairperson Finerty and
Commissioner Tanner said no. Mr. Drell said that until there is a motion and
a second, there's no motion. Commissioner Campbell again said there were
two motions. Mr. Drell noted that there was no second and suggested trying
one motion at a time. Vice Chairperson Finerty indicated that Commissioner
Campbell's motion was first.
Action:
Commissioner Campbell stated that her motion was to go ahead and just to
condition the project as stated by Commissioner Tschopp at their September
meeting and disregard any conditions imposed by staff at this time because
Mr. Barlow, or the developer, was working with staff to go ahead and make
some of the changes proposed and to go ahead and make the changes that
wouid be compatible with the mountains, the lighting and everything had to
be approved by staff anyway with the ordinance. So she didn't feel that any
of these conditions should be imposed on the developer at this time if he is
working with staff. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was her motion.
Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Tanner seconded the
motion. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Vice Chairperson Finerty voted no,
Chairperson Lopez abstained and Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
17
oRaF�r
MtNUTES
PA�M DFSE�R7 P�.A�VNINC CnMM1551nN . „ . . , , nCTnBEg �� ?(�Ofi,
It was also moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2421, recommending
to City Councii approval of Case No. HDPlPP 04-21 Amendment #1, subject
to conditions as amended above. Motion carried 2-1-1 {Vice Chairperson
Finerty voted no, Chairperson Lopez abstained and Commissioner Tschopp
was absent).
Chairperson Lopez resumed being chair of the meeting at this time.
B. Request for initiation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating
to Commercial and Residential Condominium Approvals.
Mr. Drell explained that in the tast six or eight months staff has had either
inquiries or applications for conversion of probably 15% to 20% of all the
apartments in the city. That probably included the best apartments in the city.
So given the fact that we have absolutely no regulation whatsoever relative
to condo conversions, staff thought it would be wo�thwhile to at least look
into that and into setting up some sort of regulation or process to deal with
how tenants are treated, when and if they should occur, etc.
Mr. Smith said the only other matter staff was possibly going to consider was
with respect to parking and making it consistent with apartment projects and
looking at some clearing up some existing de�ciency as to whether it's a
conditional use or an outright permitted use. The current ordinance is silent
on it. So there are fots of things they could clean up with this and asked that
Commission direct staff to so proceed.
Commissioner Tanner said it was tough to comment on something they don't
know about. Mr. Drell reiterated that aN Commission was being asked to do
was direct staff to initiate the discussion and it would come back to the
Commission as an amendment with a hearing and they could vote it up or
down. Commissioner Tanner asked for and received clarification that
Commission would have time to review this.
Actio :
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, by minute motion directing staff to set the matter of commercial
and residential condominium approvals for public hearing. Motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
`F:3
�
M{NUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
C. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES RELATED TO PERFORMANCE OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS ELDORADO WEST (CONTRACT
NO. C22970, PROJECT NO. 642-01).
Mr. Ortega reviewed the staff report and recommendation.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Ratify award of the subject
contract with Terra Nova Planning 8� Research, Inc., Palm Springs, California, in the
amount of $142,525; 2) Authorize a 10% contingency for the project — funds are available
in Account No. 110-4300-413-3010. Motion was seconded by Crites, carried by a 5-0 vote.
XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. ORDINANCE NO. 1072 - AN ORDINANCE O� THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING AND
REPLACING ITS ORDINANCE NO. 855, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW
PERSONNEL SYSTEM AS CHAPTER 2.52 OF THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued from the meeting of August 26, 2004).
Councilman Ferguson moved to continue this matter to the meeting of
October 14, 2004. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
XVI. OLD BUSINESS
None
�► XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
OPEN SPACE PUBLIC RESERVE TO HILLSfDE RESERVE (1 DU/5 AC), A
CHANGE OF ZONE TO PRE-ZONE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SECTION 5, T6S R6E, FROM RIVERSIDE COUNN'S N-A
(NATURAL ASSETS, 1 DU/20 AC) TO HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
(1 DU/5 AC, WITH A DRAINAGE, FLOOD PLAINS & WATERCOURSE
OVERLAY ZONE);A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRECISE PLAN TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 32,016 SQUARE FOOT
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME; ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS IT RELATES TO THE PROJECT THERETO; A
RESOLUTION REQUESTING LAFCO TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR
PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 38 Case Nos. GPA 04-02. C/Z 04-04.
HDP/PP 04-21 (Hagadone Family Trust, App(icant) (Continued from the
meeting of September 9, 2004).
Pfanning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff repo�t and offered to
answer any questions. He noted that the Planning Commission on Tuesday
10
(
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CfTY COUNCIL MEETiNG SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
evening unanimously recommended approvai of all of the appfications. He
added that the Architectural Review Commission also reviewed the plan and
recommended approval.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that approximatefy one acre of the 4.84 acres
would be taken out of open space to be used for housing. He said in the
County, when someone takes a piece of land out of open space, they are
required to in some way mitigate for that, and he asked if something was
being done along those lines with this piece of land.
Mr. Smith responded that this was property previously owned by the Water
District and zoned open space. There would still be well in excess of the
typical 3 to 1 ratio of land dedicated into open space through the
conservation easement.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing open and invited testimony from the
developer.
MR. JOHN BARLOW, Trustee with the Hagadone Family Trust, spoke as
representative of Duane and Lola Hagadone. He said a lot of time and effort
had been spent in making this project very specia! and compatible with the
site and the setting. With regard to the question raised by Mayor Pro Tem
Crites, he said 4.13 acres would go to the City in a conservation easement,
which is about a six to one ratio. He added that a good portion of the .71
acres that is within the building portian was a buffer for them to use for
construction so the would not get into the area that would be dedicated. The
actua{ part of land that would be developed was an even smaller fraction than
the .71. He noted that every step of the way they had been conscious not
just of their own design and desi�es but of the community design and views
and the spirit of the hillside ordinance that protects these views with �espect
to color, texture, etc.
Councilman Ferguson said it was his understanding that Mayor Pro Tem
Crites was pointing out that there were five acres of land that currentiy is not
in the City which, for all practical purposes, would never be developed and
did not really have a use. The developer was taking a small portion of it and
offering the balance for that which it already is. He said he did not think
Mayor Pro Tem Crites was bothered by the amount of land being taken; it
was just the precedent that generally does not allow net reduction in open
space as part of these transactions. He asked if the trust would consider
making a modest donation to an acquisition fund for open space in an
amount equivafent to fair market value for the .71 acres that were being
taken, and this would preserve the precedent of not having any net reduction
in open space as a result of this annexation.
11
t,
�
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETlNG SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
MR. BARLOW responded that the 4.84 acres was currently within the
County, and the City would gain 4.13 new acres of land that would have a
conservation easement to prohibit anything being done on that land forever.
He said in their eyes, there was already consideration that had been given to
the City. Upon comment by Mayor Pro Tem Crites that the land was already
zoned open space, he said City staff was very excited because this was a
piece of land that was not part of the reserve, and because of what the
applicant was doing, it would now become part of the Bighom Reserve.
MR. CARL CARDINALLI noted that his �ecollection from discussions with Phil
Drell were that the property itself was not part of Bighom Sheep habitat.
Terra Nova came out and did an environmental assessment because this
4.84 acres was outside of the project area of Bighom. At that time, the land
was not part of any habitat area, and the analysis requested and proposed
the mitigation for the use of this portion of the 4.84 acres to be placed in an
easement to be kept in its natural state in perpetuity. A representative of the
California Department of Fish & Game came out and looked at the area
proposed for use and commented that it seemed that the area being
proposed for use was just a naturai extension of what the homesite was, and
putting the balance into a conservation easement of this so�t captured it for
Bighorn habitat forever.
Councilmember Benson questioned what measures would be taken to make
sure there is no glare from the roof and that it is not visible as someone
drives into the City
MR. BARLOW stated that the material to be used would be patina copper,
which is the same type of material on the roof of the clubhouse at Bighorn.
He said itwould not have the shiny effectwhich Councilmember Benson was
concemed about.
MR. GUY DREIER, Mockingbird Trail, Indian Wells, further explained the
proposed roof material to be used, noting it was an acid washed copper that
eventually goes bronze, and this was close as they could get to the color of
the rocks.
Councilman Ferguson asked if any analysis had been done from a viewpoint
north of the Bighom Development and Highway 74 and what, if anything,
would be visible from those vantage points.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that he had met with Mr. Cardina{li earlier that
day out on Highway 74 by the Bighorn Institute, and story poies had been
held up so that he could see what, if any, of this project would be visible. He
said the project as proposed was less visible than some of the existing
structures at Bighom on the other side of the Highway.
12
�,.
�
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
MR. BARLOW further described how the project had been designed to
mitigate view impacts.
Mayor Spiegel invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this project.
With no testimony offered, he declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Pro Tem Crites noted that his convems with regard to the �oof
materials and view impacts had been responded to; however, he was still
concemed with precedent being set with regard to having a net even balance
in terms of open space. He felt this was a cemaskable project, and the fact
that the devetoper had done all the work and would actually be building walls
of rock outside the project had done a great deal to safisfy what could have
been a contentious set of issues for him.
Councilman Ferguson concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Crites and said he had
never before seen anything quite like this. A considerable amount of time
and money had been put into this project, and he was very happy with it. He
did have a concem with regard to the net reduction in open space, but he
knew Mr. Hagadone well enough to know that he could address that with him
when he gets back.
Counalman Ferguson moved to waive further reading and: 1) Adopt Resolution
No. 04-95, approving a General Plan Amendment from Open Space Public Reserve
(OSlPR) to Hillside Reserve (R-HR), 1 d.u./5 acres for 4.84 acres in Section 5, T6S R6E; 2)
pass Ordinance No. 1077 to second reading, approving a change of zone from Riverside
County=s N-A (Natural Assets, 1 d.u./20 acres) to HPR, D(Hillside Planned Residential,
1 du/5 ac, with a Drainage, Flood Plains & Watercourse Overlay Zone) for the prezoning to
facilitate annexation to the City for 4.84 acres in Section 5, T6S R6E;3) Adopt Resolution
No. 04-96, approving a Hillside Development Plan 1 Precise Plan to allow the construction
of a 32,016 square foot single-family home, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration as it relates to the project thereto; 4) adopt Resolution No. 04-97, requesting
LAFCO to take p�oceedings for Palm Desert Annexation No. 38. Motion was seconded by
Crites and carned by a 5-0 vote.
B. CONSIDERATION OF THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS OCOTILLO DRIVE NORTH OF
GRAPEVINE STREET (George and Sara Buono, Applicants).
City Engineer Mark Greenwood reviewed the staff report and offered to
answer any questions.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hea�ing �en and invited testimony in FAVOR of
or in OPPOSITION to this matter. With no testimony offered, he declared the public
hearing closed.
13
R��; �� i�VED
str z z �2oos
_. _ -_
Pala► Desa�c city council
palin Desert City Pianning Department
Ladies and Geirtlemen,
..n�M,�•�;�•�•;� �"'L�°11"eVT`lr",PAR'fMENT
S�Si�rib�����1�- _RT
I am a residsirt xnember of Ironwood Country Club and I apologize for aur outbursts and
wallcing out of the rcceirt Couacil Meeting. As you know emotions are ninaing very high
co�cerning the Hagedone Tnist Bighorn project. The Fact that you as a group was in
favor of further rewarding tlus.out of control project with an additional parcel of land to
i„,a:.�.y� t�e size af the project to over 6 times ttn guide Iines recarttmendations 'is
ynimaginable! The project has tiwinbed its nose at all ruies and approvals aad has done
whatever it wanted to do wit�+out any �ontrol of the City. I cannat believe that at every
win t}us project has talcen any Iand they needed and as the infraction was not caught uniil
the work was fuushed; it's A ok! Let us laok at the euors, results, and totsi ciisregard for
rules and guidelines from tiie begicw.ing.
1.
2.
3.
�
5.
Desecration of the ridgelin�e without consideration of what Ieveling of the
iidgeline and.adding the stnutures would do to the naturat ridgetine. Cranes were
destroying that ri�dge faar w�eeks without any word as #o whax was gaing onI
'The sunrey was imbrreet and use�d considerably mar+e land ti�an waa indicatui on
the su�rvey plan. The errnr was not found until the project bad been well under
way, a�ad arcort�ingly ailowed to continue.
'T�e rock otiice ,iufinity "Diss�eyland "pool tile wall {Exbensive), and vario�s
roof-t+�s are visible in plaee of the oace na#�el ridgeline. The fact t�at the
zoofiag materials came fram woriciwide import and sre very expensive is of lit#le
concem as they still destroy the ridgeline!
The wad�r fieat�u�es of pool, canals and fish pond have consumed a great d$al more
]and t}� agr+eed vpon but it was nnt checked before it was fini.s�hed, so this too is
just fine�
The addition of the su�osediy iiot usable land ta be used for pianters and a sport
court is nov�r requeste+d and cxrtainiy neec�ad to coinplete this "Neverland Ranch":
It is not the iand but to reward t3�is exc,ess in abu.se of t}�e setting, ignoring how it
effects so many otheYs is noi in a position ta be rew�rded fiuther. h will be great
to look up on that ridge all lit up for carnival each night 8t ]aiow th�i that it was
all au�complished by their pushing and sho�ing and ignoring all rules.
i hope that this dves nat lead to every project that learns of this does noi take th$ satne
route end just do as they please. For everyone's sake put some teeth in the guidelines and '
check these pot;entially in fraciious projects befoxe they are too far along io correct!
Thank you for listenin�, and please talce some pasitive action to prevent more of these
uncontrolied disasters!
Watdo H. Shank
73 i 31 Ajo Laa�e
Pa}m DeseTt, Ca. 92260
,- �"' �� �
.. �
, - �i�
' - �' -- c�
_____._ �
Drell, Phil
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jwiggins@jhwiggins.com
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:31 PM
Drell, Phil
Hagadone Addition
To Whom it May Concern:
As a full time resident of Palm Desert I am very dismayed daily w
the intrusion which the Hagadone residence has made upon our comm
to the beauty of our magnificent mountains. It is noticibly one
dominates and breaks the natural beauty of our mountain ridgeline.
protect animals and plantlife. Please act to protect for your co
the natural ridgeline and beauty of our mountains. I ask that yo
all further requests for expansion of any kind to the Hagadone re
One man's home should not be given precident over so many that obj
this expansion.
Sincerely,
hen I see
unity and
home which
We
nstituents
u decline
sidence.
ect to
Peggi Wiggins
Drell, Phil
From: jwiggins@jhwiggins.com
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:29 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Addition
Dear Board:
I am a resident of Palm Desert, CA. I can view the Hagadone property easily
and frequently do. It distressed me to see the skyline disrupted by
man-made construction when the construction was first begun, especially when
we were constained by the big horn sheep, lambing or rutting ordinance when
trying to construct a home just below this property. Shouldn't the city
abide by its own rules, as we did with the sheep issue, and make it
mandatory for all properties to follow them? How can Mr. Hagadone get
special preferrence re (1) building on the ridge in the first place and (2)
now enlarging that development in the second place?
I ask that you you follow your own rules and not approve the addition.
Respectfully submitted,
John Wiggins
1
2
0o-1Q-06 04ti61p� PrarGURALNICK CILLILAND +T60564i06a T-144 P.O1/02 F-��2
G�LTRALTTICK & GIL.LIi.ATVD, �.Lp
ATTONN�YlwTLww
wT7opNEYs S�1lV�MG
COMMUNITr AlSOClATIONS
P�QAS! R!f!R TO FILE +�i
��-30o MiOMw�Y 111, SUITE M
PAI.M OESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHON� (780) 3�0-tsls
FACS1h11LE (760J 58a-309�
E-IAA1L. M�r+�B�GGhOALAW COM
Sepumber 18, 2004
Plaonia� Commissioners
Ciry uf Palm Descrt
via fac�ipaile only (760) 340-05�4
, , ,
ite: C�� Na. HDP�PP 04-Z1 Am�admcut �1- H��daae F�a�ly Tcust
He�trin� D�te: Scptreaber 19, 20p6, 6�00 p.m.
Dcar Commissioners:
n
o �v 1
� ��
� z r;°
� N�
.V �<
Ntri
S -�OQ
t �
N � �
� ��
A► r^
'Y'his law firYa rrpresents Ironwood Mast�r Aszacis�iioa. Tha Ironwood Mzsur
Association represeuu thc iri�crescs efthe Ironwoed Country Club homeowners assoeiauons
withia ltonwood Couutry Club aad their iwmcowner �nembers. The Ironwood hamcowncra
have bern v�ry vacal ia oppositioa w the City�s approva� orche HagadQnc proje��, which has
beco� a very prominznt inuusion apon the prcviously undisturbed mountain ridge vist$s
oveslooki�ag konwood Counory Club.
Ironwood Mastr.r Association's position is that the Ciry ot'Palm Dcscrt mad� a serious
ertor in approvin� the Hagndo�'1e projtx�. The resideins �f Irvnwvod bciiavc �i ihe Hillside
Planned Residential dcvelop�nent stanci�rards (P.D. Z.oniaQ Ordinance Scctian 25.13) ought tu
have bezA applied in harmany with �ir siated intentiop w prescrvc tbe natural hillside rurain to
the grcatesc exunt possible consisunt with sensitivr development, and to preservc scrnic
mounsaiA vistas. Tha Hillside Plaru�d Reric�ential Disrrict ardinance provides:
"The i�trru und purpose of tht hil�sidr planrrrd rr�identra! districr is:
�!. To enc��rugr only mininral groding in hillaid� cuecu thqr relates to rhe natural
ca�taurs of the larrd Qvoidi�g eztensive csrt and�iJl �luprs rhar �rs�lr in a poddtng or
sraircase efj''ect within thr drvelop�rrenr,�
B. Encourage archi�ecrurr dr�d lun�rcape deslgn which blerids with thr n4iu�ol r�rraln ro
rhe grrate�r pructicQl extent; � ' �
C. Rr�ain And protect undtstr�'bed vit�v�heds, nat�ra! la�rdmarks a�d f�aikr�s including
vfstu� ancl rhr narural skyllae a.r inregrat �lrmrr��s in davelopnro�t propvsals in h�llsick
areas '' . , . , . � . .
R�c�lwd s.�-�e—os oa:5np�
Fron�-+T80b683068
ta-PALN DESERT CITY CLE Paa. 01
04-19-Oi 04�61� Fra-GURALNICK GILL{LAND
G�.iRA�.NICK & GILLII..A,ND LLP
Sepu�aber 18, 2006
Planting Conuuission
Ciry of Palm D�9trt
�: e�� rro. HpP/PP 04-21
Hc�riag Dat�: Sepunabes 19, 200b 6:00 p.m.
+760664706� T-144 P.02/OZ P-9�2
As such, the praject applicant'� request to retroactively approve a�ading expat�sion
which is 50,000 square fect largcr than that contemplaud by �he Hillside Developm�nc Plsaaed
Rasida�rial Siar,dards, w a tota� 61,I00 square feet, �nd 16,2g0 additional square feet beyond tho
Cit�'s existing npprovala, is gsosaly oxcossive.
Iinnwood Master Assoeiarion is awarE �at t2u �rading expaAsioa bcyond ihe pnviously
�pprovcd �t purportedly will be below t�ie ridgclinc (�oT ir�eludiag the pool, whieh is complrte
and which is vis�blc below the rid�e line), and therefore is not anucipaTed To irapact scCnic
mo,uataia vi�ss beyond that p�eviousa,y aDpmved by the Ciry. Nevertheless. Iranwood Master
Association urges the Commissior► cwiforAa to the goals of tbe Hillside Dcv�lo�pinent Re9ideati�l
dcvclopment st�ndnrds by confinia� thc graded are� tn tl�xt previo�ly dpproved.
The Ciry cicarly errcd in approving a projcct of tbis uiagnitudc� which is naw appa=cai
seein� the pmject in proccss finm cbe perspective of Isonwood. lronwoad is coucemed that
fus�}ses sueuhing of the Hillsidc Developmenz Rcside�tial suludard� bcyond their intenrion
cseates ou exeappon t�t dcvours thd rule, sutd s very bad preced�ut for future hillside projecu i�t
iht Hill.sidc Platu�cd R�sidential District.
Although the sports eourc, water features �ci Isr�dseaping propo3ed for rhe �xpanded
grnded nrea da aot at this tunr appear to include either li�hhting or landscape elements that would
impacr sccnic views from below. Ironwood Master Assnciation urges thai in tt�e eveAT That the
Commissioa is iaclirud to pera�iz tiu expansion, chac the Cotmoaission te make a condition of
approv�l rhnt such cicmeAts are forbiddert. �:
Al�lwu�kh ibe Ciry's z�niug elearly penn�ts developmeni in the Hillside Rcsidcnrial
Arvelopment Disuict, � Ciry should be very conservadve in perniining permanent alterauons
to The natural mountain urrain. The Ha�adone Project has akcady had the benefit of �rcat
iadulgence &om the Ciry for what is an archicecturnlly challen�in� and utuque projeCi. The Ciry
has an oppomiuiry aow to hal� fiu�th0s aeedless disturbaaca of �h� mouncain tesrain and ta sc[ a
srdnci�td fvr stricur compliarur now and in the future for bil]side develop�ment.
ironwood Master Associatfon respCctli�lly rcquesu that th�e Plannin� Comuiissian deny
the application for amcndmenc to ihe Hagadone precise plan to expand the approved graded ana
an additional 16,2a0 squarc ftet.
Rtc�iv�d S�p-18-06 04:bOp�
Siruesely, `�
.__!' `'� � �
Mari� A. Macl:
Fros-+T605683053 TaPALM DESERT CfTY CLE PaQ� 01
rruposeu nagaaone �xpansion
Dreli, Phil
From: John A. Hinds �ohnahinds@dc.rr.comJ
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:36 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Proposed Hagadone Expansion
Dear Mr. Drell,
We are strongly opposed to the City of Palm Desert approving this proposed expansion.
Page 1 of 1
In the first place, it was a serious mistake for the City to allow Mr. Hagadone to build such a monstrosity, or any
structure, on the ridgeline, which will negatively impact the residents of and visitors to Palm Desert for decades to
come. To approve the proposed expansion wauld be adding injury to injury. I have reviewed the drawings on file
at your office, and understand that this expansion will not be able to be seen from the valley floor. Nevertheless,
you are urged to tum down the request to further expand this overblown project. To do otherwise would be to
reward his previous acts against the public interest.
The so-called Hillside Development Ordinance (1046A), which is presumably intended to protect the interests of
the community, was clearly ignored in the case of Mr. Hagadone. I would hate to believe that his massive
financial resources, or the increase to the City's tax base as a result of his project, had anything to do with his
obtaining approval for his approval at the outset.
We urgently request that the City of Palm Desert vigorously enforce 1046A, and refuse to permit any future
cos►stsuction, by any party, along the ridgelines above our community.
Thank you for your consideration.
John and Carol Hinds
126 Heather Court
Palm Desert, CA 92260
9/ 19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phii
From: Feldmanrb@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Bighom Requests
Dear Mr. Drell,
My husband and i live with our three boys in Ironwood Country Club on Brian Court. Unfortunately, from our
house we look right up to Mr. Hagadone's property at Bighom. While we appreciate the efforts at blending
his home into the surrounding area, we are quite opposed to the expansion of his lot for a sports court. A sport
court would significantly detract from the natural beauty of the mountains. I can't imagine looking up at night to
see a lighted court at the top of the mountain!
We are also opposed to the lot expansion on Canyon Crest, which we feel would also impact negatively on
views from our development.
Please take our input under consideration.
Sincerely,
Rancy and Leon Feldrnan
107 Brian Court
Ironwood Country Club
760.272.7541
9/ 19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Ray Sebastian [rayseb@earth�ink.net]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 5:46 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Development
I have just leamed that a new petition by Mr. Hagadone to expand the approved graded area
of his compound from the approved 38,000 square foot pad to 61,110 square feet will be
considered by the city shortly. This expansion apparently would accommodate a larger pool,
water feature and additional landscaping. I want you to know how strongly I object to both the
original approval and to the proposed expansion. In my view the city has totally failed to
adequately consider and protect the ridgeline where Mr. Hagadone's project is built. The
construction can be seen clearly from miles away and the limited mitigation done is woefully
insufficient. I ask that the city, having already failed in the original instance to interpret the
Hillside Development Ordinance to protect against ridgeline development, deny the requested
expansion, and, in the future, rigorously enforce the Ordinance in order to avoid this kind of
development that adversely impacts many residents of Palm Desert. Denial of this expansion
is a chance to at least partially recover from a major step in absolutely the wrong direction. I
am a property owner in and full time resident of Palm Desert.
9/ 19/2006
Drell, Phil
From: DrLaf@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 6:51 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Stop fu►ther Hagadone building
Dear Mr. Drell,
I am writing to express my strong objection to further development at the Hagadone site above Ironwood
Country Club.
This property has already drastically altered the look of the mountainside with an immense project that can be
seen throughout southem and mid Palm Desert. The residents at Ironwood Country Club bear the brunt of
this unsightly scar on the hill.
To consider 17,000 additional square feet to that Mr. Hagadone can build a sport court is incomprehensible. As
a long time resident of Palm Desert and a homeowner within Ironwood Country Club I implore the city to do the
right thing and Enforce the .H�11 ide Develo.pment Ordinance•
Please do not hesitate to contact me or my wife.
Sincerely,
Dr. and Mrs. Leon A. Feldman
107 Brian Court
Palm Desert, CA 92260
drlafCcDaol.com
760-275-6211
9/ 19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: NLHaase@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 6:05 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: HAGADONE PROPERTY
I am a full time resident of Ironwood Country Club and have to look at the Hagadone property from nearly every
spot in ironwood - home, golf course, property in general.
I was aghast that the city ever allowed any building on the ridge line. Immediately my only question was which of
the Palm Desert govemment representatives took a bribe? I could only fathom that was the method used by
Hagadone to gain permission to build.
Now at this late date Hagadone wants to nearty double his building square footage!! I can hardly believe the City
of Palm Desert would even remotely consider this request. I personally hope that Mr. Hagadone is of such ill
health that he never moves into the property or spends one minute of his time enjoying the fruits of this horrible
house.
Nancy L. Haase
73-203 Ribbonwood Court
Palm Desert, CA 92260
9/19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Tripaldi, Dave [Dave.Tripaldi@Gn�bb-Ellis.cam]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:33 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Development
City Planning Department:
I am a property owner/resident at 73-734 Jasmine Place, Palm Desert, CA.
The purpose of this communication is to vigorously object to the expansion proposed by Hagadone.
The City is responsible for "doing the right thing"...and the right thing in this case is to strictly enforce the Hillside
Development Ordinance and to therefore deny the petition by Hagadone to expand the graded area of the
compound from the approved 38,000 sq ft pad to the 61,000 sq ft t pad.
Very truly yours.
David R. Tripaldi
9/ 19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: HomeQboelzner.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone proposal
Hi
Just to let you know that we are very upset with the Hagadone house and feel that the city has made a majo�
mistake to have allowed this project.
The hillside should not be developed and the city should enforce their own ordinance to that effect.
The new request of the Hagadone's should be rejected. They have already been given�enough preferential
treatment by the city.
Josi Boelzner
346-3300
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Sheila Harvey [saharvey@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:30 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone expansion
Dear Sirs:
We understand that Mr. Hagadone has applied for a permit to increase the development of his property on the
ridgeline abutting the Ironwood Country Club. We hope that you will decline any further effort on his part to
further encroach on the ridge. We have been dismayed to see the present structure rise above the the ridge and
obscure the once unobstructed vistas. We are homeowners in Patm Desert at Ironwood specificalty and we can
assure you that having the Hagadone project looming above us and marring the skyline is objectionable. Please
enforce the present guidelines to prohibit any further obstructions at the ridge.
We are afraid that if you set a precedent allowing such development it won't be long before others follow suit to be
on top of the hills of Palm Desert. And we believe that would have a negative effect on our community.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look fonivard to your decision to vote against any further
encroachment.
Yours truly,
Neal and SheiVa Harvey
73 582 Encelia Place
Palm Desert
Sheila Harvey
saharvey@mindspring.com
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Ryan Lawrence [ryboyl @earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:34 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Cc: Dale Echols
Subject: Hagadone
Ordinances are not meant to be avoided by rich people.
Please do not let this development pollute the skyline!
Thanks
Ryan Lawrence a concerned Ironwood neighbor
RYAN LAWRENCE
attomey
2301 nw thurman s�
suite d
porUand, Or 97210
503 223 2120 phone
503 517 2186 fax
9/ 15/2006
Drell, Phil
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Friends,
Jeff Foote [jfoote aQfootelaw.com]
Friday, September 15, 2006 11:05 AM
Drell, Phil
Dale Echols; cindfoote@aol.com
Hagadone Ridgeline Development Expansion
We are residents of the Ironwood Country Club Community (47-811
Quercus). We have a lovely view up the 13th fairway of the Ironwood
North course, the hillside to our south, and, unfortunately, the
Hagadone development.
We were appalled when the buildings appeared on the hillside. Where we
appreciate the mitigation that was done, the project sets a dangerous
precedent. One of the things that makes South Palm Desert so special is
the view up the hillside into a previously undeveloped ridgeline.
We now understand that there is a proposal to expand the project to near
double its original size. We strongly urge the City Planning Commission
accept the staff report of the Planning Department and reject this
intrusive proposal. If the Hillside Development Ordinance is to have
any meaning at all, this project must not be allowed to expand and
further mar the ridgeline.
1
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeff and Cindy Foote
Jeffrey P. Foote
Foote Webster, P.C.
1515 SW Fifth Avenue,
Portland, OR 97201
503.228.1133, 503.228
jfoote@footelaw.com
www.footelaw.com
Suite 808
1556 (fax)
2
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: RLGraySF aQaol.com
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:22 PM
To: Drell, Phil
SubJect: (no subject)
I am very much against the Hagadone ridgeline development.l encourage the City
Planning Department to enforce the Hillside Development Ordinance. If the ordinance
is weakly written,now is the time to strenghten the statue, so no further development
of the ridgeline is allowed to happen.
Sincerely,
Robert Gray
Palm Desert Resident
9/ 18/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Judi Jeremiassen �jeremiassen@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: The Hillside Development Ordinance
To Whom it may concern:
We are writing in response to the proposed Hagadone expansion to approve graded area of the compound from
the approved 38,000 sq ft pad to 61,110 sq feet. We are very adamant that this request be denied as the ridge
line development from the South (Ironwood properties) has already been greatly compromised. We further feel
that the city should enforce the Hillside Development Ordinance more aggressively, thereby restricting fu�ther
development on the ridge line and help to protect the views and the ascetics of the mountain and it's habitat.
One of the main considerations we had when moving to this Desert area was the unhindered views and mountain
landscape. Please, please, please help us to maintain the landscapes rather than strip the area of iYs natural
beaury.
Sincerely,
John and Judi Jeremiassen
73-259 Boxthom Ln
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Judi Jeremiassen
�ieremiassenCa).earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
9/18/2006
DOUGLAS 8i MARIE GRu� r Y i nS
49240 SUNROSE LANE
PALM DESERT CA 92260
7b0 56f 0579
FAX 760 3417026
E MAIL dgriffit6s1@dc.rr.com
City of Palm Desert
Plaaning Commission.
Palm Desert CA.
Relating to CASE NO. HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT #1.
.L_�+ L L 1.`` ��� �� -�
SEP 18 2006
:���1�)ilT1� rii�� _..,. '�n T �'.k�. .: 'd :AT
CITYOF?a:.:ti: ��c�tF;
T6is building site refen�ed to As � 6ipside development plan (�n unfortunate
choice of words) should �ay mountain top dtvelopment plsa it vic�►ed frnm t6e
North side o[ our Valtey, is a building site th�t should nrver have been �Uowed
in the fir�t p4ca However we ncver did get a notice of the propo�ed
de�velopment at its inception �nd we an past t6it portion of t6e developmcnt
now►.
T6e notice asks for Aa amendment to ezpand the graded arw from 38,000
square feet to 61, 110 �qnue f�e� It does not specify t6e reason for t6e incre�ese
in grxdcd area. If it is for landscaping of the arai, then OK. If it is for enlarging
any pre-approved building t6en it should rejected.
WHY� The noise factor from the location can be heurd every working day for a
considerable distance around t6e sita If it t6e intention to bu�7d a luger house,
whic6 s�ems to be the probability con�idering t6e co�t of t6e site, t6en it is
probably for corporate junkets. Consider t6e noise lc�vd for Any large p�rty or
even just music.
We live in Ironwood Country Club, wbich is Nort6 of the'ite aad we can 6�r
loud xnd clear, the h�unmers and even t6e voice� on any working day.
Unfortunately we will be out of town at the meeting dite and is why we are
writing.
If it ia a party 6ouse, the City Council will get nothing but complaints once the
band strikes up.
,i? -�}-�
� /�.� �,�� �,(�V�
; ��.
Doug�as Gritiiths.
, ^
�.'�t1�'�^-� � ' _.G
Marie Gritiiths. Sep� 15, 2006.
Page 1 of 1
Stendell, Ryan
From: GemNagle�aol.com
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Drell, Phil; Abbott1940�aol.com; FEBulleit@aol.com; rondoll�earthlink.com;
JComerf476(d3aol.com; jgodfrey(a3dc.rr.com; larrysutter(d�earthlink.net;
krobe�tson�drmintemet.com; VShrader�aol.com
Cc: Planning E-mail
Subject: Hagadone Hea�ing
Mr. Dreil: 1 am the president of Ironwood Master Association. My board and I represent all the homeowners
inside the gates of Ironwood Country Club, both members and non members. Approximateiy 409�0 of the
homes inside the gates are occupied by non club. members.
We ask that the city decline the request for further grading on the Hagadone property. There has been enough
errors made in allowing the project as it stands. We hope that action will be taken by the city to prevent any
additionat buildtng that disrupts the ridge line. The rules goveming ridge line construction must be better
defl�ed.
I will not be in attendance at the public hearing September 19, 2006. IMA will be represented by Lany Sutter, a
member of our board.
I do want ta thank the city for notifying us of this hearing. I'm just sorry that it wasn't done before the project was
started.
Thank you for your consideration.
R. Gem Nagler
President, Ironwood Master Association.
���� � �-�� �.�
SEP'18 2006
�����.'�iT` ,� • - ,. �..;T
CIT7 �r t:tL... . L.;i:.i
9! 18/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: ruthek�aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:04 PM
To: Drell. Phil
Subject: Hagadome House
I am a resident of Palm Desert and I vote here as well. The City of Palm Desert was lax in allowing him
to build the original structure. His attempt at compmmising the situation made it look even worse in my
opinion. If he is allowed to expand further by the City it would be outrageous. Why should any resident
be held to abide by your rules and regulations if he is permitted to ignore them.I hope that the voters
react to your actions come election time.
David Shafz
73-674 Agave Lane
Palm Desert
C�c�.o�t�t�r ng..�AQ�. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to
millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
�-�;�' �'� TT�'' �
�. .�. � � .�l �
SEP � 5 �
;OMM;:'ViT :' �:t�,. � :,,. , T .
� • 'P;.:;.,',,::ST
CITY OF : t�L.;a :, l;J G.v.T
9/ 1 S/2006
JOHN F. BARNA
122 HEATHER COURT
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
760 568 3983
September 12, 2006
Mr. Philip Drell, Secretary
Paim Desert Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
�.L'` C
�j��
.���: � D
15�
��'�YC:i'ITyDE��
�f��F A�;yo yE�:�n;.N�yT
Re: Case No. HDPIPP 0421 Amendment # 1
Dear Mr. Dreil:
This letter is in response to the notice I received about the public hearing to
consider a request by the Hagadone Family Tn�st for an amendment to a hillside
development plaNprecise pian to expand the approved graded area from 38,000
square feet to 61,110 square feet.
As a Property owner in ironwood with a ctear, unobstruc�ted view of the portion of
the improvements on the property that are above the ridgeline, i object to the
requested amendment to expand the land area. Turn down the request.
I believe the approval of the original development plan was a mistake. The
existence of buildings above the ridgeline that are visible for miles spoii the lovely
mountains that surround us. To add developable space to the existing approved
plan will set a bad precedent. An approval of this request may lead to additional
applications to develop property at similar elevadons and in undeveloped
mountain areas further desVoying our pristine mountains. Stop this now and
establish a policy that prohibits the mountains from development by the ego
driven, super wealthy or anyone else.
The revenue generated for the City by fees, perrnits and taxes should not be
ailowed to sway the judgment of our city councit and/or the City's dedicated
personnel. Protect the mountains and their visual beauty for a{I of our residents
and visitors. They are the public's treasure.
V truly yours,
� ��'��-L(G��
ohn F. Barna
Drell� Phil
From: dkbikl �mycingular.blackberry.net
Se�t: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:46 PM
To: Drell, Phil
SubJect: Hagadonne Residence
I am resident at 73115 Crosby Lane in PD. Unfortuneatly I am currently in Italy, but I
would like to express my disagreement with this request on the following basis,
1. This request repesents an approximate 55+ percent increase in the original request.
2. This whole project sets a bad precedent for the City of PD.
3. Does the City of PD have a long term plan for our community? If yes, how does this
abortion fit into it?
4. If other than denial of the request is consiodered, it is respectfully suggested that
this request be postponed for at least 30 days.
Don Black
Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
1
-rr-.. - . ^ -�r v z- � • ..
.. , i� � /
SFP � 5 �
: (::.. . . . . . ,
C:il ,,: ..._.: -__...
///i.� �//r!. Win���hi�
48-978 `,.ioREat��an�
pa�,n .11.s..t, C�...�l 92260
760-340-0443
w������p.al�.�y.�.t
9/15/2006
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
Subj: Proposed Hagadone expansion amendment
It is unusual for a single individual's newly-created
residence to create such a stir and so much resentment.
Even though the Hagadone family appear to be aware of these
sentiments, they now desire to make their inappropriate
homesite even larger.
We are residents of the Ironwood community. Even
though our own homesite is not located where we can daily
and nightly gaze upon this outrageous visible intrusion, we
feel compelled to tell you that we sympathize entirely with
those whose homesites are so impacted. We're at a loss to
understand what our Planning Commission is for if it can't
do a better job than what they have done in this matter so
far.
If the present ordinances are "unclear", "poorly
written", "under-protective", or "over-protective", it
should behoove the Planning Commission to go before the
City Council and get those things straightened out.
We think of the Planning Commission as a body intended
to protect the interests of alI its citizens. In this
instance, the perception is that you have successfully
protected a special interest.
In all earnestness....
Winfield Shiras
r- . . - - � , . ..
-�. . � . , . . . i
SEP � y �
�o.... ... . .
c; � � ��.- . .
Page 1 of 1
Drelt, Phii
From: n.hester(�earthlink.net
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: Drell, Phil
SubJect: Hagadone requested expansion of graded area
We urge the Planning Commission to deny the Hagadone request for expansion of the hiilside graded area. The
current buiiding afready impacts our view (as homeowners at Ironwood) of a previously natural ridgeline. Thank
you for your consideration.
Nelson and PoNy Hester
n. hester�earthlin k. net
Ea�thLink Revolves Around You.
�r , . . , ,, .
.. , . . , .� :. d .)
�`�� 1 J 1006
��....
c� � � ,,. . . . .
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Don Neison [dncpa({�verizon.netj
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Petition
Sirs,
I urge you to disapprove the Hagadone petition to extend the grading from about 38,000 square feet to
over 60,000 square feet. The present eyesore should not be so extended. Surely, Hillside Development
Ordinance (1046A) should be rigorously enforced by the City
Don A. Nelson
48626 Torrito Caurt
Palm Desert, CA 92260
dncnan.verizon.net
�7 ;r 'I •�"j - i � •- r •. .
_...�_ :.i J_'„ � •
;. r �.
SFi� 1 � �
,o:.;:. -
;
f.!'t i v; . .. . .....
9/15/2006
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My wife and I have enjoyed our residency at Ironwood for more than 20 years.
One of the great attractions of Ironwood is that the City has protected the natural
beautiful hillside views.
We urge you to deny the proposed Hagadorn expansion which will seriously compromise
the hillside view enjoyed by all.
Sincerely,
Jerry Knudson
-�- - . - -r-•- +--_ . _
� � , �
._ . ' . . . . .. •1 ' . J
J�� j :, Z�6
.� �. .. . ..�. .. . . . . ,
�:,�� , ,.- � _ . �
City of Palm Desert
Planning Depaztment
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My wife and I have been at Ironwood for more than 30 years since Ironwood's inception
in 1974.
One of the great joys and benefits of our Ironwood residence is that the City has
conscientiously protected the natural beautiful hillside views.
We urge you to deny the proposed Hagadom expansion which will seriously compromise
the pristine hillside view enjoyed by a11.
Sincerely,
R.S. Hoyt, Jr.
'''� .
;' ; ' �
-�- , � ;�� �.�,..�1 ��
Scr i ; �
�, �;. , ,
�., . , "- " , � ;
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phit
From: Jerry and Emily King [cgking3(c�yahoo.comj
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:45 AM
To: D�ell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Property
City Planning Department,
We feel strongly that the city made a serious mistake in approving the original HagadoRe variance request. it is
imperative that the mistake not be compounded by approving additional grading.
Respectfully,
C. Gerald 8 Emily King
48-601 Valley �ew Dr
��� ��1 � 1 ��� f. ����� f �
_. ' 1 J _ 1 . 1
`�'' 1 �� 2006
�
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: FCJIMROOO�aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Dreli, Phil
Subject: No Subject
As a reside�t of Ironwood and of Palm Desert, { am appealing to you to deny the Hagadone project an
amendment to build an even bigger development on his property. VYhile a man's home may be his castle, it does
not give anyone the right or privilege to destroy the ridge line. The faux rock that was added does not enhance
the "look". Please do not add insult to injury by ailowing the Hagadone project to expand.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Marlene Rood
73-395 Agave Lane
Palm Dese�t, CA 92260-6653
Phone: 76U-341-7360
e-mail: fcjimrood(dlaol.com
3055 Rockbrook Lane
Colorado Springs, CO 80904-1164
Phone: 719-473-7550
�r ' �/^i' • rT � ^. .
� 'i -. / �. . c. / � �
5tr � y �
.��., � . . •
r� � , �.�
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: RMBAUMAN(�aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Request by Hagadone development
It is my understanding that the Hagadone family is requesting permission to increase the approved g�aded area
from 38,000 sq. ft. to 61,100 sq. ft. I live in Ironwood Cauntry Club on Kerria Court which is just below the
Hagadone site on the north 16th Fairway. One of the prime reasons we moved here was the view of the
pristine mountains from our faitway patio. With the construction of the Hagadone estate this view has been
adve�sely compromised. Now they want more. When will this stop? I believe that the City Planning
Department has an obUgation to the rasidents not to allow building on the mountains which deter from the
existing developments. 1 therefore am strongly against any requests that adversely change the environment.
Reed Bauman
73-471 Kema Court �
Palm Desert. CA 92260
�--� •r ; �: - �-,� «_ .
'-� -- i_.�:."_ % � _i
JEr f J ZO06
.,; .
��;....
9! 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Pxparis�aol.com
Sent: F�iday, September 15, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Drell, Phil
SubJect: Hagadone Development
The Hagadone ridgeline development south of Ironwood has had a negative impact on our community in that the
hillside has been unduly comp�omised and homeowner views negatively impacted.
As yeahong residents of Ironwood, we vigorously object to the proposed expansion to tfiis project and ask that the
City do the right thing and enforoe the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Thank you.
� �1 � 1 �-'1 � T-� �
.�1. ..�..! �1..' ?J � � ; 1� �
�r � � 1�
' r . . ,1.
9/15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phii
From: Raucan(Q�aol.com
Sent: Friday, Septembe� 15, 2006 11:31 AM
To: Orell, Phil
Subject: RE: HAGADONE DEVELOPMENT
Dear Sir or Madam: We are homeowmers in lronwood Country Club and our home faces the mountain area
where this development is taking place. It astounds me to know that the Hillside Development O�dinance was
not strictfy enforced regarding ihis development. This development has degraded beautiful mauntain views and
should not have been allowed in the first place.
it is our understanding that there is a new petition by Hagadone to expand the app�oved graded area of the
compound from 38,000 sq. ft. to 61,110 sq. ft. We would like to register our objection to this increase in size.
We must not allow our mountain vistas to be degraded in such a manner now, nor in the future.
Yours truly,
Roy Rause�
+r� r`' r� .'' � j'�l �-' �I
1 � �� � =• � �1 _.1
S�Y � � �
;o:� :,. ! .,' .
„�.�, r�, ► ... r ., � • ;
9/15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Slwgcw(a�aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:34 AM
To: Drell, Phil
SubJect: Hagadone Petition
As a resident of Ironwood Country Club, every time I drive in my driveway I am
confronted with the Hagadone monstrosity on the ridge line. We have now been
advised that this owner seems to think 61,000 square feet would be a nice area to
have his residence - including pool, artwork etc.
The original permission given to owner was a violation of the Hillside Development
Ordinance and any further permission to expand this Palm Desert embarrassment
would be a travesity.
You are. urged and encouraged to do the right thing this time and deny
permission. You know that two wrongs do not make a right. Sincerely, Gordon
Watson
�►�r,,-
� , ,, , , �! r��7�� � �
SF� � � �
�'�::. ,,r
,
,�
��'��-,-.. - r � `" '
9/15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Oreli, Phi{
From: RMyers986 c(�aoi.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:43 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Ridgeline Development
As a resident and member of Ironwood Country Club. I would like to vigorousiy oppose the Hagadone
development project as it now exists and even more vigorously oppose the proposed expansion of it. The
HiNside Devefopment Ordinance (1046A) should be rigorously enforced to prevent this kind of unsightly project
from ruining the beauty of our desert mountains. Money is not everytfiing!! Please stop or curtaif this abuse of
our landscape.
Very truly yours,
Richa�d E. Myers
48643 Torrito Court
Palm Desert, CA 92260
�7 ,i f •. ' i r �- �- r - � ,.
.�. .r � � • ' . • �
-- _, . y� , ;
SEP �� J 10�
�o.,..
cr� , ,,. . . .._. '
9/ 15/2006
Drell, Phil
Frorri: James Owens [bigo2442�sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2008 l 1:43 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Proposed Hagadone expansion
The City of Palm Desert has done a great job in
supervising the development of the finest city in the
valley. The approval of the original Hagadone project
was a bad mistake. Please don't make another one by
approving Hagadone's request for further expansion.
The natural beauty of the desert and the mountains
should be there for everyone both now and future
generations, not just the few super rich, Have the
guts to tell Mr. Hagadone NO! NO! NO!
James C. Owens, Property Owner
and Tax payer and concerned citizen.
1
i'� +- � .-.
�. � ;�_ : � � _� r=• . .,
____�, :�
Scr f 5 �
�l. ,
Cl i � ,,. . . .
Page 1 of 1
Dretl, Phil
From: Kay � Rook Shank [kaynrook�yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:47 AM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadon hillside project at Big Hom
Gentlemen,
I as a resident of Ironwood Country Club am apalled at the project that has destroyed a natural ridgeline
for some monstrous project of no consequence to any but the owner. It is an eyesore that is I understand
in the process of requesting additional square footage (sorne 30,000 +) to further destroy the natural
surroundings and enhance both the pool and surrounding landscape for only their personal greed.
It is my opinion that the hillside ordinances which should be supported by the City and its planning
agencies has been ignored, regardless of how vague it is written. Permission has been granted to the
Hagedon interests that is nothing less than ignoring the responsibility of upholding the interests of the
community as a whole for the interst of a single person. You must not grant this bizzare project any
further approval to destroy the landscape for no reason!
I do hope you will face your responsibility stop the destruction of our beautiful mountains and desert!
Yours Truly
W. H Shank
r_�f-.��-��zrr'x�
�•
�1...;,._.� � �..: i � ..
5cr � 5 20�
;�l'''t, .. - ,r. � .'
., - f,l'I Y vr ..'. . ... ....,
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Pennant0l(c�aol.com
Sent: Friday, Septembe� 15, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Dref{, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Project
Gentismen:
As a new owner in the Ironwood Country Ciub, I strongly object to the proposed addition and hope you wili
vigcxously enfo�ce the Hiliside Development Ordinance. Hopefulfy, the City Planning Commission will deny the
petition of Hagadone.
Dick 8 Marsha Stevenson
47-830 Quercus Lane
��r� '���� r'"�
� _' -t... � ;i'_ �
5cr ) g �
:o�,,�; _ . - , , ,
�t'rY,�r . � _.. ... ...., .
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Dreil, Phil
From: ArmyPau41(�aol.com
Sent: Friday, Septembe� 15. 2006 12:37 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Re: HAGADONE EXPANSION RE�UEST
Dear Paim Desert Planning Commission:
We were very surprised and extremely upset when the Hagadone house appeared on the ridge line of our
beautiful mountai�s. How on earth could you approve something of this nature when you profess to be the
"PROTECTORS" of our hills. Breaking the'ridge line" is iResponsible and very damaging to the surrounding
area as it sets a precedent. Not to mention how it impacts the views of the homes in the
community. Developmant in and around tttie city of Palm Desert has in mast cases been done very responsibly,
with a concem for the environment. Approval of this project was a serious mistake and makes us wonder
hOW could this have happened and Wf10 was responsible for this decision!
We are requesting that you deny any additional development and expansion of this property and further more
ask that you request the homeovmer to do more to restore the mountain side to its original beauty.
Sincerey.
Charles A. 8 Susan W. Pautl
73-132 Segura Court
Palm Desert, Califomia 92260
l�"• . �i 7'`I T j'%T �"' �
�W� J_ ... ?
SEN � 5 Zppg
��.. . . .
�;�� , .
9/15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: Judymetz(�aol.com
Sent: Friday, Septembe� 15, 2006 1:08 PM
To: Drell, Phii
Subject: Hagadone Petition
This petition further offends any setnblance of concern for the benutiful �aturnl
iinc of tha mountains and totally insults those of us who live in the vaticy nnd
npprccicte its nntuiral bcnuty. The City must exercise it's responsibility to thc
residents nnd enforce the existing restrictions for gross development nnd defecirg
of irreplocenble trensui-e. The existing eyesore can be see as fnr nwny as
Country Club and Monterr�y. This is en opportunity for the City to at Icast stop
the incursions it hns nllowcd by not exercising it's responsibilities i� the Inw.
Pf�ase deny this petition. Judith M. Metz, Ironwood Country Club.
�- ,,-�, �, ��-�-,,�-�
�
--� .Js_. :I �'-.
StP 15 20�
,�.. ,
f� J:r.. . . . . .. .
C�11 �J. . ... .....
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: R.W. Prater [rwp1515(�yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:22 PM
To: Drell, Phil
SubJect: Hiiiside Development Ordinance
To: City Planning Department
Gentlemen:
I have owned a home in Palm Desert sine October of 1980.
I choose Palm Desert for many reasons, but one of the main was the beautiful view of the surrounding
mountains which at that tune did not have homes or structures on them.
I was very disappointed when the Hagadone residence was built in an area that I had been told was
covered by a hillside development ordinance which would normally prevent it being built. Now I
understand consideration is being given to expanding it.
If you aze interested in maintaining Palm Desert's reputation as being an outstanding city with many
exceptional features, then surely you will do the right thing by enforcing the Hillside Development
Ordinance, and save our mountains from the same fate that the Los Angeles area has had to live with.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Prater
RF.�_��'���
SEP � � �
��,�::... . �
.. �
CJI l ,�. ..._.. .,. .,
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: SLOGoIfiBen(c�aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:08 PM
To: Drell, Phil
SubJect: Hagadone Development
To whom it may concem:
We are members of Ironwood Country Club. We are writing to beg you to deny any further development of our
ridge line. The Hagadone office and pod edge are already a major blemish on the natural ridge line. Please
do the right thing for our community; enfarce the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Ben and Jane BaHard
48048 Monterra Cir E
Palm Desert, Ca
R��E�V�D
SE� � 51p06
:0511h:'`l1'Y ;)E`: :. ! . , , • T
CiTYUf i':;�., ,,.,�::7
9/ 15/2006
Drell, Phil
From: Leonard Rudolph (Irudolph(a�dc.rr.comj
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Drell, Phfi
Subject: Hagadone Development
I have received a notice of a hearing to expand his area from 38,000 sq
ft to 61,000 sq ft. I live in Ironwood Country Club and frankly I never
could understand how the City of Palm Desert allowed this home to be
built in the first place. I was under the impression that the Hillside
Development Ordinance prohibited development on top of mountains in Palm
Desert. We not only see this monstrosity from our home, but also from
the Golf Course every time we play. I could go on and on, but I hope
that the City of Palm Desert would have the "guts" to do the right thing
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Leonard Rudolph
73-412 Poinciana Place
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Leonard H. Rudolph
Phone: 760-346-1732
Fax: 760-346-5512
Cell: 760-275-0777
E-mail: lrudolph@dc.rr.com
California lnsurance License #0613734
�ECEIV.�D
Str � � �
'o�tu,����v nE:��;; •
�lTY�p, . � .� , •':•i�..1T
:'.�.. . ...,'r.::7
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: JComerf476�aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:24 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadone Expansion
I am a resident of Ironwood CC and I object to the expansion of this property. This will have a negative
impact on ou� quality of life and sets a bad presedent for future applications for mega estates. That does not
conform to Palm Desert. I encourage you think of the community and reject this expansion. Roger Comerford
RECEIVED
st� � 5 2oos
.;01�ySCti1'i'Y UE�,:.:.v4�? :'� i :r F.....:•f c,rT
C1TY uF P;��.�: ���E?T
9/ 15/2006
Page 1 of 1
Drell, Phil
From: ruthek(�aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15. 2006 12:04 PM
To: Drell, Phil
Subject: Hagadome House
T am a resident of Palm Desert and I vote here as well. The City of Palm Desert was lax in allowing him
to build the original structure. His attempt at compromising the situation made it look even worse in my
opinion. If he is allowed to expand further by the City it would be outrageous. Why should any resident
be held to abide by your rules and regulations if he is permitted to ignore them.I hope that the voters
react to your actions come election time.
David Shatz
73-674 Agave Lane
Palm Desert
C�es�ou� th��eg_AsQ�. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, &ee access to
millions of high-quality videos from across the web, &ee AOL Mail and more.
RECEIVED
-.J 1520�
;O�1ML'?lITY DE'�'t�U?'�f�`T'.l�k'r�; �tiicNT
C1TY OF PAL:�; i)c�E::T
9/ 15/2006
��fl
��
IRONWOOD
COl1NTRY CLl1B
73-735 lronhee prive
PaGn Deser4 California September 15, 2006
92260-6994 City of Palm Desert
te1: 760/346-OSSl 73510 Fred Waring Drive
(ax: 760/773-4858 Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attention : Planning Commission
R� C.EIV��.i
~��' � � �
�OM1�L'!�ITY DE�'�iOp�iE\T uEeAici �i�ciT
CITY OF PAL1! DESERT
Re : Hagadone Family Trust, Proposed Amendment — 9/19/06
Bo�x� oc D��oRs Dear Commission,
jOHN GODFREY Ironwood Count Club vi orousl ob ects to the etition b the Ha adone
President rY g y � p }' g
Family Trust to expand the approved graded area of the project from the
Bu� GiseoNs approved 38,000 square feet to over 61,000 square feet. This expansion is in
Vice President conflict with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
RICHARD BEMlS
Secretaiy
PAM CARLSON
rieasu�er
DoN BucK
jOHN HiNDS
LEE MARSHALL
�OHN OTTO
MARY WATSON
We feel strongly that the city of Palm Desert should start enforcing the
Hillside Development Ordinance with more strength to protect our hillsides
from such intrusive developments.
Tronwood homeowners and Club members have had their hillside views
seriously compromised by the development of the Hagadone property.
Denying the current request for expansion would prevent further compromises
to the hillside and our views.
I trust you will find the above in order.
Yours truly,
� � �- ���`��'
�
�- ,�-���
' John S. Godfrey � �
.� "
Board of Directors, President
lronwoodCountryGub. com
��
City Of Palm Desert
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
To: Mr. Phil Drell
Reference: City Of Palm Deser[ Legal Notice
Case No HDPlPP 04-21 Amendment # 1
Subject: Public Hearing, September 19, 20U6
The Honorable Pa1m Desert Planning Commission
����i
��' �
�a ~r � 4 �
a
CO�biJN(c �qOF L�,n
pALM �NT �EPAhT,ilENT
DESBp,T
Reference is made to the public hearing relative to an amendment to the hillside
development plan to expand the approved grading plan from 38,000 square feet to 61,110
square feet. Enclosed find two (2) photographs taken from our property looking sonth at
the property in question. To use a rather old clich�, a picture is worth a thousand words.
The visual impact of this monstrosity on the ridge line of our mountains is egregious and
to permit its expansion would be a fiuther travesty to this community.
According, we request that both Staff and Commission reject the expanded grading plan
and prohibit any further construction related expansion of this property. Inaddition, I
would like to express my outrage at the timing of this hearing.This matter is being
considered when 75 percent of the interested parties are unable to attend and/or
participate in this hearing. As the atta.ched photographs attest the public interest is not
served by the destruction of our mountains and/or environment.
Very truly your
� � ���
��
Edmo McC
� �
rti �
Patricia A. McCarthy
72-955 Carriage Trail
Palm Desert ,CA 92260
(760)568-6116
� .•1..
I� � ' y�.�'`� :%�3h•�••^ '�
. .���',�l��t•.���'�ty..Z�'.� 4, v
. ''v '� ` _ `, , .l°'rra� , � :�i
, ;*'. �`J ; ;,�'�4�
, . . ;' `�, �
. , . 't` `� , t.
� �` -� :.t �. ^
� � �+ t
t� , �}�. ��;+��k1�
. . �• _ . ' � .�'. .-�_ 1
�
�������a������ � •'� �.t..
�,fw�' �.� } � ��? �r+''�� �r' Ji �i
'. '� 7��F�? ��,.�". ' �' '#�� y�� . '` . ' x' ."� �y . -..
�! ,' `! , `�"'� f ) F' .. �' ' A . ."o :
. . : � * � ��4' � ��� I . . ' < ��".�. . S,' � `i E " +� �
� �� ! t 4'`• �. S� ., t- i, `�� . � ..�i- �
� � +�, a 1 •• 'f �,�` � � 1 � • y y� : . . .. �y
I�M�
1,�?► t +�•.`� •�S_ �{ :.'.� 3 't°t� Y �'.�;y,l!
.,r, ' � ��' ..�, �"�;�
C,�t�`-� :a.. ' r, .�.'•'`' � ' � , ': y,
i 4 + x , ,i 1 �zr`�„ ���.'� �`'i. 'tr:
<
� � +,�r . ' ;�� w�'��,�t - . 'y� 1 . tr
' ,- ' •t '�• u
y�„`n ' ''1!.
't ln
.�+ . „i yr � �.� , �•�� •�'�' +'M �J{
n` ,4,r '� ` .i'�. �• '�I�� � �r '�'�11��+� „^� J
''r+ ` .�. , � ,4•� �; f '. ' �' aF'
� �'
;�� , '/
F' .Y � Yt '�, { r'� �:
� �« '.t 'w"t w+k � y " �,�-��a .
y." : }s 1�. - : y,� . �� �a.. "�
� '� � �+
aj . � .: , , � � � +. wl/1'i � �.'fc' 9
. - .� � �.` ��, 1 ` �`_�`. ?`3< 3
#. .. � � � r � ,
eF r' ' * , • � y.
� Y� ' , . t , �' ` !+�.�' � . - . .. , �, '' i�'�� ' i1.'" } k ,a.'..,�i `,� 1�` .Y�' �
, •'jT1 +� �..�Y '�' `✓"�� �Y$'ii� �'• M"e ,�' ',,,�y . .� '^"y t
. . �-�*� ._ �'S .[;;� '"'s. '...:u+' i.�..'�ti" :p::1 .sr, r •� y:�:.1 ,y,"IT:�:77+.*r...i'�r�, ��'t 1
. .�`5's. � ' �., � �.yi�.
- �' . �i' .�i: .Mz ..}��fy. ,,,'; $ j ;t , .
' _ . . . ,. _ . . ns...' _w-.�'� {,,, ;f% Y'+!F`'�'i !T7'.9�y�;�
. '�... � '`l'?t: y+ +y� r?7f � ��' °b� �s.
�, '�` �#. 4 �4 i:,
�•. ' ;.i� ' z� .� t
. vF�. _ '.4, y„3•, "?'x�: '�,�1 S { 4�4�. F • �``'''T j • k� t n -
. ^.`L . .f�t ' •)� 'r� �\wYy5., y.i.t;7�r"'t: -•?4�' �-3 �e �i'
. t,�L'i. ".+1' f.i., t.0 6�+Z `!`' -.L Fi.� ti
. . . . •�I t:�Fc � }'. .t.-. C � Y'• iI f'
- Y�-` ..Y�r 'Y'r�l, i ,
.�t." M•' � .,'.✓t-'� Ss
_.;z' `°,: ,' �!i,. ,+�-� �3 s
. +�r�e.� .Y.- .�i- '�`= J
���.`.�� , � _� �-t"
_ _ .,'�- ..0 t'` .��. ^��`t e ��it•�' �_. -r�,
. . . rl , .. +r -
"M. - .?L•
n�
t t W` `k.",,�i?i"
w "'ti." „ . t -. "�i, .d
j W l• P +�..�.I },�� %«r' ,7�.
. , '.Tf vnVr"
.\': •:k 'iY 3`� .�aC .�,••
. . .. �i.� t�` 4 �'�y Q��
. .'ro, i> '-7 +` y 4
, � t ^'.i.`'*' ,h'.. 'wr i
.,,':y .i'""`,y �• s .��^ ��r.
.. , .a5„t . ; ,� �. :.,ai�i�. , +� Ap . . . S' .
. . . , . °:!h.. q ' p: •d' t"'�aY.�.: � - 4' �, + {, i,, a
. .( ��r n' " w� 'r4'l:�,
� � ,��C�° • -�`' r ::� ' �; „ f: ` �
, '�M. ,��.`. �yiy,i ,f� `l'i•'_t. 6't '�Lif: .+t�. .,�' �j
... . . . „ ,fY.�3�� 5<'�v-�v�� avt :A .}s �'�. .�� L ' Y.��,��Xy �.4'
?�:* i..x� .-ti....• 'i r.-�fi i�;,e• .r k: r.. i /•', Zi:
. `'K � . �..�' :Y.. �I ' 3` i« � .J'I��' �� �aL �: *�` �� J,
. . _ . . - . <�;54,{qE.�:7't':�`�.3,, � �wy i:"�.,� . �.`-�:.��.,�,,,�,,�"'�r ;. +.r..,,:;.�ti.c• •.�; .y� �,'?� ��i.^ •t �.t.i�i . .
. . . . . .• ., _ �"f' ..r"'4'�y,4'�•'t'Srt�' -�.; a l,y,s�ffi��,...` .,.c,: C.,�-:,,*74`•�1.k>`�:'t.-[�•.�{+:{ 'v'a`y„a .i.
� � �.. 4
� . . . ,:i^�:. d .:�� ,�r� ..�`:'.- •ti�t. �.3., sr:.:� ' y+.
. .. ,:� � ...�'i::;+ .�P'�,2�j,4�X,x` J'.3S!'��:��'°�'� C�: �,:'ii; s��;�C •''4� K:F,��.Y' ��'+ �`t,� :+!4•�o-CZ µ'1� w�,�:.r.YiJ'_ {
.«. . ` . � . � - � .. ��'-•�'!�?t.2:.•;�,y�'�y ..}.' �.t,.::s..„ 'r' =�"{';"4.�• ".i!`F'tt" .i ` ,�,r• `,ti`c`�,�'� ,K.�y1
' '-R•4x��'�.,..!1`3T. �t:..•.-�`��,. s :.$:�,�;'�. �w:.r.^T.,`� ;'�y`,:. "L� �+i,,. . `�v' -i` .tv�je
� . , � " - �� ' , i�^"' ; -': :.$, ': t ,• _,iW�'r < x,'..Y �;4• �^•' ',:,uoc:? ..+r;.. .. ; M ..71'r},� � �� . �"* ' �i }.:
�.. i:'�Sd�.� " � `'�-'��r ^i� ' �� „ ,� � :..i
. •,'�'., '�;i `�+� , , .. .�
.. . ' . . . _ , . _ . a..�'a'. M ' . y:'.:.. ;;,r .+f`,:!3'�,.;.. �k: '.'f"r3' i `S Ya,,:� � Y;',• i-- Y r,.. !: : � �
" j � . .ti . '.� _ 4 � ,4.���: ),,. 5�,.,'� f , i.y`� ., . ." .. 7 . ' -I�..��. �: ,l���r: .'''�'� . . f
� � - � ,: c '>.^',�'�::'�ta:
:> . i �.;'i. � - . 'a�x:�.'� .. • • ,,,r r.. :��„>,.3t�:� t.� .`,?' .,;i,.
^� � ,� � Z K `h �•+`:L�'3�r�:,` Y;;}; i �:xy�:'�i�t .�^y.�;�;��cd`' :�v""' :tir'�' , , � , t. . . ..
. .� . . . � l.��.:�y... ;}+.,ti: ,»�+rxi 4''•j,'�',:e.:y',�:�?R,'t'.r��
_. . ;��' ' �� .! `' a .+� � . . .. . . . : �-�f~ ' - �~' .
. �i �, ij r. . .. ;.:-;.. . " � '#�`.,�,�=``3� ',�5• .w . ,�}'"".t; :,+li,yy:� • � . }
` • '� � �y r ��. �:O '1+ %�.. . � . .
� • ` =,y� � �' � � t � " + � ' " ' v
,.. � -� .'•.
�t- j . ' ` ��. � t�t'��t'�p� ,'�v'k. . .�' �.. ,. .. . 4. .,.. . ..
.. ,, �.. � .3�, t .r+ � �1Y.. ' � I � `j' tw\,.y1Fc�l4R. x . • �t ' �. ! � � � . . � r ' . " . .. x
' . ,���^ FF . • it4 � ' f �' � ! .�1 + • :�* ��'..�ti" !^" 3� �•w..;ry Y . ~�� �� a• . ' !
4 F " }� ���a{� ��p�` �R..' � � ! 1 e y:. � � ;,,. '' , e '. � y! �. s �» . .I' �,.e. �" 'J�KF>�"�`* '� .� ,, +�•. ,,,� ` ' � . ,' .
, . ` '�' � '"� T �' ' , : t. ��. xw ��;,,..{ ,i �� � a,�t�«:.�, ' w" '�4'� � ,, y .r.; w t�} �.. ,, y �-k. t � : - "� � � . i
e�,���, ���� '�""'C' . �'K- �a. a 1�� a ,'h' � .. .� iFc. ,y x.. . .� � , , . ,r. . w � � � :.�+
'' - ' .�s.�� � �� w., . '' ••�.�• '�!' ''ui."` '..�' ., «., .. . ' .. . ��' � '.+ � _ �
� � �lM..:� � �,� ,�,.� . ' '+ ~ , y; �tr. `o' .�'�+��j d' .qt : �; �"*s.�„� �;P. .y . , ',.x .
. - ... . : ' ;Y .+ � r � 2�L.0 s W,. `V � r ;t '+i. �s.. """'+,.: '*Sr,'}�� � � .�",y� 3�'"K: "5.;,'�":���.�6, �� ' ' � '. 9� � „� ,
, �Mcw •t
.. ''�_ , � � ,�'F±E "�y,, .irtii .,�..'rl�i� �� �`� r� .Ar�+na,.r+,l� . .�-�r .,..,�tr, - A, rX►'� �"w.r v„��c ' ` „ '+, a `.� . . .
ti ., .. 7� y !'�' ' y, � 7', y�'. *II•� ;y •ti. � � • ,,,9� l'a "�ir: �•• � , s? _ `f�r 1. «. � � ` � . . ' ,. . . � ` {' ' �"�t . . .
�/- .i.:ti ��q, �F "">4°.
�� Y i�►� �" s
' . � l.�yu.�.'r :... r . � �,.F• ^..^` ..a . _ .._ . ?`r�� �. � � .. � '�K'� �x~ �.. '�e, .y... � },�' �«;"' ti� ' . r , i. . �A"F► � .. � . ,. _ .
yl. -
�Iw '' ."r'' t ��, .
��� -,_};� #MI. � ,`� �kwy, +.�M..'
�r�,i'' i►.X��.,., `4+ � .. ry" .
. � ..i � �T � • ~ +�4'�'� +y
:7!". ; +b .'_�, y l� T.+�: � Q\i4" '.
'y .
� . .a ,
. . , c . ; � . i � . � . _ ..ti±C:�+....__ !C`. �
' r �, . . � A q ,s+.� i
' . . �. ^k� '.. . ` • � 'l9+M'�li���� � I � �:� �,^,,�� a'y `�'
: `:�. , ,%x� .,. `F � ,,.`�A�.�"�ida_.�y4.�iri Y
i� . .. � .+; r� . ,a ' i. � , �.: � vl� . , ± } ' �"?,!'�''�u���
•'si%�- . . � . .` Y.r. , �w „�'I`'N,,�i'x
- ` r�•F�.�. ' . . , �'Y,..::.i ,. . ' . !. � '�_ - "O,a .'�Sr�''�!
a, ;�; : .
-r '.
Z3t�ii�:.�• • �:: } -
�.
..- � .
•''1 ^ ,
i `:
4�y;��
�'4 ^
i(j�
IC�}. �' :y
i131{ �' � �i
`_� �'�
�a `" -.
�^F�� ,
��,it �.�� ;
��_`:�•��y
�;.T+i., � ,
r .,`�"�c'; �:w�, . :--ir�,,'�;'+q�::d:'» -: ->.-^gn..-:,. ,... .m . ,� �.a.. :+c,r.«,.u::.�..rs:..?+�.,..s*.t�y�C+':'Ff . �1RWC*!"*'�. '- •: �• � - • -
-�"a: ".,:y t,rr�: ;s. ,,;r -+r. -8-:.1s..: :�' :+� ;'?,- :�i -:;X�i;.�.- -,,s•:: :H.r; ..,,...._ . _� �.,i,
�i' ..i^ -N. .. :' r �.. _+:� yp� ,Y '�►� n:�. .�. '• �.� � � , .. •
r«^..'c� " ..�.� �t� :y i t,;;.'. . F ' y„ "'j„` � yt..ti'%�d� :.. 4µ���.. .%
.. 't•t+t... r'! � .�:'X, .,f^ )� '��; °,�, . v rr^ '..#b�'�', 'c:�';��+�> `t,;, :T>`,� _.�?�e. t.'�� �.7µ •y!► .��+ '.;', "?Y ,
. F.��, 1:A 5.��.'. '.95 .Y. ��,5,.�:. ��T.. ♦.r�a{•''. ....'C:h"i;�.'�!��� �; °7':;�1.�� .- ,'�::�Y� a.) r1. ,
, :r;, nT?y,. ,y. ,f7+'. .`_.�.� ^�:' `.a^.<,.. [?s', `� �3 •'�w• l..,• •-:>�} i. ' .r., �'T �.y . .
i � �J.+n -t. .��. .+'�'an. a%A:<� ��" 4i"• ,f-:':' >' . L+ . y...r..F� , .
.Y �a'V .� �+'ie,v `'i' �fF ti+'.`"` �'i+. ^ ,
- , L .�»` : � !� . ��'C4. Y ' i1">w . 1;., i'�'•^ ; iii, c .:�. � . !'tYt.. . � a .. �
, '�.�.y' ' ' �A :';.'� '�.i. . `� .. " t; . ., j4 , �M.•�;, •, ii:� � � 3���'�,t.t �:. �°kJ.'� .. � . . . . �� I . .. , _ .. .
i . . . . ,:t�''. . - . � � .,';.�''- . . . . .- , . �:r . . _•. ... ., . , `,.;- ,__r', _..s . .. .. .. .. • ... . _ . .. . ,. . , �-a:.'` . . . -
�����Poe, �oroy�
�.W._.,. . , . , , , . . , . . „ , ,,. ., . , ....,,, . , , ., ..�., „_. . . y,. ....., . , .. ... .... . . .. ..... .. .,,, ., . ,., , ,. �. . ,,.
�=r,�,�: Michefson, Wiima
�•���; Thursday, September 21, 200�3 9:16 AM
ti �: Monroe, Tonya
��,��j���; FW: C:ontact Us Form
'.�i_=r.a �lichclson
S�cre�ary �o tze Ciry Cou��il
Ci Lv of P�:lm �esert
73-�=0 = �ed ��'aring Drive
P�1:n ���se: t, CA 92260
;?C:�) 396-0611 Ext. 315
,?E�; 34C-C�?n :ax
-----Orig.inal Message----�-
F ror : Gi-1_gar., Shc-i�a
��n�: ':z�::scay, Sep:2:nber 2=, �O�o 9:�9 A�•:
: o: iyic;ne=son, ��!� lr�.a
`.'u�;z�t: �Fi: C�r.tact �s Fc>rm
!�ics_:; you ol�ase n.ate ccp:_es �cr _:�e CC. Tl:ar.ks.
�
-----Origiria� Niessage-----�
Fr;r�.: i.ity .,= Palrr. Cese�t !aeb S=ce [r�il�_c:c;Tlcl=l?3JI.CJ::I
;��r.T : �ti�dri2sday, �eoce�nber 10, ��Oo 7: 36 F[�!
:�: =:lrcr:�a`ior.�la-1; Ki:n �'::un:�o-:
:'t.�j�ct:: ��r.tact Us Fcr:r.
i�__St 111:�1E': �;'�.^.
T =::t :7c?IC.�: ���IC;TIc!1
_.-:il3i_ r_'C::j�PSS: �'-cf3d'J1. =O:TI
':�a�ess.l : ' 0�' IIriar. �esr-
Cl�y: Fa_m "�esert
�_a:-e. .;A
�=r- ��a�: Q�2oo
_-:�o:��: ;s��;�e2ii
���:�:���:s: �'ear :•i�. N:�:y��,
I::�e::t �;-ste:cay even_ng a� �}:c� planr.ir.g ..� ti:-iiss�or. TMeerir._,. �:cw ���rio�y di�ap�:cir.t'_r.g
.;r11� <3� _ -01..� �'CIi'`Tl1SS��:':e;S C;�.�C•��3T'G�C =I"l�lr C�l�1T: S��fi�S ra�o�n-�cnaaL�c:� �� :lc'_1� t_1_"ti:C?]`
c:�.�e1�:;�!en= o� t:�2 Hada�o:�e �rc;ect.
:•iv r�.�r'� �-� �i-y ao��c,r:�mer.= ras certa_r.�y ��e:^ S:ia�ce:�. The c_t•� .._early �:�r1i�:s rh�i�
z�r::;ic:�e t-as ��LaCed �;.'ta "buil'. �ut" `t:is r�si.�e�..^^ �n ,_cla�io:: r` Falm. �;eser= . I�
-?JJ:�-3`:j �C:<.ii. Lf1P. JLCI' 3�dCf? '::7d� 1: 1`i ��Ji_�=C:T' ,`.� �Ec}C iC'_"Cf1:-�r.css �haZ �:ti.t FE."_'II'1��_C:I;`� L�
'1�.�:_"t"' :.t;.;:'_ I=L'l:(? '_� �:ILS C3S^_. E�:_(C, .'P�r.`.,-i. �,_L'y' ��:�;2yr> %� t:a��E.' P.O tz�:'.h. InSte�<: Ji
_�s_s�ir,r t�ri= t;e :-,c�-�se ��d �co_ �e �od_fi�d tc f��: :.h� �r.ev�ous_y an�ro�.�ec �:�-r.i� a
.. �:-1p�c reappl i cat io:� tc al 1 0.�� "a� b�:� it" : s �_� tr:at �_ s rc::ui rcci.
_�•.1!�.:, ::f:c':t �..?.�:C:1S�' :��CJ �.'lr'. l:��ji -'lc'�/'? -�' --'ll� ;JI_:-c:ti1- '.�_S�"(:(jrrC; 7i C1L..:' _�`CU1:3`lOI:�J
. ?`111:.�.�_C::� �., _.'la:"?lIT'.C:1:3..V - ....�.�..., '_C f�u'_�_'�1Q f :��' G�C�'. _ .. _i .',/ ;c;vnrr.;n��r.t lti C.^,,.ti -i::'
.,_:i�:...�...:j�.."- -C :'E'a_ _.'1'_ JctY'- -. _ ^!�� �-�: -J'.- 'E�= -:,lF'•.'.r � . _ " �1":.:.� 1_.,_S ��:t: _ori _�_��c3h_�l; _c: ar�
_... a_�._r., r� -h� ^�::�e.-.:l ?ai:n ��. �'c .,�::- --[ . �r.c .
�
= sr� :ic�r a`-=aic tza� �he Ilaqad�r.e aco:ni:�.�t_c� to =ne so��_h P311'i :)ESc-t ri�:;e '_:�e is the
t irst of mar.y.
�: :�oss�b_e i��rould appre�iate _ha� tze plar.r.ir.g ccrrrriss_c:�ers �e alerten to :ny cor.cerr.s.
_?o� �. F��_cur.ar., MC
_�-� Briar. �cur�
_U�r Desert, CA 922EC
ra
�, :�:, � :�=� � `�� � i �
S�.r � � �006
�alm 33esaxt �ity� �auncil
Paim Deserti iit�r �lanni�g De�ar�eat
La�es and .�Sentlemen,
�$�t�1�� �' ' °:t�'•T �?�it':�tEtiT
�R'(�(�2�i�G:. _::?
I r�n a resic�� r�,ember of Irq�wo�� �o�:intry Ctub and I a�vlagize fqr o�r outi�ursts and
•���ang Qut of ttte ;ecent Council l�seti�ig. A� you tcnaw effiotions a.*e r.t�ting ver�,� hi�r
conceming `che F:':agedone 'Fr;ist Bignorn projeet. ihe �act tha.t you as a group r��as ir�
favor of further xewarding this.out of co�itro] project with an addi�ional parcel of ]and te
incr�ase th� si2e �f 3he pro3ect to c�ver 6 iiminaes the guide tines recom��dations is
�.rnimaginable4 "I'ile projsct has thu�beci its �ase ai ail rules and ap�►r�va�s an$ has ciot3e
wr,a.t�ver it wanL:,� tcj do rui't�iout any control o�Fihe �i�. I cannat �lieve ,+.hat at eu�ry
ium +.his pro}� lsas taken any Yand they needed and as the in�rac�ian was not caug�t i.m�it
�.#�e vvark was finisi�ed, i�'s A ak� �.�t us Ioo� a# the errors, results, �ct f�tai �isre�rarcd ��r
r�les ancl g�iaielu:�s from the �C�guin�ag.
1. �esecrat�on �f the ridgel.uae wir�hout cansideration o�'whai ]eveFing of�he
ridgeline �n�d adding the structures would do to the csatura� r�.�igel.ine. �ranes wers
des�tinl7 �St ri��e �o� weeks wi►l.iout any word as tc� �ur�ak �vas �oing on�
2. 'The surve:y was ineor�t anc� used eonsiderably mare l�nd eiian was indicateci a�
ti:e surve;� p�an. �e rrror vvas noi found untii the projec� i�ar� bezn �,vzPl under
way, ar�d •�cordingly altowed tU �;ontuiue.
3. 3"ne r� ,:�ffzce Yr_finity "i3i�neyiand `�ol tils wa�I (Exter�sz�;��, and vas-�oLs
2�00� t�o�ss � visible i� p�ace of the �ace �3tur-� ricigel;rte. �"ne fa�i �a# 2�e
roo5s3g materials camz �rom warldwide �mpart ff.nd ar� ve� �� :persive is �f li�le
cr�ncem a:� ihey stili dzs�-oy the ridgeline!
�. "�"ne w�atar %atures of p�o1, cana�s snd fish pond hav� consumed a greay deai pnore
Pand 9han ,agreed �apoa but it �Jas :iot checked be%re r# was fi�is�ed, so i�tis tco is
j;zst �ine!
�. T�e addition oi #.he su�posedi�� ��or usaisle ?and tc b� ;�sed far �siant�rs and a s�oi-�
c.o� as nc� a� r�qu�ste�! and �eatai�.iy needed to con�p�ete tnis `�hlederland �ar�ch"
I� is not 'rhe Iand but to rewa.rd �hi�c exc�ss in abuse n�f �e se��;, �gsiaring how fi
�ffecc5 sr, mauy ct�ers is not in A pasition ta be rew�a�ded furt'%ticr. It wil� be �rea�
to tooic up on that rid;e all iit up �i3r camiva! �;a.ci► night & kne a+ that that Et �v�s
all aecom���isb�d by Their pushing and shoving �:d i�norirg al� ru.les.
; hopa thaY t;tis do�s nat Iead i� ��very �roj�ot �ha� tea.�-ns of titis aoes not ra�ce tae sat�e
�cu� �nd,just do �cs tYtey pl�ase. �ar ever�one's sal;e pu,i some t�Ptl� i� ��e �uide�in�s 2xta
c,.e�k Ehese ��tenti�a��y i�� fzaciio�:s �roje�,:s 'aefore ihey �re to� f�r ala*�� Y� cQrre�tt
`Rzank you for Hist��.�in� a,-�d ��. ase taice so:re ,ocsi�ive acs:i�� to prever�t r.noxE aitliese
uncona-olted disasrers!
'r�/alClo i-i. Ji^ai7IC
?313 � ��;o �,acae
?alm riesert, : a. S225C
. �.�� J� �' .
, ` �/�i��C-� : ` z
t t...
�-�--
------ _>
�y��'�iY, ��i�
;,=a c�rr�; jwig��ins@jhwiggins.com
�4r;�; �Neclnesday, September 27, 2006 4:31 �M
y �: Crell, Phll
��4��ecE: F9ag,�dcne Addition
:o [tinom it May Concern:
As a full time •resident c�f Palm �esert Z am very aismayed daily w�en I see
t^e intr�sion �hich the :-iagadone residence has �ade upor. our com.munity and
to the beauty of oLr r,iagtiificent rr,ountains. IL is r.ot:.cibly one home wnich
doMinates and breaics the natural beau�y of cur mountain ridgelir.e. We
protect animals and plant:life. ?lease act to protecr for your constituents
Lhe r.atural ridqeline a:�ci beauLy of our mcur.tains. I ask that ycu decline
a=1 further requests for 2xpansion of any kind tc the I-iagadone r�sirier.ce.
Cr.e man's home should not be given precide�t over so many that object �o
Lhis expansion.
Sincerely,
Peggi 4Qiqgins
1
:�a��6i, P�i�
�r�rr�:
�c�4::
� �:
���j�c::
��ar Board:
jwigc�irs@jhwiggins.com
Nlonday, Sepiembsr 25, 2006 4:29 f'M
�rell; Phil
Hag:3done Addition
l am a resi�ent of Pzlm :�esert, CA. I car. view the Hagadone prcp�-ty easily
and frequenLly do. It d_:stressed me to see the skyii:�e disruoted by
man-made construction whe�n t�e cor.structio:��aas first begun, especially when
are •ner2 corstained by thEr big i:orn sheep, la;ib'_:�g cr ru:ting ordir.ance when
crying to construct a Y:on:e ;ust be=ow this property. Snouldn�L the city
anide by iLs own ru'_es, «s we did �,��Lh the sneep issue, and :nake it
r�andatory for all propert ies to follow the:n? Fio�r can "4r. Hagadone get
spec�al preferrence re (1) building on the ridge in tne rirst place and (2)
no��r enlarging that dev�lopment in the seco;zd p�ace?
I ask that you you folloti your own rules a:Zd *�ot a:oprove tY:e adaition.
Respecrfully submitted,
John uliggi:�s
1
�
: �f���se�, �cacL�eile
r.. "
-. iJli�.
�:.�?tiY`:
�: c� :
�u'ajzct:
David Hunsicker [deh3959@earthlink.net]
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:38 PM
Klassen, Rachelle
THE hagadone HOUSE
r,s � resicie:�t cf Iro::�n:��ooc. CoLn�ry C�ub ::av:.r.g to '_ook at tha� a::����
;�agado�ie liol:s�, = ar' :�emir�ded eacY: da�j �rat _•�oL are a C_ty Counc� 1 cut oF
co:�t � ol .
�ou have dene oermanen� da:�age te the citize�r.s of t�is ci�y r�_th •.�o�r poor
��dr,mer.� a:ic '_ack ef_ ccmmcn serse to a:_o�,- ���s pro;ect to mater�ai�z�.
.,..__ ccr__ii;� ion ai:ci uri,:��� tre tG^�e favcrs ::ould cause you �o a�; rove �his
pro�ect :n viola� ion of tY:e N"_i�ide De��>e�opment Ordinance.
:I:;•:� �re you go'_:�a to bri�g the ?�illside bacF: to ;t's or.igi�a] s�a�e of
rar.deur?
navi� �. I-:uns�cke.-
C!tizeri
1
Pa�c 1 oI� 1
:�C���sen, F2ac�eif�
�r�r.-: OLDWINDBAG@aol.com
S�r:`�: Wednesday, October 13, 2006 5:47 PM
-�z: Klassen, Raclielle
�,,. jimvolz@comcast.net; lienchel@integra-insurance.com; �wwolte@aitglobal.nei; ZCFiEEF@WEXP.COM
��:b?ec��: Hagadone project
i hav2 �ust received a letter from thE� Ironwood Hoi�eo�vners Association regarding our immediate neighbor, Mr.
Hagadone (From Idaho). I have pl��yed golf at Mr. Hagadore's course in Idaho and I do not believe he would sit still and
allovd ,�?is hilis to be scai red with a �ery ugly home. When it �vas apparent that something was wrong with tf�e mountain
vieUr from my patio, it was apparently too late to s'cop this miss-carriage of town governance. What happened �o
�oliticians that looked at all of the citizens (we are not in thi= class since we only pay property taxes are are not
considered for anything but stuffing ihe town bank account}.
Can someone from the town put forth a detailed memo to al of the residents (property cwners and renters alik�) on how
iVir. Hagadone could have obtained 1he building permits to build such an ugly house for all to view? I like to reier to it as
i��e 3arney Rubble Home (Flintston��s). If the town politiciaris have not noticed, this ugly eye sore can be seen not only
irom Ironwood but from as far away as EI Paseo.
�iease do someihing to stop this m�:ss on the mountain.
Rcb2rt Higgins
73 477 :rontree Drive
�alm Desert, Ca
1;).`! �)!?006
P�i�,c 1 �i� 1
�ca��er�, F�ache�E�
��or:�: Carla Hanks [cjehanks(�verizon.nei]
�erz: Wednesday, October 13, 2006 6�41 PM
'-�: Klassen, Rachelle; gerr nagler@aol.com
��bi�c�: Hagadone Property
"ct:�bcr 1 S, 200G
i�%1�1\�O1' �1171 }'C1'�USOII, ��Iayor Pro Te►n Richard S. Kclley
�'oui�cii mcmbcr Jcan v. Bcnson, Council membe; Robert A. Spic;�el
Falm Descrt City Council
::�car Council:
�';'c are shocl:ed and ciismayed at the blatant disregard by the Ha�adone Fa►z�il�� �l,rust ��rojcct ���iih re�ar�l to the
};:-io� appro��al process and thc shccr sizc oi�their pruject in the hills east of Hi�h�.��ay 7� in P11�t� llesc:r(.
:��� understandin� is that the ordin�uicc spccified a ma�:imum buildin� pad in thcsc hiils of 10,0()0 sc�<<are lect.
'I'hc E�1211111111� C011ll]11SSlOt7 I7ZS I10��' il�[)1'OVC(� il bt'i1CIi;CI <<rca of o��er G 1,00U square %et (in spitc of the
:ccomiilendation of thcir o���n staf�f a�ainst appro��al.} 'l�his scts a prccedcnt. "l�hcreforc, il� a��roup oi� us dcci�lcs
ic cic��elop in thc }�ills, ��e caii usc this approach as a�uide.
'i scc���s that "ruies ar� macic to Lc; brokci�" is ali��c 111ej \vell in Palm Descrt undcr this administration. This is a
sad situatioil anci ane that c�oes nct speal< ��.ell of th� eity of Falm Desei-� or this aciminish-ation.
`r'ours trulv.
'��Iich�i�( L. I-Ianl<s
73-: b� Irot:ntree Urivc
1«lm Dcsert, Ca 922G0
f {;�' 19.-'200G
SAMUEL GOLDSTEIN
49 Lagunita Drive, Laguna Beach, California 92651
tel: 949-497-7411
fax: 949-497-8146 e-mail: sam.pam@ver�zon net
October 18, 2006
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
Mr. Jim Ferguson
Mayor,
Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Pro Tem
Ms. Jean M. Benson
Councilmember
Mr. Robert Spiegel
Councilman
Dear Mayor and Councilmember's,
�R�CErvED
EiT Y CLERK'S OFFICE
PALM DESERt, CQ
2006 ocr 2o dM it: 23
BY EMAIL & US MAIL
RE; HAGADONE DEVELOPMENT — PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL
HEARING - October 26t", 2006 at 4:OOpm
As a an affected homeowner in lronwood Country Club I must let you know that
the above proposed residential development is and has been an outrage to the
beauty and tranquility of Palm Desert. This project is so big that it can be seen
for miles from the site and what it shows is a City Council that seems to be out of
touch with the visual blight of Ridgeline Development. Our mountain ridge tops
are sacred to this community and this development has crossed the line between
intelligent design and an intrusion into everyone's peaceful and tranquil view of
the mountains.
The Planning Commission's recent vote of 2-1 endorsing an enlargement of the
development from 45,000 sq feet to 61,000 square feet despite the absolutely
negative input the City Staff had rendered to the Commission is a further violation
of really bad and insensitive decisions with this project . The Hagadone site as
described in the Palm Desert ordnances only allows for a 10,000 foot building
pad and without variances this project cannot move forward. There are NO
grounds for a variance for this project and there never has been but the applicant
has been granted massive building without justification.
This project has over developed the site contrary to their building permit and
taking more ridgeline with it. In any other community this project would have
been red tagged and shut down until it was brought back to what was granted in
the original permit. Currently the pool is almost twice the size as described in
their initial building plans with the infinity edge following the ridgeline when it was
supposed to be set back from the ridgeline. The violations in the existing
construction of this building site are too many to mention when you start with a
10,000 foot building pad and the applicant is now seeking to rape and pillage up
to 61,000 square feet of buildings and more ridgeline taking. There seems to be
a disconnect between sensible and sensitive building and just destroying miles of
beautiful mountain views that affect everyone in the valley for a greedy self
interested insensitive developer with the full cooperation of the Palm Springs City
Council and Planning Commission.
What was the City Council thinking when you granted the original building permit
for this "Monster" project? Didn't you ever stop and think why you agreed to
permit despoiling the mountain ridgelines that I think you all love and respect?
And as an added note...our Community of Ironwood was never notified of this
outrageous project from its conception and approvals but now that we know what
has been done, we wilf not go away.
IYs never too late to turn things around and I very strongly urge you to do just
that.... STOP THIS INSANITY AND STOP THIS PROJECT until Ironwood
retrieves the beautiful ridgeline that it never agreed to loose. A copy of this letter
is going to be sent to the Desert Sun Newspaper, Fish and Game Agency, the
Audubon Society, NRDC and any other protection agency that will help reverse
this environmental catastrophe and bring back our ridgeline beauty and
tranquility.
Where is the Environmental Impact Report that supports this absurdity?
Ve+`y/truly yours,
w'� i � ° �'"G'GG
amuel & Pa ela Goldstein
73-311 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
and
49 Lagunita Drive
Laguna Beach, CA. 92651
949-497-7411 fax 949-497-8146
email: sam.pam@verizon.net
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Samuel Goldstein [sam.pam@veriz�n.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:21 AM
To: Kiassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Development - City Council Hearing 10/26/2006
October 19, 2006
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
Mr. Jim Ferguson
Mayor,
Richard S. Kelly
Mayor Pro Tem
Ms. Jean M. Benson
Councilmember
Mr. Robert Spiegel BY EMAIL & US MAIL
Councilman
Dear Mayor and Councilmember's,
RE: HAGADONE DEVELOPMENT — PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL HEARING - October 26�,
2006 at 4:OOnm
As a an affected homeowner in Ironwood Country Club I must let you know that the above proposed
residential development is and has been an outrage to the beauty and tranquifity of Pa1m Desert.
This project is so big that it can be seen for miles from the site and what it shows is a City Council
that seems to be out of touch with the visual blight of Ridgeline Development. Our mountain ridge
tops are sacred to this community and this development has crossed the line between intelligent
design and an intrusion into everyone's peaceful and tranquil view of the mountains.
The Planning Commission's recent vote of 2-1 endorsing an enlargement of the development from
45,000 sq feet to 61,000 square feet despite the absolutely negative input the City Staff had rendered
to the Commission is a further violation of really bad and insensitive decisions with this project . The
Hagadone site as described in the Palm Desert ordnances only allows for a 10,000 foot building pad
and without variances this project cannot move forward. There are NO g�ounds for a variance for this
project and there never has been but the applicant has been granted massive building without
justification.
This project has over developed the site contrary to their building permit and taking more ridgeline
with it. In any other community this project would have been red tagged and shut down until it was
brought back to what was granted in the original permit. Currently the pool is almost twice the size
as described in their initial building plans with the infinity edge following the ridgeline when it was
supposed to be set back from the ridgeline. The violations in the existing construction of this building
site are too many to mention when you start with a 10,000 foot building pad and the applicant is now
seeking to rape and pillage up to 61,000 square feet of buildings and more ridgeline taking. There
seems to be a disconnect between sensible and sensitive building and just destroying miles of
beautiful mountain views that affect everyone in the valley for a greedy self interested insensitive
10/ 19/2006
Page 2 of 2
developer with the full cooperation of the Palm Springs City Council and Planning Commission.
What was the City Council thinking when you granted the original building permit for this "Monster"
project? Didn't you ever stop and think why you agreed to permit despoiling the mountain ridgelines
that I think you all love and respect? And as an added note...our Community of Ironwood was never
notified of this outrageous project from its conception and approvals but now that we know what has
been done, we will not go away.
It's never too late to turn things around and I very strongly urge you to do just that.... ST4P THIS
INSANfTY AND STOP THIS PROJECT until Ironwood retrieves the beautiful ridgeline that it never
agreed to loose. A copy of this letter is going to be seni to the Desert Sun Newspaper, Fish and
Game Agency, the Audubon Society, NRDC and any other protection agency that will help reverse
this environmental catastrophe and bring back our ridgeline beauty and tranquility.
Where is the Environmental Impact Report that supports this absurdity?
Very truly yours,
Samuel & Pamela Goldstein
73-311 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
and
49 Lagunita Drive
Laguna Beach, CA. 92651
949-497-7411 fax 949-497-8146
email: sam.pam@verizon.net
10/ 19/2006
RECEIVED
C1T Y CLERK'S OFFICE
PALM DESERi, CA
DONALD V. BLACK 2Q0� p�T I 9 AM il: 2 I
34 HILLTOP CiRCLE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
310-541-1571
October 14, 2006
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Case # TT HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
Dear Palm Desert City Council:
I am the owner of a residence located at 73-115 Crosby Lane, and received notice of
the referenced request for the 60% expansion of the graded area. I will be unable to
attend the public hearing to be held on Thursday, October 26, 2006. I have the following
comments with regard to this request.
1. The City of Palm Desert has a history of being careful about the environment in
its approval process. With this in mind, it baffles me how this project was initially
approved. lt permanently scars the Iocal hillside. Now the owner is asking for a
60% increase in the graded area. Do you really think this is in the best interest of
the Pa{m Desert Community? f don't think so.
2. The City of Palm Desert needs to review its guidelines and policies for hillside
development so that we can be sure to retain a cherished asset of our
community for future generations. By approving this increase in graded area,
you will be setting precedent for future requests that will make it more difficult to
stop hillside development and establish proper guidelines for same.
3. For the reasons above, I strongly urge the City Council to deny this request.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
�
�
RE: Hagadone Project
Klassen, Rachelle
From: John A. Hinds [johnahinds@dc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: Drell, Phil
Subject: RE: Hagadone Project
From: John A. Hinds [mailto:johnahinds@dc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:54 PM
To: 'rklassen@ci.palmdesert.ca.us'
Cc: 'pdrell@ci.palm-desert.ca.us'
Subject: Hagadone Project
To Whom It May Concern:
Pls forward this email to:
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilman Robert A. Spiegel
Sirs and Madam:
We are homeowners at 126 Heather Court, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
Page 1 of 2
We respectfully request that the City Council reject the Hagadone request for a further expansion of
his already grossly oversized construction pad.
In the first place, it was a serious mistake for the City to allow Hagadone to build such a structure on
the ridgeline, which wil{ negatively impact the residents of Paim Desert for decades to come.
Unfortunately, it is not practical to tear down the building at this time. To approve the proposed
expansion would, however, be adding insult to injury. I have reviewed the drawings available at the
City, and fully understand that this additonal expansion will be not be able to be seen from the desert
floor. Nevertheless, we urge you to turn down the request to further expand this overblown project.
To do otherwise would be to reward Hagadone's willful ignoring of the provisions of the original permit
and his previous acts against the public interest. In addition, this area is Bighorn Sheep habitat and
should be preserved as such.
The provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance, which we understand is intended to protect
the interest of the community, are cleacly being repeatedly ignored in the case of th+s project.
Evidently the strategy of the Hagadone minions has been to seek forgiveness rather than approval.
Further expansion of the site, to six times the pad area defined in the Ordinance, is clearly counter to
the intent of the Ordinance.
The action of the Planning Commission, in overruling its own staff's opposition to this request, is
incomprehensible. Ms. Finerty of the Commission, alone, seems to understand the importance of this
l O/19/2006
RE: Hagadone Project
issue.
In summary, we urgently request that the City Council take the following actions:
Reject the latest Hagadone request.
Page 2 of 2
2. If the Council does not reject the request, it should at least impose the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission staff
3. Strengthen and vigorously enforce the Hillside Ordinance, and clarify its implementing
provisions. To be clear, the objective should be to prohibit any future development, by anyone, on
our ridgelines.
4. Change the notification process from the 300' impact zone to include all those in Palm Desert
who would be visually impacted by any proposed project.
We are voters in Palm Desert, and the Council's action on this matter will be of great interest, to us
and our friends.
Thank you for your consideration.
John and Carol Hinds
10/ 19/2006
�
Klassen, Rachelle
From: D A NELSON [dncpa@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:11 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Development
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor ProTem Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
Page 1 of 1
I am a part-time resident of the Ironwood Community in Palm Desert.
I understand the Hagadone development variance will be a topic at your October 26 Council Meeting.
It is inconceivable to me how the Council could approve a 61,110 square feet development, when the City
ordinance specifies pad areas not larger that 10,000 square feet. I could understand approval of a minor
deviation, over 51,000 square feet is simply highway robbery..
I urge you to use common sense and disapprove such an overwhelming travesty.
Don A. Nelson
48626 Torrito Court
Palm Desert
dncpa_@verizon net
10/ 19/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Debbie Scott [scodebbie@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:42 PM
To: Klassen, RacheNe
Subject: Hagadone Development
Dear Mayor Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tim Kelly, Councilman Benson and Councilman Spiegel:
As a resident of Ironwood Country Club, I would like to express my concern regarding the Hagadone
development in Bighorn.
The Hagadone development south of Ironwood has had a negative impact on the Ironwood community by
intruding upon the previously undisturbed mountain ridge vistas overlooking Ironwood Country Club. The
originally pristine ridge vistas have been turned into "bad joke." One of the buildings looks like a cross
between the stone-age and Star Wars - with long slabs of rock or concrete jutting up into the sky. It would be
laughable if it wasn't so sad. Obviously the owners have no sense of community or environmental
responsibility, but I would have thought the City of Palm Desert would have. It is my understanding that the
City of Palm Desert did not rigorously enforce the Hilside Development Ordinance when approving the original
project. WHY? From previous dealings with the city, they rigorously enforce every other ordinance.
On September 19, 2006, the planning commissioners approved a 16,000 sq ft EXPANSION of the Hagadone
project that would extend the graded area of the compound to 61,110 sq ft even though the ordinance specifies a
building pad area not larger than 10,000 sq. ft. This second decision was even made against the
recommendations of the city planning staff. Recently, Planning Commissioner Cindy Finerty proposed a long
list of conditions to the project that would have partially mitigated the impact on Ironwood Country Club and
other homeowners, but these condition were defeated.
I understand that the Palm Desert City Council will review this matter on Oct. 26, 2006. Since I will be unable
to attend this meeting, I ask that you strongly consider overturning the Sept. 19, 2006 planning commission
decision or, at least, have the mitigation conditions become a part of this approval.
The City of Palm Desert did not follow the rules when approving the original plan, now is the time to make
things right.
I appreciate your consideration.
Debra J. Scott
73448 Mariposa Dr.
Palm Desert, CA
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Lawrence Sutter [larrysutter@earthlink.net]
Sent: 7hursday, October 19, 2006 9:09 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Hagadone Expansion Request
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Sutter
To: rklassen�ci.palmdesert.ca_us
Cc: pdrell@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
Sent: 10/19/2006 6:47:06 PM
Subject: Hagadone Expansion Request
Please forward this email to the following:
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kelly
Councilmember Jean Benson
Councilman Robert Spiegel
Dear Madam and Sirs:
We respectively request that you disallow the Hagadone request for further expansion vf the graded area. If you
feel you must allow it, then it is absolutely essential that you impose the conditions as recommended in the
planning department staff report of October 3. The city cannot continue to ignore and abuse the intent of the
Hillside Ordinance.
More than a year ago, we walked out our front door and looked up onto the ridge south of our home at 49220
Quercus Lane in Palm Desert. The large crane that was suddenly visible was our first introduction to the
Hagadone project. Having just become full-time residents, we were distressed that someone would be building
on this beautiful hillside. Since then, the project has become and eyesore and embarrassment to the Palm
Desert community.
In talking to individuals in the Palm Desert city government, some honestly and frankly admit there were serious
mistakes made in allowing major exceptions to the Hillside Ordinance. We are amazed that you are even
considering allowing the expansion of the graded site to more than 61,000 sq ft, 50,000 (!!) sq ft more than the
ordinance states is allowable. We do not understand why the City of Palm Desert would allow such a violation of
our hillside. We do not understand why the city continues to ignore the provisions of the Hillside ordinance.
Do not allow yet another error to be made. Please:
• Reject this Hagadone expansion project. It already is a tragedy that we will live with for years to come.
. At the minimum, insure that the conditions recommended by the City of Palm Desert planning department
staff report of October 3 be imposed. It will not solve the problem, but will take a few small steps to
mitigate the negative impact on our community.
• Modify 1he notification process for hillside projects to something much farther than the current 300'. This
distance is irrelevant to project like Hagadone's.
. Strengthen and vigorously enforce the Hillside Ordinance. It was written for purpose. Do not allow further
abuse of our beautiful hillside.
It is likely that the process that got the Hagadone project to this state was done legally, but that does not make it
right. Do the right thing. Reject or strong condition this latest Hagadone request for the sake our our community.
The Hagadone estate is a monument to poor government. Do not further stain your legacy. You have an
obligation to enforce the Hillside Ordinance, and serve the broader interests of Palm Desert homeowners. Two
of you are at the end of your terms. Do the right thing.
10/20/2006
Page 2 of 2
We and our voting friends will be watching your decision with interest.
Sincerely,
Lawrence and Yong Sutter
10/20/2006
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Qiane Stratton [dms7777@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:58 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagaddone property
Mayor JIm Ferguson
Mayor ProTem Richard Kelly,
Council Member Jean M Benson,
Councilman Robert Spiegel,
Dear Palm Desert Council Members and Mayor,
I read with dismay about your decision regarding the Hagadone Property. It
is beyond my comprehension how you have allowed this travesty to take place.
Evidently, money talks, and Mr Hagadone has plenty to enforce his
influence. We see his monstrosity from our patio, from our windows, and
everytime we play golf. We see this monstrosity from every hiking peak in
the valley. It is a blight on the scape. If you watched the LPGA tournament
on TV at Bighorn, you could see the Hagadone house several times. I realize
taste is in the eye of the beholder; however, does Mr Hagadone's attempt at
being the largest house in the valley have to continue to draw attention
from everyone else in the valley who treasures the beautiful mountain
ridges. We did a small 400 square foot additon to our home in Ironwood and
you would have thought we were building the Taj Ma Hal according to the city
inspectors and architectual approval board of the city of Palm Desert. We
were amazed at all the hoops we had to jump to get this small project done.
It was reassuring to know that the city was on top of it and cared;
therefore, protecting us from development that would not be beneficial to my
neighbors. We were happy to meet all of the city's requests. Why is it that
a project of this magnitude can get by with such enormous variances
especially when there are huge objections from the neighbors? I do not
believe that the governing body of Palm Desert represents its constituents
in a responsible manner. Please, Please, vote against any further expansion
on the mountain ridges.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dr. And Mrs Glenn J Stratton
Ironwood resident
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Klassen, Rachelle
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:57 AM
To: 'oldwindbag@ao{.com'
Subject: RE: House on hill side
Dear Mr. Higgins,
Thank you for contacting me. To the best of my recollection, none of the Palm Desert City
Councilmembers have received contributions from the Hagadone Family Trust for any of the General
Municipal Elections the past 10 years. In fact, in the 2004 Election, none of the incumbents that were
reelected (Buford Crites, Richard Kelly, Robert Spiegel) had a Campaign Committee for soliciting or
receiving contributions.
I would be happy to make the records available to you for your personal research to confirm this fact.
Please let me know when you would like to come by my office, and we will have the files ready for
you.
If there is any other information or assistance I can offer, please let me know as well.
Rachelle Klassen, City Cferk
City of Palm Desert
PH: 346-0611, Ext. 304
-----Original Message-----
From: oldwindbag@aol.com [mailto:oldwindbag@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:4Z PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: House on hill side
1 recently sent an e mail asking for some info about the house above Irontree Country Club. I would also
like to find out how much this individual from Idaho has contributed to the election of all of the town
council members for the past ten years (I would assume the town has such information that would be
available under the freedom of information act).
Robert Higgins
Check.out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to
millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Lynnetracy60@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:48 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: krobertson@drminternet.com
Subject: Ironwood Country Club Hagadone Complaint Letter
October 20, 2006
TO: Palm Desert City Council
I am a year-round homeowner living in IRONWOOD CC. It is very disappointing to fearn how lhis entire ordeal
regarding the HAGADONE DEVELOPMENT has continued. This is a complaint in support of my neighborhood and the
obstruction of our beautiful vistas, which I can view from my front yard.
I do not favor the construction as it even looks today from our homes below.
Please support and help us in this matter.
I never received a letter informing me of the plan.
Thank You,
Lynne Tracy
73-448 Poinciana Place
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
CC:
Gern Nagler
Kelly Robertson
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Chuck Henderson [chuckh0791 @comcast.netJ
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:21 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone
Please forward this email to the following:
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kelly
Councilmember Jean Benson
Councilman Robert Spiegel
Dear Madam and Sirs:
We live at 48-884 Mariposa Drive in Palm Desert. Please add our names to the list of citizens that strong{y object to the
Hagadone project in general and the expansion of this eye sore to the community. I have been in the real estate
development business, obeyed the regulations, and value the natural beauty of the mountains surrounding Palm Desert.
To have allowed this tragedy in the first place is unfortunate; io compound the precedent by allowing additional expansion
is criminal. Please draw a line in the sand and prevent this rape of the community's cherished views.
Charles L. Henderson
4120 187th Ave SE
Issaquah, WA 98027
P (425) 401 0791
M (206) 550 6852
F (866) 255 0795
chuckh0791 @comcast.net
48-884 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
P (760) 776 4109
F (866} 255 0795
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Anne Harrell [mi2tn2ca@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:24 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Expansion Request
Please forward this e mail to the following: Mayor J. Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kelly
Councilmember Jean Benson
Councilman Robert Spiegel
Dear Madam and Sirs:
We request that you disallow the Hagadone request for further expansion of the graded area. If you feel it must
be allowed, then it is absolutely essential that you impose the conditions as recommended in the planning dept.
staff report of 10/3! THE CITY CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE AND ABUSE THE INTENT OF THE
HILLSIDE ORDINANCE!
We moved to Palm Desert 9 years ago because we were drawn to the beauty of the mountains surrounding our
home in Ironwood Country Club. Things certainly have changed. This site is such an eyesore to the area. It is
very distressing to think that our Palm Desert representatives would approve building on this beautiful hillside.
In talking with representatives of Palm Desert city government, they have admitted that serious mistakes were
made in allowing MAJOR EXCEPTIONS to the Hillside Ord.
Now, the fact that you are even considering allowing an expansion of the graded site to more than 61,000 sq. ft
is intollerable! This is a serious violation of our hillside ordinance.
Do not allow yet another error to be made.
Please reject this expansion project.At minimum, insure that the conditions recommended by the city of Palm
Desert planning staff be imposed. It is certainly not a solution but will take a few SMALL STEPS TO
MITIGATE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY.
Modify the notification process for hillside projects to something much farther than the current 300 ft. This
distance is irrelevant to projects such as this.
Strengthen and vigorously enforce the hillside ordinance. DO NOT ALLOW FURTHER ABUSE TO OUR
BEAUTIFUL HILLSIDE.
Please do the right thing. Reject or strongly limit this latest request. You can be sure the decision you make
will be scrutinized with much interest when it comes to election time.
Sincerely,
Frank and Anne Hanell
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: sheila cushen [scushen46@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:07 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Hagadone Expansion Request
From: "Law�ence Sutter' <larrysutter�a7earthlink.net>
Reply-To: larrysutte�@earth/ink.net
s To: 'F�ed Bu!leiY' <febu/IeitC�aol.com>, 'Gern Nag/er" �gernnag/er�aao%com>, "LarryAbbotY' �abbott1940noaol.com>, 'Roge�Comerford"
° <JComerf476�a ao%com>, "VJ Shrader" <VShrader@aol.com>, 'Beverlee Human" <bevhumanCa�cox.net>, 'Bill Seal" <dwqsea/@ao%cnm>,
'Christie D'Ambrosio" <louied�ace%stecorp.com�, 'MargaretC/eve/and" <devejomar�amsn.com�, 'Mimi Brambilla" <rronwoodpd@aol.com>,
'NancyHaase"cNLHaase�aaol.com>, 'She�ryandRicha�dRuffel"<sheruffnaearthlink.net>, 'AnneHarrel/"<miltn2ca�asbcglobal.net>, "Cheri
Janss" <cherrbjZ000@ao%com>, 'chuck hendeison" �chuckh0791 a�comcast.net>, 'Dave Prest" <prestCa�dc.rr.com>, 'Rob Reifschneide�"
«obC�lovetheview.com�, 'Ron Doll" <rondoll�a earthlink.net�, 'Bill Maitin" �bi/vertwo�a ao%com>, 'Bob Cushen" <scushen46�a hotmail. com>,
'chuck henderson" <chuckh0791@comcast.net>, 'C/iffScarbo" <cskarbo@comcast.net>, 'Don Ca�lin" <doncarlin�aaol.com>, 'frank Ha�re/l"
<fcharre/l�asbcg/oba/,net>, 'GunnarHaase" �Gunnarmh@ao%com>, '7ackGrady" �jgradyl�adc.rr.com>, 'John Cleve/and"
��devejomar�msn. com>, 'John Godfrey" <jgodf�ey�a dc. rr. com>, ':lohn H/nds" <johnah/nds�a dc. rr com>, '>oyce Leighton "
:�j/eighton@dc.�� com>, "L/nda and Tom Robertson" �wingfoot03C�cs com>, 'Pau/ Muel%" <paujane65C�verizon.net>, 'Richarrl Seade"
<RLStoddles@ao%com>, 'Samuel Goldstein" <sam.pam�verizon.net>
� Subject: FW.• Hagadone Expansion Request
; Date: Thu, 19 Od Z006 Z1:71: 31 -0700
� Here is my letter to the City Council on the Hagadone mat[er. Please make sure your letter gets sent no later than over the weekend.
; larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Sutter
� To: rklassen@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
= Sent: 10/19/2006 9:09:11 PM
� Subject: Hagadone Expansion Request
�
Please forward this email to the following:
' Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kelly
� Councilmember Jean Benson
� Councilman Robert Spiegel
Dear Madam and Sirs:
� We respectively request that you disallow the Hagedone request for further expansion of the graded
' area. If you feel you must allow it, then it is absolutely essential that you impose the conditions as
� recommended in the planning department staff report of October 3. The city cannot continue to ignore
and abuse the intent of the Hillside Ordinance.
�
More than a year ago, we walked out our front door and looked up onto the ridge south of our home at
49220 Quercus Lane in Palm Desert. The large crane that was suddenly visible was our
; first introduction to the Hagadone project. Having just become fu11-time residents, we were distressed
that someone would be building on this beautiful hillside. Since then, the project has become an
' eyesore and embarrassment to the Palm Desert communiry.
10/20/2006
Page 2 of 2
• n talking to individuals in the Palm Desert city government, some honestly and frankly
admit there were serious mistakes made in allowing major exceptions to the Hillside Ordinance. We
�re amazed that you are even considering allowing the expansion of the graded site to more than
31,000 sq ft, 50,000 (!!) sq ft more than the ordinance states is allowable. We do not understand why
� :he City of Palm Desert would allow such a violation of our hillside. We do not understand why the city
�ontinues to ignore the provisions of the Hillside ordinance.
�o not allow yet another error to be made. Please:
. Reject this Hagadone expansion project. lt already is a tragedy that we will live with for years to
come.
. At the minimum, insure that the conditions recommended by the City of Palm Desert planning
department staff report of October 3 be imposed. It will not solve the problem, but will take a few
small steps to mitigate the negative impact on our community.
� . Modify the notification process for hillside projects to something much farther than the current
. 300'. This distance is irrelevant to project like Hagadone's.
. Strengthen and vigorously enforce the Hillside Ordinance. It was written for a purpose. Do not
� allow further abuse of our beautiful hillside.
; t is likely that the process that got the Hagadone project to this state was done {egally, but that does
�ot make it right. Do the right thing. Reject or strongly condition this latest Hagadone request for the
�ake of our community.
The Hagadone estate is a monument to poor government. Do not further stain your legacy. You have
an obligation to enforce the Hillside Ordinance, and serve the broader interests of Palm Desert
�omeowners. Two of you are at the end of your terms. Do the right thing.
J1le and our voting friends will be watching your decision with interest.
� 3incerely,
, _awrence and Yong Sutter
j �OBERT AND SHEILA CUSHEN
' 73-191 BOXTHORN,
; 'ALM DESERT, A 98249RK
111-in-onc security and maintcnaiice for y_our PC._Get a free 90-ciay trial!
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Ilouisedebutts@juno.com
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:39 AM
To: Klassen, Racheile
This email is addressed to Mayor Jim Ferguson, Mayor ProTem Richard S. Kelly, Council member Jean M.
Benson and Council member Robert A. Spiegel. On October 26, 2006 you will be considereing the Hagedorn
request to expand the area of his project by 16,000 sq. ft.
The planning commission has approved the expanion in spite of the ordinance which specifes that the building
pad noi exceed 10,000 sq. ft feet, and the recommendation of the city planning staff to deny the request. If Mr.
Hagedorn is allowed to proceed with his plan he will then have a graded area of 61,110 feet. Somewhat over
the 10,000 sq. feet stated in the ordinance! In the interest of the betterment of the city this flagarant
"overlooking" of the requirements stated in the Hillside Development Ordinance shouls not be tolerated. Mr.
Hagedorn clearly does not have the interest of the city in his excessive plan. We urge you reject his proposal to
send a message that the desires of one man to create a mega estate will not be tolerated.
10/20/2006
Klassen, Rachelle
From: siriiris@earthlink.net
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Attention PD City Council
As a Palm Desert resident and homeowner in Ironwood Country Club, I would like my opinion
to be noted. I am incredibly disappointed in our elected officials who have apparently
bent the rules both legally and aesthetically with regard to the construction of the
Hagadone monstrosity.
Mind you, I am not against growth and development, but to have allowed the construction of
such a property carved into the mountain, makes me wonder where it will stop. This giant
edifice to one personaE'"s ego has marred our mountains and is visible from miles away. And
now, this person wants more?
Why have development regulations and ordinances if no one is going to enforce them?
Or perhaps the better question is, who is getting paid to ignore them?
I hope that any further development of the mountain side will be prohibited. Shame on us
for letting this happen in the first place.
Sincerely,
Siri A. Kennedy
1
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Jacob Frick (jfrick@wi.rr.comJ
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:54 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Palm Desert City council Meeting-October 26th
To Mayor Jim Ferguson, Mayor ProTem Richard Kelly, Councilmembers Jean Benson and Robert Spiegel,
I am the owner on the home at 73-765 Agave Lane in Palm Desert. I bought this home for my retirement which
unfortunately is still a few years away. I love Palm Desert—the amenities, landscaping, mountains, weather and
especially the beauliful natural areas which the people and government of Palm Desert have obviously carefully
preserved. Last time we visited our home in the desert we were appalled at a terribly ugly house that mars the view of the
mountain ridge line from our house. I was surprised that this massive house was approved for this location. It sticks out
like a sore thumb in an area where othe►wise you can barely notice that there are any houses. This massive concrete
abomination sports huge windows that are highly reflective and very ugly in such an otherwise natural selting.
Now f understand that there are plans to EXPAND this already massive compound (the Hagadone project—even the
name is ugly}. I understand that the planning commission has already approved this expansion which appears to violate
the city ordinance for maximum size of a building pad by SIX TIMES! I'm not sure what the planning commission is
thinking of, but I hope you all understand how this looks to me. IYs difficult to think of any reason why a city government
representative would vote in favor of a project that clearly violates the city ordinance, but none of lhose that come to mind
are pretty.
On October 26, I will be in NYC on business, and therefore am unable to attend the City Counci{ meeting. I urge you to
vote against this expansion proposal, and moreover I would request that the owner of this property be asked to dismantle
this structure which currently spoils an otherwise beautiful natural mountain view. If you decide to vote in favor of this
proposal, I request that each of you correspond with me to clearly explain how you could vote for approval
Thanks you for your attention.
Jacob Frick
2607 N Wahl Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211
10/20/2006
RECElVED
CIT Y CLERK'S OFFfCE
PALM DE5ER7. CA
2006 OCT 23 AM I l� 43
City of Palm Desert
Re: CASE NO. HDP/PP 04-21 AMENDMENT # 1
To the City Council,
We have a home at Ironwood Country Club that looks directly up to the property at
Bighorn owned by Mr. Hagadone. We were shocked to arrive last winter and see a
structure built on the mountain above us, a mountain that has always appeared natural
and pristine.
The city of Palm Desert has mountains surrounding it, mountains that are natural and
lovely. The setting would be changed if the City of Palm Desert allows construction on
these beautiful mountains. We would leave the city if this natural beauty is
compromised by allowing structures to appear on these mountains and hills above and
azound us.
Mr. Hagadone and the approving City of Palm Desert have already put the entire city in a
compromised position. Please don't allow any further development which would
change the beauty of a city and make it into an urban eyesore. A competence has to be
established that doesn't allow one person to blight our community. We would like to
think this could be dealt with before the matter becomes too explosive.
Please feel free to contact us regarding our input. Thank you.
Sincerely,
���
w�.-.t t-��y
Tom and Whitney Braden
73-435 Irontree
Palm Desert, Califomia 92260
Michael � Car1a Hanks
cjehanl�cs.00m
73-185 Irontree Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
October 18, 2006
Mayor Jim Ferguson,
Mayor Pro Tem Rich�rd S. Kelley
Council member Jean M. Benson
Council member Robert A. Spiegel
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Council:
We are shocked and dismayed at the blatant disregard by the Hagadone
Family Trust project with regard to the prior approval process and the sheer
size of their project in the hills east of Highway 74 in Palm Desert.
Our understanding is that the ordinance specified a maximum building pad in
these hills of 10,000 square feet. The planning commission has now
approved a graded area of over 61,000 square feet (in spite of the
recommendation of their own staff against approval.) This sets a precedent.
Therefore, if a group of us decides to develop in the hills, we can use this
approach as a guide.
It seems that "rules are made to be broken" is alive and well in Palm Desert
under this administration. This is a sad situation and one that does not speak
- we`�I ot the city of Palm Desert or this administration.
Yours truly,
/ �/``1 %
y
Michael 8� Carla Hanks
- . .. . . . . .,,� .,
. t .: �. :;, �
��. _ - � . : .
�� - -•., . �;,
, . . .:,,: �_ :..
760. 568. 238�
Fax. 760. 568. 2380
N
C�7
O
Q1
O
c'�
--+
N
w
"d
_
N
�
J
�
��
T� --G
r' �
��
'' r t"�t
r�*s � �'
N�m
�
�7N�
-'ov
n�
n�
�
,
��CElVED
C;T Y CE.ERK'S OFfiCE
�ALM DESERT. CA
2��6 OCT 23 PM 2� 47
10 19 06
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert,
CA 92260
Gentlemen:
Now, after allowing the Hagadone Construction to proceed, how
will the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Town Gouncil be
able to refuse a similar request from people who want to build on
our ridge-line?
In other words, "There goes the neighorhood" In this voter's
opinion it was a terrible and illegal decision.
Sincerely,
, ,,L ���—��
Keith Te or
73187 Silverleaf Ct.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
340 5610
hT�X ( q 5�: � �4GG- • Go M
-�� �� � g� �
,i �. -�. - - - - -
1 :: � . f
�,. � �- - ��
� . -
' , .
�ti, � • :
�. /• ./ � ' i
�'
� � ,
� � �. � � � � �
% �
/ � �, � •
, ` ��� �
� � i� �� �
I ' � �'' / `�� '
• � ,
. `, j �' `
/ ' �%
� �. ��
. ,� /
, _�� . .. ._�
, � s �.
� i r' �'" _
i' � � /
� ��
/ �. i �
r � .. ' i .�� �
. , i � �� �
, � � �_ �
. -
�, t �, �
/ - ' � r � ; ��. .,� _�!�
� � / , �, .
� i •
� � � � � � I
, `
�
� /, '�� �i
� ,
�, ' �' � •
' • .
/ �� + - � '�
� � �, ��,� .
-. .
, „
,• � i , / , r ri
, . `+
� ,� . �r - j ��' ; 1,�
/ / '
,� � /i � �� i
� �� / I • S � � /
/ /(i `� � � ' /
' , i / �; i
�
/ ; i � �
/ !
� ' � • •I �� / � � �t
/ , � i, t• �� I
� � . �
� � �� � � ' � � � �
� / i/ � � .`. /♦ �/
, � � �/ , � , 1
., � ,, ,
, � r
� r / •i .� � , I
� � � � / � r �
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL bEVELOPMENT
R E C� I V E D REAL ESTATE lNVESTMENTS
CIT Y C�ERK'S OFFICE
PALM DESERT. CA
GEORGE-THOMAS ENTER�1��.1� �: �
14531 DELANO STREET • VAN NUYS, CA�{FORNIA 91411 •(8i8) 781-0255 • FAX (818) 781-0263
Thomas L. Herron
MANAGING MEMBER
October 19, 2006
Mayor Jim Ferguson
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mayor Ferguson:
Re: Hagadone Project
Some weeks ago I wrote City Planning Commissioners expressing my displeasure
witli ttie Hagadone project, which essentially spoils the view of the ridgeline
to the South of Ironwood Country Club.
I noted that the pending request for 16,000 square foot extension of the pro-
ject would only compound the mistake made in approving the development in the
first place. Incredibly, we now learn that the expansion has been approved,
and that a list of conditions which Planning Commissioner Finerty recommended
to partially mitigate the impact of the addition, was even defeated by the
Council. It is hard to fathom what thinking, or lack of it, went into that
decision.
I understand this matter wi11 now go to the Council for review and consider-
ation on the 26th of October. Though I would certainly like to be present
and express my view at that time, I will be unable to do so; but I ask that
our letter be submitted for the file along with what I am sure will be many,
many others.
We note that the Hillside Development Ordinance, intended to encourage mini-
mum hillside grading and to "protect undisturbed viewsheds and natural land-
mark features including vistas and natural skylines" has apparently been
totally ignored in decisions made to date by the City.
One wonders how long it will be until the City is faced with an expensive
lawsuit because of its approval o£ this development and its expansion in
contravention of these guidelines.
Very sincerely yours,
Thomas . Herron
TLH/he
cc: Mr. Gern Nagier,
President, Ironwood Master Maintenance Association
Klassen, Rachelle
From: jwiggins@jhwiggins.com
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:47 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: larrysutter@earthlink.net
To the Palm Desert City Council:
I am in receipt of a copy of a letter sent you by Larry and Yong Sutter
dated 10/19/2006 concerning the Hagadone residence enlargement. We second
his comments and urge you to reject the enlargement requested by Mr.
Hagadone.
I have talked to a number of permanent residents in Ironwood about the
concerns reflected in the Sutters' letter. To a person, they all agree with
those stated therein. Please act for the majority of your constituents who
live here full time instead of the one part time person from Idaho.
Respectfully submitted,
John and Peggi Wiggins
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Steve Ness [sness@nessholding.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:58 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadon
Mayor Jim Ferguson:
Mayor ProTem Richard S. Kelly:
Council Member Jean M. Benson:
Councilman Robert A. Spiegel:
Re: Hagadon Property
As a resident of Ironwood I am adamantly opposed to any variance on the Hillside Development Ordinance that favors
one party over another. It seems unfathomable that any resident is able to convince the city planning department to
authorize an exception that is so obviously disproportionately unacceptable to the majority. How does that happen? I
expect my representatives to represent me honestly and with integrity. Am I expecting too much?
Thank You,
StereNess
President
Ness Holding/Kool Pak, LLC
503 978 2100
800 938 3525 x 200
email: sness a`nessholdina.com
website: �v��-w.kool,nak.com
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: gernnagler@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 3:17 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Fwd: Hagadone Expansion
-----Original Message-----
From: gernnagler@aol.com
To: larrysutter@earthlink.net
Sent: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 7:00 AM
Hagadone Expansion
this letter to:
Subject:
Please forward
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kelly
Council member )ean Benson
Councilman Robert Spiegel
Subject: Hagadone Expansion and Project
I am the president of the Ironwood Master Association. As such, my board and I represent over 11Q0
homes in our community. Although we have not canvassed every single homeowner on the damage done
to our ridge line by the Hagadone project, there has been enough e-mails, phone calls, and general
conversations to make it quite apparent that our community has been tarnished.
We are proud that we are located in the center of some of the most exclusive gated communities not only
in the desert, but in the nation. As such the City of Palm Desert has the responsibility to protect the
populace from not only crime, fire, etc., but also from any harm done to our environment. According to
your own regulations there have been numerous violations to the permits issued to this project. We don't
blame Mr. Hagadone, or the community of Big Horn. Only those responsible for approving the terrible
damage done to our view of our mountains, and ridge line.
We appreciate the effort of Mr. Hagadone to attempt to mitigate the eye sore of an office that was
approved. However, the most common comment I have heard is that it looks like the home of "The
Flintstones". There should have been more research done on the shapes and colors of the faux rocks so
they would blend with the adjoining ridge. We do understand that there is work in progress to correct
this problem. Thank you. Also, the notification rule of 300' was totally inappropriate for this project. We
know you can't demolish this home, but there are a few things that can improve the situation. Correct the
color and shape of the rocks around the office, cover the pool edge so as not to be visible from below and
make sure that there are no exterior lights that would blemish the sky at night. This can be accomplished
by conditioning the project according to the recommendations in the planning department report of
October 3, 2006.
Even more important. Please don't let this happen again.
Thank you for your time.
R. Gern Nagler
President, Ironwood Master Association
10/20/2006
Page 2 of 2
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to
millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Sally Conway [conwaysj@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:14 PM
To: Klassen, Racheile
Subject: Hagadon Development
Dear Mayor Jim Ferguson, Mayor ProTem Richard S. Kelly, Councilmember Jean M. Benson, and Councilman Robert
A.Spiegel:
We are homeowners at the Ironwood Country Club and are writing to you concerning the Hagadon Development. We are
upset that the city of Palm Desert is allowing a pristine hillside in BigHorn to be scarred by development. For some
reason the city is choosing to ignore the Hillside Development Ordinance. We are wondering why!!!
If you cannot elimate this eye sore, please find the courage to mitigate it. At you October 26th hearing, please vote to
represent the majority, not the moneyed minority.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
John and Sally Conway
73407 Irontree Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
10/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: PAUL A MUELLER JR [pauljane65@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:26 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Expansion Request
Please forward this email to the following:
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard S. Kelly
Councilmembers Jean M. Benson and Robert A. Spiegel
Dear Madam and Gentlemen:
We ��ere astounded to learn that the City of Palm Desert Planning Commissioners first approved a 16,000
square feet expansion to the Hagadone "development" and then voted down conditions to control some of the
harm and to recognize the concerns of other parties who live below. •
We live on the 14th hole of Ironwood Country Club's North Course and daily look up at the blinding
reflection from the sun off the glass on what we have been told is an "office". This "office" is like a lighthouse
with one major difference - there is no public benefit from its location.
We are concerned about the failure to enforce Palm Desert's Hillside Development Ordinance. The wrong
precedent is being established to protect the beauty of our fabulous desert environment. Is it possible that this
was Mr. Hagadone's plan from the beginning? Open the door slightly with the original project, and then, once
that is approved and started, push it wide open!
We implore you not to do additional harm to the vistas and natural skylines that so many enjoy now and
others will in the future. We request that you vote to turn down this additional expansion by Mr. Hagadone.
Sincerely,
Jane and Paul Mueller
49201 Quercus Lane
Palm Desert, CA
10/23/2006
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Ristoddles@aol.com
Sent; Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:58 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: larrysutter@earthlink.net
Subject: (no subject)
For the attention of: Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kelly
Councilmember Jean Benson
Councilman Robert Spiegel
Dear Members of The Palm Desert City Councii:
Ref: Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1
In reference to the forthcoming public hearing on October 26, 2006 at which time the City Council will
consider a request by Hagadone Family Trust for an amendment to a hillside development
plan/precise plan to expand the approved graded area from 38,000 square feet to 61,110 square feet
located at 706 Summit Cove in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn Golf Course, please accept this
e-mail as record of our objection to the proposed amendment and a request that the amendment be
disallowed.
As long-term residents of Palm Desert and now living at 73-380 Poinciana Place located in the
Ironwood Country Club, for more than 15 years we have enjoyed the undisturbed views available to
us and other residents/visitors of pristine and largely undisturbed hillsides and mountains that border
the southern portions of our fair city. Only within the past year has this view been blemished by the
construction now underway for the Hagadone Family Trust. Initially, was the construction of "the
office," a perch unnaturally positioned above the hillside ridge. Presently, further construction is
underway of a building(s) with roofing structures that rise unnaturally at elevations substantially above
the ridge line in an easterly direction. It is was difficult to understand how the "office" edifice was
permitted in the first place. Further, it is unbelievable that our city government has permitted this
additional construction that will be another permanent scar on the hillside. Now, it is almost
impossible to believe that our City Council might approve the expansion project now under
consideration regardless of provisions of city ordinances and prior staff recommendations that would
deny this project. What else is in store for the future? What precedencies are being set?
If we may, we would like to quote two statements of city officials that seem to point future progress
against such development under consideration:
(1) text from "Proven Leadership" pamphlet by Jim Ferguson, Mayor, City of Palm Desert:
"Finally, I will vigilantly fight to preserve the natural beauty of our hillsides and open space."
(2) text from campaign brochure by Cindy Finerty, Planning Commission, City of Palm Desert:
"I have worked ... to ensure our superior development standards are met." and "I have ... voted to
protect our hillsides ..."
We trust that these are heartfelt statements and not just sound bites for the voting public.
Sincerely yours,
10/23/2006
Page 2 of 2
Sandra and Richard Searle
10/23/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: PHYLLCA@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 12:36 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Development
Hello,
I have been watching the house being built on the mountain ridge vista overlooking Ironwood from the beginning.
At first I was not concerned with the rock formation being developed to hide the o�ce
I think if you tint the windows dark in the office it will blend in better.
However, the other day when I returned from a business trip and was driving up Monterey I could see the house from
far away. It does seem a little too much now.
I am a very reasonable person and do not have time to come to the meetings etc.
My concern is the project has gotten out of hand and it is hard to tell Bighorn no.
I am sure the owner is a reasonable man and a compromise can be reached.
I think you should consider the valley impact with this type of building on the mountain Ridge and rethink your votes.
It is starting to look like if you have the money you can get around the council.
I really respect the great job Palm Desert has done in the budget and planning of a great city.
We moved here from Irvine which was also a well run planned community and hope to see you address this correctly.
We own two properties in Ironwood and a house in the summit so you do get lots of property tax money from us.
Thanks a concerned full time resident of Palm Desert.
Phyllis Carpenter Cyphers
H. Carpenier & Associates
73366 Rosewood
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Phone: 800-579-0787
Fax: 760-776-4287
10/23/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Judymetz@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:26 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Project
We have been residents of Ironwood Country Club for 15 years nnd for 14 of those
yenrs we have loved looking ut the mognificent ridge line between us and Big Horn, in
nddition to the spectucular views from our golf courses. However, due to the inattention
or ignorance of the City of Pnlm Desert of the Hillside Development Ordinunce, thnt
nuturnl lundmnrk has been disgracefully and permanently nitered by the Hngadone
Project. And now the developer wants your permission to deface an ndditionul 16,000
squnre feet. It is your obligntion as elected representutives of the community to prevent
the extension of this ntrocity. The voters certninly will be reviewing your vote on this
m4tter. Most sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Frank A. Metz, Jr.
10/23/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: JACKIE MURRAY [murgolf8@verizon.netj
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 5:15 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone property
Dear Mayor Jim Ferguson, Mayor Protem Richard Kelly, Councilmember Jean Benson, and Councilman Robert Speigei:
We have been great supporters of the city council for at least 25 years because of the fiscal stability you, and those before
you, have afforded this city. We have grown so very fast but there has always been someone watching over our
magnificent hills, until now. It breaks our hearts to look up and see the encroachment the Hagadones have been able to
place on our ridgeline. It doesn't seem fair that they have been able to build with complete disregard for their neighbors.
How will you be able to stop the next builder with enough funds to build where they want?
Now they want to add an additional 16,000 sq ft expansion. There can't be any way to mitigate the added lights from a
tennis court, etc. We already have lights from their home to contend with and we can foresee many, many parties and
charity events being held there.
Please, please put a stop to this injustice now!
Sincerely,
Jackie and Jim Murray, Ironwood Country Club
10/23/2006
Page I of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Lee Human [leehumanmd@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 9:25 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Expansion Request
Please forward this email to the following:
Mayor Jim Ferguson
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kelly
Councilmember Jean Benson
Councilman Robert Spiegel
Dear Madam and Sirs:
We respectively request that you disallow the Hagadone request for further expansion of the graded
area. If you feel you must allow it, then it is absolutely essential that you impose the conditions as
recommended in the planning department staff report of October 3. The city cannot continue to
ignore and abuse the intent of the Hillside Ordinance.
More than a year ago, we walked out our front door and looked up onto the ridge south of our home
at 49220 Quercus Lane in Palm Desert. The large crane that was suddenly visible was our
first introduction to the Hagadone project. Having just become full-time residents, we were
distressed that someone would be building on this beautiful hillside. Since then, the project has
become an eyesore and embarrassment to the Palm Desert community.
In talking to individuals in the Palm Desert city government, some honestly and frankly
admit there were serious mistakes made in allowing major exceptions to the Hillside Ordinance. We
are amazed that you are even considering allowing the expansion of the graded site to more than
61,000 sq ft, 50,000 (!!) sq ft more than the ordinance states is allowable. We do not understand
why the City of Palm Desert would allow such a violation of our hillside. We do not understand why
the city continues to ignore the provisions of the Hillside ordinance.
Do not al(ow yet another error to be made. Please:
. Reject this Hagadone expansion project. It already is a tragedy that we will live with for years
to come.
. At the minimum, insure that the conditions recommended by the City of Palm Desert planning
department staff report of October 3 be imposed. It will not solve the problem, but will take a
few small steps to mitigate the negative impact on our community.
. Modify the notification process for hillside projects to something much farther than the current
300'. This distance is irrelevant to project like Hagadone's.
. Strengthen and vigorously enforce the Hillside Ordinance. It was written for a purpose. Do not
allow further abuse of our beautiful hillside.
It is likely that the process that got the Hagadone project to this state was done legally, but that does
not make it right. Do the right thing. Reject or strongly condition this latest Hagadone request for the
sake of our community.
The Hagadone estate is a monument to poor government. Do not further stain your legacy. You
have an obligation to enforce the Hillside Ordinance, and serve the broader interests of Palm Desert
homeowners. Two of you are at the end of your terms. Do ihe right thing.
10/23/2006
Page 2 of 2
We and our voting friends will be watching your decision with interest.
Sincerely,
Lee Human, M.D. and Beverlee Human
49161 Mariposa St.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
leehumanmd@cox.net
10/23/2006
Kfassen, Rachelie
From: Thomas Randolph [mtrand5@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:02 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone expansion
To: Mayor Jim Ferguson, Mayor ProTem Richard S. Kelly, Councilmember
Jean M. Benson and Councilman Robert A. Spiegel.
I am a member of Ironwood Country Club and adamantly opposed to any
expansion of the
Hagadone development at Bighorn. This would only compound the error
made initially by not rigorously enforcing the Hillside Development
Ordnance "to protect undisturbed viewsheds and natural landmark
features including vistas and natural skylines".
1
Michelson, Wilma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd W. Besant [todd@macoequip.com]
Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:30 AM
CityhallMail
Hagadone Family Estate
<p_ />Octcber 21, 2CC6<n= /><b
Co�n�il<Dr />City of Fa�rr �ese
Cesert, �A 922E�<br %><br /><b
�cu�cil:<br /><pr /><br /><br
Deser�, Ca��fo�ni�, a�d I've b
years.<br />I am ir. scppc_t of
fcr<pr />approva�. i nave beer.
of L!�e<br />Ci�y o` Palm Ceser
a o:onder=ul co�nmL^ity a:�u envi
er.co�pass'_�g Nn�ie bein� �inar.
4;o:�derful jo� a� Lhis. A�a�t
o` BIGf:CnN, rt zas been a�eau
to r�vGi a�y residen�ial area
ero�erty valLes zt 3�G?-iORN, as
soU_ce cf =eve�ae `or<br />the
t'�e coz�rii�u�ion o� reve :ue<br
/>?-io:�cra�le N,ayor ar.d �e�be�s cf �he City
•L<br />�3-5�0 Fred [^�arina Drive<�r />Pa�r�.
/»ear N:ayor cergusor. ar.� �`eMbe=s cf che City
><pr />I live aL 73930 Sh��cw i.,a;:e �r. , Fa�r:
:en a<b� />reside:�� or �re va��ey for 25
the Hagaricr.e applicatio:� t`�at is pe=ore the C��y
��:11y si.:ppertive ana a�preciative cf t!-ie er�or�s
o✓er t'�e years ;.o pe p�ogress_ve anc �o prcv'_de
�or.n.er.* ior _ts res=de:�ts tha� is aiverse �nd
:i�i'_y pr•ade:��. I�r.ink zhe �ity has done a
oF thaL diversity was createc. wi`h �he apprcvai
iiul add` t=o:� to t:�e Ci �y wr.i�r. a' icws tne City
a tne valley anc ar.y���rere _n tne coun�ry. The
�hey con�inue tc �ise, orovice a cont�:�ui:�g
^ity t�at, o:� a�er capitG bas'_s, iikely exceeds
/>Lo rhe Citv o� �::v ct:�er resiaer.�ial aYea and
�er�air.ly sor�e cor�nerciGl areas. <b� />l~ additicn �c raisir.g prope�ty values,
�Y:e hor:tec.::�ers a� BIGHOTtT7 _.^.cest =n �ne<Dr />co�n.-nL^? ty i:� ct'�er :Jdy�S. T�".EV
pa_ronize �he City's and valiey's commercia�<br />es�ar�lishmer.ts, cu��ts�al
cer.ters, and ar�is�ic ever�s and r�ake very signi�icar.t<br />co:�tribatior.s to
:ned`cal care, eaucatior. a:�d ct'�er corr�n�;nit�• r.or.-prof�t<br />or^ar.izatic�s.<br
j><pr />Furthe�m.cre, BIGHORN, a� a deve'_cFr�e:�t, nas beer. �or.e witn exceecir.g
ca�e a:�d<�r />�or.sideratio^ of t:�e d2sert enviror.ment. Tne an,e�iLies ar.d ':o:r.es
a� BIGHORI� a�e<br />bea�ti�ul and tre golf ccurses ana 2ver.�s he�d tne=e nave
p�ot�u':t nat�o:�ai and<�r />ir.ter:�at`o:�al recogni�ion to Pa':n �esert. Pal�r� �esert
_s -�c lonqer cor.s�dered a<b: />�iLy r.ear 2al:n Spr�::gs; soc:�, �al:n Sp�ings �:ili
�� seer. as a city near Pa1-n<br /»esert.<br /><br />Tre �-!agadene �ec;.e, c.hich is
r.ear;:�g corr.; le�ior., i� a=ena�:{abie adci�ion �o �Y:e<br />�i`y. I� is a
cne-o`-a-kir� res_der.ce tnat c,�ill r.eve� be dup' �catec and i� is<b� />in ^alrr.
Desert. �'he desiqn ann :-o:nposit'_o : of the non,e is ar.orher exaMp_�e c�<�r />the
se:�s'_ti••;i`_y �o �Y:e sur:o�..��d_�gs. Though�, e�iort and izves�rr.en� w�r.t ��to<br
/>�rea�� r.:, a hor:le tnat is compler.ier.tary tc the niliside. This ca:�:�o� be<;�r
/>accor��'_isneci ni�Y:oi;.� sicnif�ca�� inv�sLn.er.` anc w� t`:cut � t we all wot;ld
zave<�r />beer. �ocking uc a� ano�her �;rd'_st�^guis'�ec, conver.�ior.a� ncr�e wnicY:
makes r.c<b= />a~_temp* a� crea�_r.g u�iase:-iess that inspi�es pcss�bi�i�ies. T'.:�s
�s a beas�i`�:1<i�r />add-ticn to �he CiLy for wi:'_c'.: we a�l szould �ake p�ide.<br
/><pr />I ?�:cFe t'�e C�ty council s�ands ��p fcr, sapnor�s ar.d app�auds �ne
Fia:,Gdcnes `or<pr />LY:ei� effcrts.<br /><br /><br />Si:ce=e'_y,<pr /><br /><br
/><br />Toad �'. Resa�t<br />'Ji�e PresiuenL<br /><b= />Nlaco Ec�:i�r�er.t Re�tais,
Ir.c.<br />31250 Reserve Crive<br />'_'�cusand �alms, CA 92276<b= />(760)
3�3-5622<c�r />rax ;76C) :s43-�o54
N
0
0
�
O
t7
-�
N
CrJ
3
.o
n
��
��
rn�
=r�
or*�(';
f�17D �y
�� <
��l�
�OC7
��
bn
�
a�r�1VED
��P A LH DESER ��� A �
Edward A Burger
113 Lantana View 2006 OC�' 23 AM 9� I 1
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
October 18, 2006
I have resided at Bighorn for twelve years and have lived and voted in Pa1m Desert for
over thirteen years. I wish to voice my support for the Hagadone home and its quality of
design and construction. I also wish to thank the City Council for having the foresight to
approve such an incredible addition to the City. Truly this will be the home that will
receive worldwide recognition and it will be in Bighorn and Palm Desert.
I look at the Hagadone house every day and I'm proud to have it in my community. I
consider it to be the "Bob Hope" house of our area. It looks far better than homes I see in
the Cahuilla Hills area, or the hillsides of Rancho Mirage or Palm Springs.
I urge you not to impose any further conditions on the Hagadones after two years of
construction. They seek to develop approximately 13,000 square feet of area that has
already been disturbed in the course of construction and is located in an area shielded by
the house and surrounding, natural rock outcroppings. In other words, this area is only
seen by the Hagadones. Why does anyone care? The local paper, (through
misinformation about a 61,000 square foot residence}, has succeeded in stirring up people
for no reason.
The only question to be decided is "should the 13,000 square feet be improved or not?"
Any conditions beyond those directly related to the request and the 13,000 square feet,
are inappropriate at best and unjust at worst. This is sending the wrong message,
especially since the Hagadones are cooperating �vith the City to address these concerns.
Voluntary cooperation should be encouraged and rewarded.
Please be prudent and address the longer term nature of your decision making. Everyone
coming before you should be able to rely on your decisions without the risk of
modifications at a later date, after malcing a substantial investment.
Sincerely,
October 23, 2006
City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Hagadone Residence, Bighorn, Palm Desert
Gentlemen:
We are writing to express our support for the home being built by Duane and Lala
Hagadone. A signature home like theirs reflects well upon the City and the image that
the City presents.
Additionally, we do not think the City should have the power to unreasonably place
conditions upon the proposed sport court area. It is our understanding that the area in
question does not impact the valley view at a11. The City certainly should not be able to
condition its approval based upon required changes to the project that were already
approved by the City.
.�lIICarPl�r
�
Charles and Ethel Harreus
120 Fresco Lane
Palm Desert, California 92211
� �
� ^� �
c� �"c
�
� ���-r�
� ���
���
rrt .�
� ��Ta4
� ���
� E�-�rt
Q �"" {7
h� �.
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Bruce, Ken [Ken.Bruce@cibc.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:49 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Oct 26 hearing re Hagadone building
i agree 1 QO% with the attached. 1 live at 49070 Foxtai! Lane in Ironwood approx 5 monfihs of the year
What Mr Delf failed ask - is there any collaferaf benefit being offer by the awner af the 8ighorn property to any
organiZation or individuals as part of the approval process?
Ken Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Delf [mailto:ken@stonepine.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:27 PM
To: rklassen@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
Cc: A. Webster Macdonaid; Ray Sebastian; Bruce, Ken; Marty Zlotnik; Glenn Stratton; Tom Robertson;
ewdeer@sbcglobal.net; raymond.coad@fmc-law.com; gernnagler@aol.com
Subject: Oct 26 hearing re Hagadone building
Attention: Mayor Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro-Tem Richard Kelly, Council Members; Jean Benson and Robert Spiegal.
Dear Council,
I am an active developer in Canada and have had extensive experience in Texas. We have a home in Ironwood and
reside there every winter for at least 5 months.
We seriously object to the decision by Council to overrule the recommendations of the City of Paim Desert Pianning staff.
The rules seem clear. Please stand back and look at what this approval means:
1. A serious precedent is being set. How can a 61,000 sq. foot home be built when the ordinance is for a max. size
of 10,000? How can a home be built on a ridge in an earthquake prone zone? What use is a planning staff if such a
glaring abuse of the rules is permitted? The next applicant who chooses to have an outrageous home designed will have
a reasonable chance of getting it approved.
2. One home on a highly visible ridge, the first that I am aware of in the area, means there will be more. For the
current and future residents of the valley, this madness should stop. The view of the mountains is literally part of the Park
like setting of the valley. Do you want to encourage such development? Shall you strike the "Hillside Development
Ordinance" from City recards?
3. Good planning requires competent people to enforce and rationalize the existing legislation. For a council to
totally ignore such an abuse of existing legislation is simply wrong and, in some jurisdictions, cause for legal action to halt
it.
4. While "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if they are wrong" it should be #he mandate of the Council
to help applicants do what is justifiable as well as logical under existing legislation. Such glaring ignorance of what is
considered necessary, usable, problematic, and objectionable to all except the applicant and the Council is hard fo
be! ieve.
5. My knowledge of residential real estate suggests that very large homes are considered to be up to 30,000 sq.
feet. To see one that will approach in excess of 6Q,000 suggests that there may be some ofher mofive. This size of home
brings with it massive impervious cover to fhe ground, creates an enormous amount of run off/potential erosion during rain
storms, and has the potential to unfairly overload existing sewer services. (how many people can live in a 60,000 sq. foot
home?)
K. W. Delf
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/494 - Release Date: 24/10/2406
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential. Any disseminatian or use of this information
by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient,
10/2S/2006
Page 2 of 2
please notify me by return e-mail, do not open any attachment and delete this communication and any
copy. Thank you.
10/25/2006
Page 1 of 1
Kiassen, Rachelle
From: Greg Trapani (greg.trapani@sbcgiobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:03 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone
To:
Mayor, Mayor ProTem. and Council Members,
Its is in disbelief that I write this e-mail to you. To find out that this project has moved out of your pian
commission is shocking. if you let this issue move on each & everyone of you is truly not serving your
community. I could write in terms assuming that you are going to vote in favor of this issue but I'm confident
that you all, will do the right thing. No way would rational people even consider this proposal as it would be
clearly in violation of the ordinances in place. They are there for the good of the community not just one persorz.
Thanks for reading this and thanks in advance for voting against this matter in front of you!
Greg Trapani
48843 Cassia
Pa1m Desert
847- 525-1100
760-776-5801 aiter 11-06
10/25/2006
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Pamela Deer jpameladeer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:46 PM
To: Kiassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone development
To: Mayor Ferguson, Mayor ProTem Kelly, Councilmember Benson, Councilman Spiegel
Gentlemen:
It was incredible to many that the original Hagadone project was ever approved.
Aside from the issue that there seems to have been little regard for the Hillside
Development Ordinance this has been a negative on our Ironwaod community by
intruding upon previously undisturbed mountain ridge vistas.
To learn that the City of Palm Desert planning commissioners approvad a 16,d00 sq ft
expansion of this project on. Sept 19, 2006, was unbelievable. Where is the regard
for the people of the nearby community? Where is the regard for the provisions of
the Hillside Development Ordinance to protect? It might appear to a lay person that
the Hagadone development has a profound & direct personal connection to the planning
commissioners why else could this happen again?
We fully support reconsideration of this matter to defeat this proposal or at the
very least have mitigation conditions attached to the expansion project that would
lessen the impact of the project on Ironwood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. & Mrs Edwin W. Deer, Jr.
73-640 Jasmine Place
Ironwood Country Club
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Meline Pickus [pickline@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:15 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Expansion of the Hagadone project
I hve just learned that the city of Palm Desert planning commissioners have approved an expansion of the
Hagadone project despite a recommendation against this expansion by the city planning staff. I am very
disappointed . I have always looked to the Palm Desert administration as forward thinking and environmentally
sensitive. The ordinances passed to encourage minimal grading of the hillsides, protect undisturbed viewsheds
and other natural features have always seemed representative of a community living in harmony with its
environment. I hope I will not have to change these opinions and start thinking that Palm Desert is just like all
the other communities that bend to the pressure of development interests.
Please vote against the proposed expansion.
Meline Pickus
48-955 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
10/25/2006
URGENT: Ridgeline development
Klassen, Rachefle
From: Shigenaga, Sue C [susan_shigenaga@merck.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:21 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: URGENT: Ridgeline development
Importance: High
Please share attached letter with Council members prior to October 26 meeting.
«Ridgeline development 10-24-06.doc»
Thank you,
Sue Shigenaga
760.341.0204
Susan_shigenaga@merck.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains
information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station,
New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known
outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohxne or MSD
and in Japan, as Banyu - direct contact information for affiliates is
available at http:/lwww.merck.com/contacticontacts.html) that may be
confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this
message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this
message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
delete it from your system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0
10/25/2006
Page 1 of 1
October 24, 2006
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear City Council Members,
Over the last year, while driving south on Monterey Drive, I have been greatly disturbed
with the view as I gaze to the horizon. My drive home each day has changed
significantly, as I look at the mountains ahead that once were pristine. What once was a
beautiful view of the Santa Rosa foothills now includes a ridgeline structure on the hills
above Big Horn Country Club.
Being a native Coachella Valley resident (and Palm Desert Resident for over 20 years), I
value greatly the unique geological setting of this desert valley. I know I am not alone.
Millions of visitors come to this area for the unparalleled beauty of this picturesque
valley. Ringed by magnificent mountains, this desert valley is like no other. It is our
desert mountains that make this area a premier destination and a source of solace and joy
for all Coachella Valley residents.
In my mind, the home on the ridgeline above The Canyons at Big Horn Country Club has
marred this invaluable asset. Whatever the rational behind this development, the offset
can not compensate for the deterioration of our natural resources.
With persistent development pressure, the responsibility of sound stewardship of our
natural resources is immense. Future generations depend on your sound judgment, and
wise planning decisions. I respectfully ask the council to vote against further expansion
of this residence. I also would ask that further development in our mountains be
curtailed, and that policies be enacted to preserve our mountains.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views, and for your deliberate consideration of
this important decision.
Sincerely,
Sue Shigenaga
76-145 Via Fiore
Indian Wells, CA 92210
susan s�iigenaga@merck.com
Page 1 of 1
Ktassen, Rachetle
From: RHa#ch7988@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:28 AM
To: rkiassen@cipalm-desert.ca.us
Subject: hagadane development
Dear Council Members,
I hope that you will carefully enforce the Hillside Development Ordinance in regard to the request for expansion. I
befieve that the original approval served to undermine the intent of the ordinance. And to ailow for this expansion sets a
dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Thank you
Robert A. Hatch
49188 Quercus
Palm Desert
10/25/2006
Klassen, Rachelle
From: patricia Van Santen [pvansanten@adelphia.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 2�, 2006 12:13 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone
I am a resident of Ironwood Country Club in Palm Desert and I want
to go on record with a resounding NO regarding any expansion of the
Hagadone residence. I am appalled at the lack of respect the city
council has shown our city and neighborhood. T would like to know
what the voting records are of the CIty Council so I know WHO voted
for this monstrous scar of a house,ruining our landscape and privacy
forever. I hope someone will organize a lawsuit against you as I feel
you have broken the laws ancl covenants of our city and seriously let
down the citizens and our rights.
thank you,
Patty Van Santen
1
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: LizaB2004@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:44 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Web Site Inquiry
Dear City Council,
I'd like to weigh in the Hagadone house issue. I think it is outrageous that the dwelling received approval in the first place,
and I really don't understand why all these requests for expansion have been approved, especially the one last summer
after the homeowner had already started grading for the expansion illegally. Makes one wonder what goes on outside of
the council meetings away from the public eye.
Did the City Council really buy the pitch that the house would be "invisible"? The house is an eyesore visible from all over
the valley! If wealthy folks want to build mega-mansions that spoil our views of undeveloped mountainside, send 'em to
Scottsdale, where the mountains are already ruined.
Sincerely,
Liza Baldwin
47290 Golden Bush Ct.
Palm Desert
10/25/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: M4Midge@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:39 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Concerned citizen
Gentlemen,
f feel it is a disgrace that the City Council members have approved such an intrusion on the hillside above us. As a
concerned resident of Ironwood Country Club it is a truly disturbing sight to look up at this scar on the once undisturbed
mountain ridge. Our natural skylines need to be protected and I hope you will get that job done.
Sincerely,
Marjorie Hood
10/25/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Ann Rawley [arawley@alitel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:46 PM
To: rklassen@ci.palm-desert.ca.us.
Subject: Hagadone expansion
Since I am stili t my regular home in Nebraska, I will be unable to attend the meeting on Oct. 28th. I am a new homeowner
at Ironwood. M residence there is at 73 Ajo Lane.
I was absolutely appalled to learn that Mr. Hagadone was allowed to build a monstrous residence on the mountainside
overlooking Ironwood, and even more distressed to hear that the Commissioners are even considering allowing him to
expand his construction. This viewshed should have been allowed to remain undisturbed. One man's residence should
not be allowed to diminish the appeal and hence the value of so many other homes that were originally constructed in
view of the mountains. I urge you to deny the Hagadone request to enlarge his residence. His selfishness has already
done enough and, in my opinion, irreparable harm.
Sincerely,
Ann K. Rawley
10/25/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Racheile
From: R A MARJORIE HOOD [rahoodcpa@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:15 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagadone Project
Gentlemen,
My wife and I have been residents od Ironwood Country Club(ICC) since 1997. We have enjoyed the views of
undeveloped hillsides over the years.
We were surprised when the construction process of the aboved mentioned project became obvious to ICC
residents and our neighbors over the past few years. We were uncertain how to respond to this matter until we
received detailed information from the Ironwood Master Maintenance Association(IMMA).
It seems to us that this problem can be solved if the owner makes the necessary changes to be in compliance
with the original approved exceptions to the ordinances in 2004 which assured that the house would not be
visible from ICC and surrounding communities. I assume that the term house included all other buildings on the
property.
If the requested added square footage would not be visible from ICC, we would have no objections. However,
we would think that the residents of Big Horn etc. might have serious concerns
The City should consider what happens when the next requested variance is for a 100,000 square foot lot and a
75,000 home. I realize this may seem silly, but who would have ever thought that someone would propose a
61,000 sq. ft. lot and a 32,000 sq. ft. home in the hills above Palm Desert.
Obviously the zoning ordinances relating to hillsides in Palm Desert need to be revised. In the interim, maybe
the answer is to strictly enforce the current ordinances.If they had been enforced, this current matter would not
have occured.
Respectfully,
Richard and Marjorie Hood
48890 Noline Place
Palm Desert 92260
760-773-9050
10/25/2006
OCT,26.2006 2:39PM GRUBB&ELLIS
�� � �� ��,� ���
'��� ��5�� � �� E
.���� Qcr �� �� �,. 4
s
City of Palx�a Deserc
73-510 Fred Waring Drivc
Palux J�esext, C,A 92260
VIA FAX: �60.340.05'74
RE: HhGADON� X�AMYL'k TRU3T REClUEST FOR AIVIENDMEN'r
N0.7638 P, 2
Dsvid R. Tripaldi
73734 Jasmine Place
Palm Desert, CA 92264
Deax 1Vlayor and City Council Members:
A/1y wxfe and I own a rasidence at 73-734 J'asmaz�� �iace, P�lm Descrt, Califomia.
I am wricing to inform you that wc arc adamaatly o�oosed to the above referemced xcques[. We believe tb.at
rhe request to expand r,he approved graded axea �romi 38,000 square feeC Ca 61,110 square feet is totally
unreasc►nable and absolutely inconsistes�t �viCh the request of the �illsxde dev�lopment plan.
Very Trul� '�i'ours,
� �
pavi.d R. Tripa�dx
,
,, ,
Received Oct-26-06 02:44pm From- To-PALM DESERT CITY CLE PaQe 02
OCT.26.2006 2:39PM GRUBB&ELLIS
S
r �' �a�ubb�Ell�s�
Prop�rry saluaems �rvorldwide
Qate:
To:
�ax Numb�r:
F�om:
Number of Pages:
(Including covar shact)
Regarding:
N0.7638 P, 1
Facsimile
Oatober 26, 200b
C%LY o�' �alm Desert
760.34Q.0574
Nancy Vate��a
2 total
CozxespoxAdence from Davad Tripaldi
Comments: Please consider the follawing.
Tha,nk you.
ly'ancy Varell�
9�S.Z74.Z45A�
�
'rhis ricstnoile measnge ta lracaaea oniy fox the nse ot' the individnal w oariey W whiCh it is addreesed snd may eopllia iuforwuiao d�st ig prlvi7e•b,ea, Contidential and
CxGmDE from dieClosneC uAdef epplztdhle law. J,f l�Oc 7l�DAdat a4 lhis rnz�xoge w not nc� inicadad a�efpie�rat, or �6e employcc or a;oat *oapoaablo for doB�aiag dw anq�ogo
to tde inteadcd rec;pieny yov arc no 't�ied chsi any dissemiAu�kon, disaiburioa or copyia5 of ihis commuaication is smcUy prolul>it�d. if yoa t�vc rceeived rhls faeairale
in error. plaaaa aoufy p1e 3ender by celeplwne laur�sQi�ooly xo �hu� wa ean mroogo fot tho eo4iCvn1 oE tLe doeumena ai uo eqic to you. TIIAak yC0.
Giv,bb & Ell"ss Company 2001 N. Maix� Slseet, Suice 45� Wa1nuC CiCck, CaUPornia 9a596 925.939.3300 9Z5.935.6895 fax
Received Oct-2fi-�6 02:ddpm From- To-PALh� DESERT CITY CLE PaQe O1
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Marian Margolis [mberz@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:47 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Hagandone Project opposition
Please do not ruin the environment by approving this project. Marian Berz. Ironwood c.c.
10/26/2006
Hagadone Development
Kiassen, Rachelle
From: Robert Dvhrmann [rmd@ssdslaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:48 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: Barbara Dohrmann
Subject: Hagadone Development
Page 1 of 1
This project in the Bighorn property is opposed by our Ironwood Master Association.
I write to express my agreement with the Ironwood position and request that the City council disapprove this
expansive and unsightly project. This proposal would permit an enormous artificial incursion into the ridgefine of the
San Jacinto mountain range, something we were advised 27 years ago when we acquired our property would never
occur. Promises made should be promises kept; the council should not approve this violation of the Hillside
Development Ordinance which is intended to encourage minimal grading in the hillside and ��to protect undisturbed
viewsheds and natural landmark features including vistas and natural skylines." To approve this intrusion is to
effectively repeal the ordinance.
Robert M. Dohrmann, Esq.
Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers, LLP
6300 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2000
Los Angeles CA 90048-5268
(323) 655-4700 ext. 413
(323) 655-4488 (fax)
rmd@ssdslaw.com
http.1/www..lala.borlaw.com.
10/26/2006