HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1142 Appeal Denial of Amendment 11 to Development Agreement DA 02-01 Stone Eagle 6.5 LLCREQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Appeal of a Planning Commission denial for an Amendment to
Development Agreement 02-01 to allow the division of homes from
four (4) to 12 fractional interests within the Stone Eagle project, west
of Highway 74 at Homestead Road. Application has since been
revised to nine (9) fractional interests on a maximum 20 units.
SUBMITTED BY: Phil Joy
Associate Transportation Planner
APPELLANT: Eagle 6.5 LLC
74001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
DATE: September 13, 2007
CONTENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 1142 with revised Development
Agreement 02-01 Amendment #1
Appeal Application and Supporting Information
Legal Notice
Minutes from July 3, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Staff Report of July 3, 2007
Recommendation:
Waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 1142
approving an amendment to the Stone Eagle Development Agreement
subject to a Negotiated Facilities Impact Fee similar to other timeshare
projects within the City.
Executive Summary:
Approval of the staff recommendation will override the decision of the Planning
Commission and will authorize the increase of sales from four (4) to nine (9)
fractional interests for a maximum 20 homes, reducing the remaining 40 homes to
single ownership within Stone Eagle.
Staff Report
September 13, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Discussion:
Stone Eagle is primarily a Golf Club with a residential area that allowed up to 60 homes, 46
of which have entitled. The home sites are clustered at the bottom of the hill from the golf
course, across the Palm Valley Channel from the Sommerset Community.
The original development agreement allowed the maximum 60 homes to be sold in up to
four fractional interests each. The developer applied to modify the agreement in order to
increase the number of potential fractional interests from four to twelve per home.
The Planning Commission denied the request because they felt any increase from four (4)
fractional interests changed the character of the project considerably, especially since the
project was in a sensitive location. There was considerable public input received from
Cahuilla Hills residents who objected to any type of increase until ongoing issues with the
original project was resolved. These issues include nuisance water from a creek, which lies
roughly between Cahuilla Hills residences and Stone Eagle. A Public Works Director's
hearing will be held on October 4, 2007, to discuss the results of toxicological tests of the
creek water, and other lingering issues from a previous meeting to determine if the project
may be finaled. Staff consulted with the City Attorney and concluded that subject request
and lingering project issues should be dealt with separately.
The original development agreement allowed four (4) interests for 60 homes or 240 total
owners. After denial by the Planning Commission, the developer revised the application to
allow nine (9) interests over 20 homes and single ownership of the remaining 40 for a total
of 220 owners. There are currently 46 home sites within the project, while the agreement
allows up to 60 if the project is expanded or if additional lots are subdivided. So far, one of
the larger lots was subdivided into a triplex.
The impacts of this request will be confined to the project itself. There will be no increase
of traffic from that analyzed in the EIR since there wouldn't be an increase in the number of
homes. Stone Eagle's original approval was based on each home being occupied full time
and this request does not change that premise. A Stone Eagle resident may have
concerns if an adjacent home had nine (9) rather than four (4) interests, since that could
change the character of a neighborhood. Consequently the developer has identified 10
initial home sites that are relatively isolated from sites previously sold.
Staff required that the developer provide a list of previously sold site owners to notify of this
application, and no objections were voiced from these owners. A further stipulation is that
a public hearing would be held at Planning Commission for the remaining 10 homes with
fractional interests.
G WLANNINGLIANINE JUDYIWORD FILESIPHIL JOYIDA 2-1 #1 S E CC SR DOC
2
Staff Report
September 13, 2007
Page 3 of 3
Staff requested and received a copy of the Lodging Reservation Policies. The policies
state that the length of stay for a 1 /9th interest in a home is planned for three (3) weeks
during season, and short notice stays are possible for club members and unaccompanied
guests. The City's transient occupancy tax applies to any non -owner stays of Tess than 30
days, and the City enforces the ordinance on those that lease homes elsewhere in the city
for Tess than 30 days to vacationers. Since this project appears to operate more like a
timeshare, staff proposes a negotiated Facilities Impact Fee similar to that collected for
other timeshare projects in the city.
Therefore, staff recommends that City Council approve the Development Agreement
Amendment.
Submitted By:
PHIL J
Associate Transportation Planner
LAURI ALAIAN
Director of Commun
OMER CR-0
ACM, Develo
Development
t Services
CARLOS ORT- A
City Manager
;ITY COUNCI CTI®N:
APPE.OVED ✓✓.... .. DENIED .. . .
RECEIVED : v��,.�... � CTHER�,..e.,.
iv:EET I1
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:SY,
ABSTAIN:.,��
VERIFIED BY: rWK../%Y1c1rY 1
lriginal on File with City Clerk's Office
DATE
150>7 Eirer is
* Approved the recommendation,
subject to a $2,700 annual fee/unit
Public Facilities Impact Mitigation Fee to
be imposed, such language to be added
to the Development Agreement
between first and second readings of
the Ordinance. 4-0 (Ferguson ABSENT)
G IPLANNINGUANINE JUDYIWORD FILESIPHIL JOYIDA 2-1 #1 S E CC SR DOC
3
ORDINANCE NO. 1142
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT RELATING TO
STONE EAGLE.
CASE NO. DA 2-1 AMENDMENT # 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th
day of September, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by
Eagle 6.5 LLC for approval of DA 2-1 Amendment # 1 ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2450 denied said
request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts and reasons to justify its actions:
The proposed development agreement is consistent with the provisions of the
Municipal Code Chapter 25.37, Development Agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
2. That DA 2-1 Amendment #1 (Exhibit A attached hereto) is hereby
approved.
3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to
publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general
circulation, published and circulated in the city of Palm Desert, California,
and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this , day of , 2007, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Palm Desert
Attn: Carlos Ortega
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
First Amendment to Development Agreement
This First Amendment to Development Agreement (this "Amendment") is made
and entered into as of this _ day of , 2007, by and between the CITY OF
PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and STONE EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC ("Developer") as successor-in interest to DESTINATION
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation ("DDC") (City and
Developer are, collectively, "the Parties"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et
seg. of the Government Code of the State of California.
RECITALS
A. City and DDC entered into that certain Development Agreement dated as
of November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003-172463,
in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the "Agreement"). The
Agreement was entered into to facilitate the development of certain real property ("Site")
more particularly described in the Agreement.
B. City and Developer now desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set
forth herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises
of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date,
wllich is two (2) business days after the date, which is thirty (30) days after date of final
adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Amendment ("Effective Date").
Fro�n and after the Effective Date, all references to the Agreement shall automatically be
decmed to mean the Agreement as amendcd by this Amendment.
a i oax i�c,.a �
2. Defined Tcnns. All capitali7cd tcrms used but not dcfincd hcrcin shall
have the mcaning set forth in t11e Agrecmcnt.
3. Effect on Site. This Amcndment will bind the Site upon thc Effcctive
Date.
4. Amendment to Section 201. From a�Id after the Effective Date, tlle last
sentence in Section 201 (1) shall bc revised to read: "Notwithstanding any provisions to
the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, each of no
more than twenty (20) DU may (but need not) in developer's sole discretion be sold as up
to nine (9) fractional interest, each of which fractional interests shall permit the owner of
such fractional interest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be the DU in which such
owner has a fee interest) for a portion of each calendar year. The remaining 40 DU of the
entitled GO DU shall not exceed one (]) ownership, which is an amendment from up to a
fourth (1/4) fractional interest per DU."
5. Covenants Run With Land. It is speciGcally understood and a�reed by
and betwcen the Parties hereto that the Agrcement and this Amendment shall not be
scverable from Developer's intcrest in the Sitc, and the provisions of the Agreement as
amended by this Amendment shall constitute covenants which shall rwt with the Site or
any portion thereof upon the recordation of this Amendment, and that thereafter the
benefits and burdens of the Agrccmcnt as amended by this Amcndment shall bind and
inure to all successors in interest to the Parties who acquire any interest in the Site.
6. Intcmretation. This Amendment shall be intec-pretcd to give cach oC the
provisions their plain meaning. Tlle Recitals are incorporated into this Amendment.
7. Entire A�reement. This Amendment is executed in duplicate originals,
each of��hich is deemed to be an originaL This Amendment consists of four (4) pages,
which constitute the entire wlderstanding of thc Parties as to thc matters set forth in this
Amend�ncnt.
8. Status of A:;reement. Except as modi(ied by this Amendment, the teni�s
and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and eCfect.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING YAGEJ
-1 I O�3R 17G.-� 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
date and year first above written.
"CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California
Municipal Corporation
Effective Date: By:
(�Iayor, City of Palm Desert)
, 2006
Attest:
Carlos L. Ortega
City Manager
Approved as to form:
David Erwin
City Attorney
"DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
Date of Submission by Developer: By:
, 2006
�i o.��i��,.a 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
• by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instn�ment.
Witness my hand and official scal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
a i uas i��,.4 4
��
STO N� �AG L�
Application to Appeal Supplemental Information Sheet
Case No.: DA-02-01 Amendment No. 1
Date of Decision: July 3, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting
Application of Matter Considered: To Amend the Stone Eagle Development Agreement No. DA-
02-01 Amendment No. 1 to modify the Number of Fractional Interests from 4 to up to 12.
Name of Appellant: Eagle 6.5 LLC (Stone Eagle)
Reason For Appeal: Stone Eagle respectfully requests an appeal of the July 3, 2007 Planning
Commission denial for the following reasons:
1) Ted Lennon, President of Lowe Destination Development Desert Division and Stone
Eagle LLC was out of town and unable to attend the July 3, 2007 Planning Commission
Meeting. Ted brings pertinent insight and information regarding the Club Unit program
and the Development Agreement amendment.
2) Stone Eagle proposes to more clearly define the intent of the proposed Development
Agreement Amendment. The proposed amendment as presented to the Planning
Commission would allow Stone Eagle to sell each Dwelling Unit as up to twelve (12)
fractional interests. The intent of the amendment and as more clearly outlined in this
appeal is to sell a limited number of Dwelling Units as up to nine (9)fractional interests.
Under the provisions of the approved Development Agreement, all 60 units can be sold
as four(4)fractional interests (240 total shares). Under this appeal, Stone Eagle
proposes to limit the number of Dwelling Units to 20 units to be sold as up to nine (9)
fractional interests (a total of 180 shares —60 shares less than the approved
Development Agreement). We also propose to clearly outline which lots are intended to
be fractionalized under the Club Unit program. Initially, we propose to develop three (3)
units on Lot 8 and one (1) unit each on Lots 38-44. This represents the first 10 of the 20
units to be potentially fractionalized. If the additional 10 units are developed, they would
be subject to City and Owner review and approval. The attached map depicts the 8 lots
(10 units)to be developed initially under the Club Unit program. Lot 8 was always
designated as a Club Unit project. Lots 38-44 are clustered and are more isolated from
the individually owned lots.
3) Stone Eagle is a private golf club, and the primary intent of the proposed 9 share
program is to provide synergy with the Stone Eagle membership program, particularly
the National (i.e., non-resident) Membership category. Stone Eagle's National Members
are limited to 21 golf days in season (November 1 to April 30). The proposed Club
Residence program (as outlined in the attached "Residence Club at Stone Eagle
Lodging Policies and Operation Details") will provide Stone Eagle's National Members
the flexibility and opportunity to maximize their golf inembership experience at Stone
Eagle and the surrounding Palm Desert community.
4) Additional information including the Club Unit Exhibit Map and the "Residences Club at
Stone Eagle Lodging Reservation Policies and Operational Details" report is submitted
to more clearly define the Residents Club plan.
14-oat R�avt Drivt,Indian Hdls,(A quio
�
��"C?I�� ���L�
T�e Residence C�ub at �J"tone �a��e
L,od�¢in�Reservation �'o�icies and Q�crationaj potai�s
7Z-5�Stone�aglc�rivc
f'a�m pcscrt,�a�ifornia�2260
760-773-6zz3
www.stonccav�lcclu6.com
-1-I ii _I�(.=:`�Ii.�CNC�.C.C:I.Caf�A-� .`�I ONt--f.=AC�1_f- .
,�_ I ��I�C�INC�fZC_`�t_JZVA�-I��Nf'OIJC:If-.`�f'�Nl?
Of'F .f��-I I��NAI i�f..= � �IL.`�
SEASON: PLANNED S"I'AY RESERVATION PROCESS:
■ Second Thursday in November through thc ■ In thc first year,Owners arc assigned a
Wedne.ulay following Mcmorial Day. Priority Resen�ation humber in ascending order of
■ Approximarely 28 or 29�veeks. their date of purchase,with the earliest purchase date
■ With 27�aeeks reserved per casita,lhe extra receiving the lowest number. In each subsequent year,
time provides Flexibiliry for Space A��ailable and Short the Priority Rcservation I�'umbers are adjusted by one
Notice Stays. (#I becomes#2,#2 becomes it3,and so on).Thc
Priority Reservation Number establishes each O�vner
Resen�ation structure does not makc a distinction position for the First Selection Round for that
bet�aeen In-Season(second Thursday in November particular year.
through Wednesday following Memorial Day)and ■ First Resen-ation Confirmation Round-
Off-Screcn since Planned Stays can be booked at any Planned Stays are based on an ON�ner's first
time. resenation request.When demand forcertain dates
exceeds lodging supply,the Owner with the lowest
PLANNED STAY TIME: numerical Reservation Priority Number for that year
w ill bc confirmed.
■ There are three(3)Planned Stay Wecks per ■ Second Reservation Confirmation RounJ-
1/9 share during the Season(27 weeks per casita). Planned Stays are based on an Owner's second
• Weeks are schedule from i�hursday through rescrtiation request. When demand forcertain dates
Wcdnesday(accommodates'I'hursday starts of main exceeds lodging supply,the Owner with the highest
club events). numerical Reservation Priority Number for that year
will be confirmed.
SPACE AVAILABL,E&SHORT NOT[CE ■ Third Rescrvation Confirmation Round-
STAYS: Planned Stays are bascd on an Owner's remaining
resen�ation requests until all Owners have reserved
■ Owners may stay additional days,subject to three weeks.When demand for certain dates exceeds
availability and Club reservation policies on a Space lodging supply,the Owner with the lo�aest numerical
Available or Short Notice basis described belo�ti�in Reser��ation Priority Number for that year will be
more detail.Only the published housekeeping fees confirnied.
would apply during these stays.
f3Y Atrgust lS, �rrit[en confinnalion oJtuch Otirner'.s
Season YlunneciS[nvs jor the pendrnK Senson is se�tt
10 each(hrner.Addi�iona!!y,a�eserv�etron calenrlar r.s
.sen�indicnting�rhich dnteti huve bec:n reserve�l bv
O�rne�:s,unrl a reservntion ccdendni•�ri(/be
rrminl[rinerlon t�n Oi+•ne�•�+ebsrie AJler Seplember!,
O�rners mUv rese�ve Spnce Avnilnhle Stuvs n.s norer!
heloir.
1
SPACE AVAl1.ARI,E 57'AYS: ��«nershi��.�hich shxll l�e c�,nsidered
[iach (ht'ner has unlimited access to and use c�f s��onsored guests�f tit��ne i•:aglr
the Residences of the O�vner's l!nit 'l�t'F�c on a • De�•clo��tnent. Rental incc�ilie,if�;encr�tecl
sj�acc a��ailablc bxsis. O��•ncrs mat�sta�•in a durin�;a tit�acc_���ailal�lc or Shc.�rr\oticc tita�
Residence dUrin�;a tipace_1�•ailable tita�� for up to is retained h��the.\ssociatic�n�fana�er(c�r the
�'nighis per resci-�•ation. benefit of the Residence Clul�.
• Spacc .\��ailablc tiri�•rescr��ations catittot l�e
rcyucsted prior ro tieptember 1 Cc�r the OW\ER EXCEIANGES:
follo�ving tie.ise.m hur can be m�de Cor ant' O��•��ers ma� eschange their cc�nfirmed Planned
a���ilablc timc during that follo���inK Season. tita� ni�his�vith othcr O�vncrs. I•:xchanKcs sl�uuld
• (hvners ma�•ha�•c onl� ane S�ace.\��ailable be arranKed ciirectl� het�veen (hvners. �\�ritten
tita� resei�•arion on the books at a ti�ne. norice of an exchan�e must be Prcn�ided to thc
Ho���e��er,each O���ner can make ane _lssociation \Ianager at Ieast 1G nights prior ro rhe
addiiional tipace .���xilable tita��reserc�ation arrival date for the earliest Plannecl tit1�� im�oh�ed
ant'timc���ithin 1:i nights of a schedulcd in thc cxchan�c.
arri��al date k�r that reser��ation. • l!naccomPanicd Guests of an O�vner mat�
• ti��ace.��•ailaf�le titat'resen•ations are stat• at a 12esidence during an O��•ner's
processed b��the.lssociati<�n\fanager on a Planned tita�, hut nor during si ti�ace
first come,firsr sen�ed basis. _���ailable tita��or tihort\otice titat�.
• O�vncrs ma� not rent their Planned tita�s.
SHORT NOTICE STAYS: • '1'o maintain thc csclusi��in•c>f'1'hc tironc
tihort\otice L'se Pericxls are a��•at•for O�r•ners to f?agle Residence Club for the benefit of its
book spur-oE-the-moment sta��s. \t'hile a tiPace O��•�l�rs,no O��•ner ma��lcase,rent,or license
.l��ailable tita� mat•hc rescn�ed months in advance, thc usc of a l'nit with the�eneral Public nor
Short I`oticc tita�•s ma��onit-be bouke�l��7thin 30 �a���rtisc the same.
d.n�s uf an O��•ner's desired arri��aL Owners simpl�
need ro contact ihe Club's resen•arion office LOCKOFFS•
«�ithin 30 da��s of their arri�•al to check a��ailabilit�� T:ach Residence conruns a �IA3I7 Li�•ing tiuire and
and reser��e a llnir. either one I,ockuff L'nit in the case of a heo-
• l�scept as pro��ided bt-resen•ation policies bedroom Residence,ur three I.ockoff Units in the
listed abo��e,there is no limit to rhe number case of a ihree-bedroom Residence.
of ti�ace.�vulable titacs and tihort Notice � �)��.ners ma� elect to reser��e Planned tita�s or
Stat•s an(1��•ner mat•take. ti�ace .\�-ailable Sta�s in either iheir �chole
• O�cners mat�onit�ha��e one tihort\otice Sta� unit ur ant�portion of their unit. .\m unusecl
booked at a rime,ho�ve��er. �orti<�n of rhe Residence, specificallt� oCfered
• (lnce O�vners use their tihort \c�tice tita��, ln• O�vner in�vritin�,�aill be a�•ailable to other
the��ma�•resen•e another. �C'hile some O�cners Cr�r ti�ace .�vailable or tihorr \orice
(>u•ners ma�-use�I'he titone E�.aKle Residence tit��-ti.
Club Icss often,others��•ill use it more often. • (heners �vill ha��e a reduced housekeePin� fee
• Residence Club.lssocianon\fanager ma} if ther resen�e a smaller portion of the
book units or lackoffs on tihort\oticc basis Rcsidcnce.
for usc b��Prospccts for Club membcrship,
residenrial<����nership ancl fractional
�
V►'AI'I'LIST:
'1'hc(;hili s rescrvatic�n ofticc�t•ill tnaintatn a
«�aitlist during cach Club Calcnciar t'c�r C<�r cach
L'se\\'eck in�vhich clemand ezceeds sur�lc.]iach
o�rncr ma��hold onc���aitlisr position for a L'sc
���Cl'Ii 0f il flllll'.�UC�I waitlist reyuesrs mat�be
made aftcr�ti•ritren confirmaric>n oC Planned tita��s
ha��e bccn gi��en cach(�lul�Calcndar t'ear.
CONCIERGE SERVICES:
Residences���ould ha��e access tc�a menu of
concierke sen•ices subject to a standard fee. �or
examplc:
• (;rocer��tihopping
• \irrort�I�ransportation
• I•:�•enin��I'ransportaric>n
HOUSEKEEPING:
Planncd Stat•wceks includc thc follo��-inK basic
housekeeping sen�ices. 13asic housekeeping
sen�ites induded in the(1�vner's annual fec
include: (a)dailt•trash rema��al and fresh to�vel
ser�•ice tc�the l'nit;(l�)a full hc�usekeeping and
maintenance ser��ice up�n departure,regardless c�f
the length c�f sta�-;and(c) a full housekeepinK and
mainrenance service�rcn•ideci mid-�t�eek for sta�•s
of fivc(:i)dat's or 1pnKer.
If an(hrner or Pcrmitted L'scr desires aclditional
hc�usekee�ing sen�ices,�r��,u5e��aa��,��n1�
cleaning or housekeeping ser��ices ro be reyuired
o�-cr and above that�vhlch would ordinaril��lx
pro��ided,then such(h�•ner or Permitted l:ser ma��
be charKed a Personal Charge for such additional
tiEl"FICI'.
• �'isits lastin�tw�o consecuti��e Llse��'eeks or
lon�cr in thc samc l'nit normallt�reyuirc full
housekeepin�and mainrenance seivices at thc
end oE each L'se\\'eek.
• Pcrsonal Chargcs xssociared�aith vari<rus
housekeeping and maintenance ser��ices�vill
be esrablished bt�the Club Board and annuall��
�ublished along with the Club Calendar.
ANNUAL FEES:
TI3I�. '_�nnual I I().\I�ees anc]�Iainrenance
bud�ets are currentlt�being prepared for
llcpartmenr of Rcal 1-:state filings and�vill be
pru��idcd as a�•ailable.
3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Palm Desert
Attn: Carlos Ortcga
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE C1TY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
First Amendment to Development Agreement
This First Amendment to Development Agreement (this "Amendment") is made
and entcred into as of this day of , 2007, by and between the CITY OF
PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and STONE EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC ("Developer") as successor-in interest to DESTINATION
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation ("DDC") (City and
Developer are, collectively, "the Parties"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et
seq. of the Govern�nent Codc of the State of California.
RECITALS
A. City and DDC entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated as
of November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003-172463,
in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the "Agreement"). The
Agreement was entered into to facilitate the development of certain rcal property ("Site")
more particularly described in the Agreement.
B. The Developer does hold fee title to all of the Additional Property.
C. City and Developer now desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set
forth herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises
of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date
which is two (2) business days after the date which is thirty (30) days after date of final
adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Amendment ("Effective Date").
aioaxi�e.3 1
From and attcr the Effective Uate, all references to the Agrecment shall automatically be
deemed to mean the Agrecment as amended by this Amendment.
2. Uefined "I�cnns. All capitali�ed tenns used but not defined herein sl�all
have the mcaning set forth in the Agreement.
3. Effect on Additional Property. This Amendment will bind the Sitc upon
thc Effectivc Date. Ncitller the A��reement nor this Atnendment will be binding against
or affect the title to any portion of the Additional Property until Developer or its dcsignee
acquires an interest therein and records the Agreement and this Amendment against such
acquired portion of the Additional Property.
4. Amendment to Section 201. From and after the Effective Date, the last
sentence in Section 201 (1) shall be revised to read: "Notwithstanding any provisions to
the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, each DU
may (but need not) in developer's sole discretion be sold as up to twelve(12) fractional
interests, each of which fractional interests shall permit the owner of such fractional
interest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be the DU in which such owner has a fee
interest) for a portion of each calendar year."
5. Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by
and between the Parties hereto that the Agreement and this Amendment shall not be
severable from Developer's interest in the Additional Property, and the provisions of the
Agreement as amended by this Amendment shall constitute covenants which shall run
with the Sitc or any portion thereof upon the recordation against the Additional Property
of the A��reement and this Amendment, and that thereafter the benefits and burdens of thc
Agreement as amended by this Amendment shall bind and inure to all successors in
interest to the Parties.
6. Interpretation. This Amendment shall be interpreted to give each of the
provisions their plain meaning. The Recitals are incorporated into this Amendment.
7. Entire Agreement. This Amendment is executcd in duplicate originals,
cach of which is deemed to be an original. This Amend�nent consists of four(4) pages,
which constitute the entire understanding of the Parties as to the matters set forth in this
Amendment.
8. Status of Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, the terms
and provisions of the A�eement shall remain in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
a i oas i��.3 2
Proposed Modi�cation
4. From and after the Effective Date, the last sentence in Section 201 (1) shall bc
revised to read: "Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary set forth in Chapter
25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, up to 20 DUs of the 60 DUs may (but need
not) be sold as up to nine (9} fractional interests, each of which fractional interests shalt
permit the owner of such fractional interest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be
the DU in which such owner has a fee interest) for a portion of each calendar year. The
developer shall bc required to obtain City approval for each of the 20 DUs to bc
potcntially sold in fractional interests."
aioaKi��.3 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undcrsigned have executed this Amendment as of the
date and year first above writtcn.
"CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California
Municipal Corporation
Effective Date: By:
(Mayor, City of Palm Desert)
, 2007
Attest:
Carlos L. Ortcga
City Manager
Approved as to form:
David Erwin
City Attorney
"DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
Date of Submission by Developer: By:
, 2007
aioaxi�6.3 4
ST/1TE OF CALIFORNIA )
� SS.
COUNTY OF )
On , beforc me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to �ne on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
� SS.
COUNTY OF )
On , bcfore me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/thcir authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
41048176.3 5
C6 � Y � F Pnl �l D � � � � ��
73-5io f'RED WARING URIVE �
PALA4 UF.SERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-25]8
re►.:760 346-06��
F�vc:760 ;4i-7o98
in fo�paLn-deser c.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. DA 2-1 Amendment#1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GiVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider an appeal by Eagle 6.5 LLC, of a Planning Commission denial, for an
amendment to a devefopment agreement,to allow the division of homes from 4 to 12 fractional
interests within Stone Eagle Hwy.,west of Homestead Road,74 and the Palm Valley Channel-
Tract 30438. (The app{ication has been revised to 9 fractional interests for 10 home sites initially
and 10 home sites to be identified later,for a total of 20 homes.)
Ci of Palm Deaert Me
k `=�,,.��� p.
:li�: .
�
■
i�y�,i, II�
'1-
�t'+. .,�y��� I
�": �����`s� �
� -
. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 13,20Q7 at 6:0�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 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,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or
city council)at,or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Kiassen,
August 24, 2007 City Clerk
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
�-�---.
� � � APPLICATION TO APPEAL
-�. .
DECISION OF THE /�1G1YlY�i�q �:��i.SSiv�j
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. i�� C>r"� -� ,m Prlt� �( Date of Decision: �c11v �3, o��U�
Name of Appellant Coa�1P ��5 L-LL �s�rt� �/�e�Phone T�c�-- 77Q-lWy�
Address '�-�1 �e_�c-�rve D r►�e � hc�i�� c�JP,I(� C� ��1� !o
Description of
App/ication or Matter Conside�ed:�►�-�eh�� -�!'-f�e �+c��nP C-��i.� ✓Jevelo,�-����f
��Q�'c��-x�P,-1�- DY� o�-o� � m�r�;�v -�hP r�c�r,;be�-� ���r�c�,���o�l
i,-� fe�es�-s r-�o � y f-o vp -fio /Z o
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary):
52e c�f-fGcl�ec/ S h��2f ca hd �xh;b���fs:
( ignatu f Appellant)
ed L.e»�o►�
�Q R OFFICIAL USE ONLY fi �
Date Appeal Filed: �l ry-C� / Fee Received: J"��6 ^
Treasurer's Receipt No. �l,���f Received by: C'hac� �-����'S�( ,
Date of Consideratio� by City Council or City Official: l�
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
w
COP'Y TO —
H�.trkiassemWPGata�WPDOCS�FORMS�apDl to apDeal.wpd DATE � � Rev 6/29/02
��A�
STO N� ��G L�
74-00� Rcserve j�rive
�ndian Wc��s,Ca�i�ornia 92210
760-779-1646 Fax 760-779-1469
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 18,2007
TO: Lauri Aylaian
COMPANY: City of Palm Desert
FROM: Kris Schulze,Stone Eagle
ORIGIONALS DATE DESCRIPTION
1 7/18/07 Appeal Application & attachment and Check($210.00)
1 7/18/07 Club Unit Exhibit
1 7/18/07 Club Unit Operation Policy
Please let me know if you need anything else.Thanks, Kris
��rt�
,�r':%=;
z ; �ti�w
. . <,^'!si 49
�:uD �} � �• � .f-
..,. . 9x`.T��t�::,: ;��.,::..
.'M� ti,�"k'8'-'r ,
�rb ���w�t
. s y�,�� �"����5^�-..ki�:e''�Ab -<< .
`�ni� i'�4'i � � � ��� /J
'� ti: RE�EI'V�D`"� ��' � DATE: / �� 'CYJ�
�_ s ..:� �m'„� .,, ' a�;���,�� *i. . g�, y •a.•k
--lr�;' �4 a { � �.
�� � ��'s� �i � �'iv ,�� �� . Y o-'"i^ G��� �,r'��
� . l��rs ��u �° ���� S �5 �
, .
� t'
,
. �,F .:��re� >
Q - ' .� . . ,. '.
r � ��� , � ��� ��'��
. .: -K .. „
,
: . . .
� . _ �.. .
�� .. �^.'.°�''. "'mz
�4A0I Reserve prive, �n�i:�n We��s,�A 922 I O 760.779.i 646
�..
STox� ����
Application to Appeal Supplemental Information Sheet
Case No.: DA-02-01 Amendment No. 1
Date of Decision: July 3, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting
Application of Matter Considered: To Amend the Stone Eagle Development Agreement No. DA-
02-01 Amendment No. 1 to modify the Number of Fractional Interests from 4 to up to 12.
Name of Appellant: Eagle 6.5 LLC (Stone Eagle)
Reason For Appeal: Stone Eagle respectfully requests an appeal of the July 3, 2007 Planning
Commission denial for the following reasons:
1) Ted Lennon, President of Lowe Destination Development Desert Division and Stone
Eagle LLC was out of town and unable to attend the July 3, 2007 Planning Commission
Meeting. Ted brings pertinent insight and information regarding the Club Unit program
and the Development Agreement amendment.
2) Stone Eagle proposes to more clearly define the intent of the proposed Development
Agreement Amendment. The proposed amendment as presented to the Planning
Commission would allow Stone Eagle to sell each Dwelling Unit as up to twelve (12)
fractional interests. The intent of the amendment and as more clearly outlined in this
appeal is to sell a limited number of Dwelling Units as up to nine (9) fractional interests.
Under the provisions of the approved Development Agreement, all 60 units can be sold
as four(4)fractional interests (240 total shares). Under this appeal, Stone Eagle
proposes to limit the number of Dwelling Units to 20 units to be sold as up to nine (9)
fractional interests (a total of 180 shares —60 shares less than the approved
Development Agreement). We also propose to clearly outline which lots are intended to
be fractionalized under the Club Unit program. Initially, we propose to develop three (3)
units on Lot 8 and one (1) unit each on Lots 38-44. This represents the first 10 of the 20
units to be potentially fractionalized. If the additional 10 units are developed, they would
be subject to City and Owner review and approval. The attached map depicts the 8 lots
(10 units) to be developed initially under the Club Unit program. Lot 8 was always
designated as a Club Unit project. Lots 38-44 are clustered and are more isolated from
the individually owned lots.
3) Stone Eagle is a private golf club, and the primary intent of the proposed 9 share
program is to provide synergy with the Stone Eagle membership program, particularly
the National (i.e., non-resident) Membership category. Stone Eagle's National Members
are limited to 21 golf days in season (November 1 to April 30). The proposed Club
Residence program (as outlined in the attached "Residence Club at Stone Eagle
Lodging Policies and Operation Details")will provide Stone Eagle's National Members
the flexibility and opportunity to maximize their golf inembership experience at Stone
Eagle and the surrounding Palm Desert community.
4) Additional information including the Club Unit Exhibit Map and the "Residences Club at
Stone Eagle Lodging Reservation Policies and Operational Details" report is submitted
to more clearly define the Residents Club plan.
J4-0O I }zeserve prive,�nc�ian We��s,CA 9221 O
��
����� ��.���
.,,
� ,
��. ., :. �r� �� _ � �� � �
� _-
�:g���.. ���: t
� ,.; � .: �
�; ,����, .�-�t � : f�_,' ` &=�r
::� �
:�� : '`, The J�esidcncc Club�t���°one�,a�� "
� � :���-� . �e,:
x4 ' � �: �.,�,�,� �.L,oclgins�(�,�servation �'olicics anz#'Qperatrocia�j�ctails
, � -�- �
..
.r
� :. . .�
,.,. . ,,-��.,. . _.
�, . ,. ' .,,
��. <. �. _ �; �_ - . � -.� ..
�k��
- �p 8Fr• ' -.
.,._. .. . . , . .. �rr .. . . .. ,•. .^.�•ra . TMjr@''°�• $ '.
. � .. ^.� :• ,
_ .. . . , . . ny..,...� �.8�?� . "
� �:. .. � . •' '. '. :: � . � . ".:.. ���., ��...� . ..�.
:: „��� ' �-.. .. . '_" �. . .. - . . .
. . ." „' '. x' g.� .... a�::��. ' .
�r.
.'���� , r.. . . � , -.
. x p,� .
_- - y�Y`a:, .�.� ' ' �Y'$� . _ .� .
... :- . �....
.
.... . .� ;, . • . � . y �
72-S�Stonc�a?�e prive
Palm pcscrt,�a�ifomia 92260
760-773-6223
www.stonccag�cc�u 6.com
THE RF SIDF.NC:E CLUt�AT STONE.EAGLE
,�_ LODGING R�SERVA-T"ION POI_ICIE_SAND
OPEKATIONAL DE�TAII_5
SEASON: PLANNED STAY RESF.RVATION PROCESS:
■ Second Thursday in November tivough the ■ In the first year,Owners are assigned a
Wednesday following Memorial Day. Priority Reservation Number in ascending order of
• Approximately 28 or 29 weel:s. their date of purchase,with the earliest purchase date
■ With 27 weeks reservcd per casita,the extra receiving the lowest numbe:r.In cach subsequent year.
time provides flexibility for Space Available and Shon the Priority Rescrvation Numbers are adjusted by onc
Notice Stays. (#I becomes#2,#2 becomes�3,and so on).l�he
Priority Reservation Number establishes each Owmcr
Reservation structure does not make a distinction position for thc First Sclection Round for that
between In-Season(second Thwsday in November particular year.
through Wednesday following Memorial Day)and ■ First Reservation Confirmation Round-
Off-Screen since Ylanned Stays can be booked al any Planned Stays are based on an Owner's first
time. reservation reyuest.When dcmand f'or certain dates
exceeds IcxJging supply,thc Owner with the lowest
PLANNED STAY TIME: numerical Reservation Vriority Number for that year
ti�ill bc confirmed.
� There are lhree(3)Planned Stay Weeks per ■ Second Reservation Confirtnation Round-
1/9 share during the Season(27 weeks pr:r casita). Planned Stays are based on an Owner's second
■ Weeks aze schedule from Thursday through reservation request.When demand for certain dales
Wednesday(accommodates Thursday starts of main excceds lodging supply,the Owner with the highest
club even�s). numerical Rescrvation Nriority Number for that year
will be confirtncd.
SYACE AVAILARLE&SHOR7'NOTICE ■ Third Rescrvation Confirrnation Round-
STA�'S: Planncd Stays are based on an Owner's remaining
reservation requests until all Owners have reserved
• Owners may stay additional days,subject to thrce wecks.When demand for ccrtain dates exceeds
availability and Club reservation policies on a Spacc lodging supply,the Owncr with the lowest numerical
Available or Short Noticc basis described beiow in Keservation Prioriry Number for that ycar will be
more detail.Only the published housckeeping fees confirnied.
would apply during these stays.
By Augw�I5, wrilten confirmation ojeach Owner's
Season Ylnnned Stays jor the pending Senson is sen!
to ench Owmer.Additionully,a reservation calendar is
sent indreating which dates have been reserved hv
Owners,and a reservation calendur wrll be
main[ained on an Chvner website.Af[er September l,
(hvners may reserve Spuce Avuilable.Sm�s as noled
below.
1
� .
SPACE AVAILABLE STAYS: :�ssociarion�fanagcr at least 1C>nights prior to the
Each Owner has unlimited access to and use of arnval date for the earliest I'[anned Stav involved
the Residences of the Owner's Unit Type on a in rhe exchange.
space available basis. Owners ma}�stay in a • Unaccompanied Guests of an Owner ma}'
Residence during a Space Available Sra�•for up to sta}• at a Residence during an (hvner's
7 nights per reservation. I'lanned titay, but not during a tipacc
• Space Available Stay reservarions cannot be .�lvailable Stay or Short Notice Stay.
rcyuesred prior ro Seprember 1 for the • (hvners ma�� not rent their Planned Srays,
followting Season but can be made for an� excepr Eor offering unused lockoff porrions as
available time during thar follo�c�ing ticason. described below.
• Owners may havc onl}'one tipace.-lvailablc • Stonc Lagle Golf Club ("SliGC") membcrs
Sta}'reservation on the books at a rimc. may� arrange for use of Units on a space
I Iowever,each C)wner can make one availaUle basis ar the posted nighdy rates.
addiuonal Space Availablc tita}�reservation SEGC members mat• submit requests for
anyrune within 15 nighrs of a scheduled Shorr Notice Sta}•s at an}•time �dthin fifteen
arrival date for that reserearion. (15) da�s prior to the first dav of use. Rental
• Space Availabie Sta}�reservarions are income during a tiEGC member Short\otice
processed by the.�lssociation 1�fanager on a Stati� period is rerained by the .�lssociation
first come,first served basis. '�fanagcr.
• To mainrain the exclusivit}•of 11�e Stone
SHORT NOTICE STAYS: Eagle Rcsidence Club for the bencfit of its
5hort Nodce Use Periods are a wav for Owners to (hvners,no Chvner ma}'lease,renr,or license
book spur-oE-the-moment stays. u'hile a Space the use of a L`nir with the general public nor
,�lvailable Stay may�be reserved months in advance, advertise thc same.
Short\odce Stays ma}'only�be booked within 30
da}�s of an(hvner's desired arrival.Chvncrs sunply LOCKOFFS•
need ro contact the Clul�'s reservation office Lach Resic�ence con[ains a :�fain I.iving Suite and
within 30 days of thcir arnval to check availabilin� either one LockofE L'�nit in the case of a two-
and reserve a Unit. l�edroom Residence,or three Lockoff Unirs in thc
• Except as provided by reservarion policies case of a three-bedroom Residence.
listed above,there is no limir ro nc�number • Chvners ma}'elect to reserve Planned Stati�s or
of Space Available Stars and Short Notice Space Available Stays in eirher their whole
Stays an(hvner may�take. unit or any portion of thcir unit. :1ny unused
• (hvners may onl}•have one Shorr Nouce Sta}' portion of rhe Residence, speci5call}• offered
Uooked at a tune,how�ever. by(hvner in w-ridng,will Ue available to othcr
• <)nce(hvners use their Short\otice Sta}•, (>wners for Space :\v:ulable or Short Notice
they ma}reservc anorher. �X'hile some Stays.
Chvners may use Thc Stonc Lagle Residence • If a �nit or unused portion of a unit is not
Club less often,others will use it more�fren. reservcd bv anonc�r Owner, it mav bc made
• Residence Club Association�fanager may available for nightiv renral rhrough thc
book units or lockofEs on tihort?�Iotice basis :lssociadon ��Ianager, wirhin l:i days of stay,
for use by Prospecrs for Club membership, to SEGC members at postcd nighdy rates.
residential ownership and fracdonal • Rental income,if generared diuing an Owners
owncrship which shall be considered Planned Sta}• is split 50/50 Uetwecn nc�
sponsored gucsts of tirone Lagle (hvncr and the :lssociarion :�fanagcr. Rental
• Developmenr.Renta]income,if generated income, if generared during a Space .�lvailable
during a Space.lvailable or Short\orice Sray or Short Notice Sta�� is ret:uned b}� the
is retained by the Association:�fanager for the .lssociarion�fanager.
benefir of the Residence C1uU. • (hvners will have a reduced housekeeping fee
if rhe}� resen�c a smaller pordon of rhe
OWNER EXCHANGES: Residence.
<hvners may exchange their confirmed Planned
Sray nights with othcr(-hvnczs. Exchanges should
be arranged direcdy lxtween Owners. Writren
notice of an exchange must be provided to the
2
• .
WAITLIST: • If an Chvner or I'emurted User dcsires
'I�e Club's reservarion office�vill mainrain a additional housekeeping ser��ices,or causes
waitlist during each Club Calendar year for each addirionsil cleaning or housekeeping services
L'se Vileek in which demand excecds supply.Each to l�e required over and above that which
ow�ner may hold onc waitlist position for a lise would ordinarily be pro�rided,then such
Week ar a time.Such waitlist requests ma}�l�e ()wner or Permitted User may be charged a
made after written confirmarion of Planned Sra}•s Personal Charge for such addirional service.
have been given each Club Calendar y�ear.
• �'isits lasung two consecutive Use Weeks or
CONCIERGE SERVICES: longer in the same L'nir normall}•rcquire ftil]
Residences would have access to a menu of housekeePing and maintenance services at the
concierge services suUject to a srandard fee.For end of each Use�k�eek.
examplc:
• �'Trocery Shopping . Pcrsonal Charges associated with various
• .�licport Transportation housekeeping and maintenance services will
• Evening Transportation be established b}•rhe Club Board and annually
publishcd along with the Club Calendar.
HOUSEKEEPING:
Planned Stay weeks include the following basic ANNUAL FEES:
housekeeping services.I3asic housekeeping
services included in the Owner's annual fee 1BD. `.-1nnu.�l F I()A Fees and:�faintenance
include: (a)dail}'trash removal and fresh towel budgets are currently Lxing prepared for
service to rhe Unit;(1-�)a full housekeeping and Dcpartmenr of Real L'state filings and will Ue
maintenance ser�7ce upon deparcure,cegardless of �ro��ided as available.
the]ength of stay;and(c)a full housekeeping and
muntenance service provided mid-week for stays
of five(�)daas or longcr.
Y
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Palm Desert
Attn: Carlos Ortega
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
First Amendment to Development Agreement
This First Amendment to Development Agreement (this "Amendment") is made
and entered into as of this day of , 2007, by and between the CITY OF
PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and STONE EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC ("Developer") as successor-in interest to DESTINATION
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation ("DDC") (City and
Developer are, collectively, "the Parties"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et
seq. of the Government Code of the State of California.
RECITALS
A. City and DDC entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated as
of November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003-172463,
in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the"Agreement"). The
A�-eement was entered into to facilitate the development of certain real property("Site")
more particularly described in the A��reement.
B. The Developer does hold fee title to all of the Additional Property.
C. City and Developer now desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set
forth herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises
of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date
which is two (2) business days after the date which is thirty(30) days after date of final
adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Amendment ("Effective Date").
41048176.3 ]
From and after the Effective Date, all references to the Agreement shall automatically be
deemed to mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.
2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall
have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
3. Effect on Additional Propertx. This Amendment will bind the Site upon
the Effective Date. Neither the Agreement nor this Amendment will be binding against
or affect the title to any portion of the Additional Property until Developer or its designee
acquires an interest therein and records the Agreement and this Amendment against such
acquired portion of the Additional Property.
4. Amendment to Section 201. From and after the Effective Date, the last
sentence in Section 201 (1) shall be revised to read: "Notwithstanding any provisions to
the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, each DU
may(but need not) in developer's sole discretion be sold as up to twelve(12) fractional
interests, each of which fractional interests shall permit the owner of such fractional
interest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be the DU in which such owner has a fee
interest) for a portion of each calendar year."
5. Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by
and between the Parties hereto that the Agreement and this Amendment shall not be
severable from Developer's interest in the Additional Property, and the provisions of the
A�-eement as amended by this Amendment shall constitute covenants which shall run
with the Site or any portion thereof upon the recordation against the Additional Property
of the Agreement and this Amendment, and that thereafter the benefits and burdens of the
Agreement as amended by this Amendment shall bind and inure to all successors in
interest to the Parties.
6. Interpretation. This Amendment shall be interpreted to give each of the
provisions their plain meaning. The Recitals are incorporated into this Amendment.
7. Entire Agreement. This Amendment is executed in duplicate originals,
each of which is deemed to be an original. This Amendment consists of four(4) pages,
which constitute the entire understanding of the Parties as to the matters set forth in this
Amendment.
8. Status of Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, the terms
and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
a�oas i��.3 2
Proposed Modification
4. From and after the Effective Date, the last sentence in Section 201 (1) shall be
revised to read: "Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary set forth in Chapter
25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, up to 20 DUs of the 60 DUs may(but need
not) be sold as up to nine(9) fractional interests, each of which fractional interests shall
permit the owner of such fractional interest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be
the DU in which such owner has a fee interest) for a portion of each calendar year. The
developer shall be required to obtain City approval for each of the 20 DUs to be
potentially sold in fractional interests."
a i oa�i��.3 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
date and year first above written.
"CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California
Municipal Corporation
Effective Date: By:
(Mayor, City of Palm Desert)
, 2007
Attest:
Carlos L. Ortega
City Manager
Approved as to form:
David Erwin
City Attorney
"DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
Date of Submission by Developer: By:
, 2007
4104A 176.3 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
4 I 048176.3 5
�`�C�I'dED
G�l' Y CLERK'S OFFICE
v�:'H DESERT, CA
�TON� �GL� 200� JtJ� 30 PM I: 2g
74-0o i }Z�s�ry�p���
�ndian�l,/e��s,Ca�i�ornia 922 I O
760-779-I 646 Fax 760-779-1469
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 26,2007
TO: Lauri Aylaian
COMPANY: City of Palm Desert
FROM: Kris Schulze,Stone Eagle
ORIGIONALS DATE DESCRIPTION
1 7/26/07 Letter Waiving Right of Appeal within 40 days
Set Se tember 14 Council Date
1 7/26/07 Club Unit Operation Policy
5�I,am rpv � �'r evised Club Unit Operation Policy.As we discussed,we do not have plans
. P.,�:
,;t t d it� , '` gram. Ted will be back in towo next week and will be available to answer
e ` a���r ng the Club Unit program. Thanks, Kris
�; �
�� � �
��i r
.rvr.F�; ���'�� F .,< �. ,''��'����� a��,•'
� r
• , r �+r� ��h�` '. y r • �{
E.--r{�q, m�• . �3
,. "� �:^� y �5�4*' .Y-'s
�� ��� �s�� '�, ie �' .
g�. .. �.• .... .�'} .. .
<- xer �y
�'�+., � „ �'��r� ,z� � Y, �ATE:_
�,f�,,;,,' "� i . 3t �+ + '�' ;�- a'�
�� ti �<` }���' Y���t�-��'��°��v,� f g �:" '
� ;�"' � ^��F ���!��'' ;�!'� � 7_ ���,�� ' ��.}i �{:..�r.. �.
��r� � 4 � �Q_ T �f. S,�.
� ., ,.` .r ..e j Y��� `.�'�'V�„����n �
t;' �
fi � �
� ' A`. �
e
`� ' r • y.��:: _t...�I.ri '1� ' .. �4y ..'a�t'v�t�l..��..�a t .�.. L�.'T..� .. -� {1 .
J4-0O I Reserve prive,�ndian We��s,��9zz i o 760.779.i 646
STor�� ��L�
July 25, 2007
Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community DeveJopment
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Stone Eagle DA-02-01 Amendment No. 1
Waiver of Right to Appea!within 40 Calendar Days
Dear Lauri:
As you are aware, Stone Eagle submitted our Appeal Application on July 18, 2007 (the day
following the Planning Commission's Resolution of Denial). I understand, that due to summer
scheduling constraints, the City desires to postpone the appeal hearing from the August 9, 2Q07
City Council Meeting to the September 14, 2007 City Council Meeting. The timing of rescheduled
meeting would exceed our 40 day appeal hearing period.
At your request, Stone Eagle waives our right to have the appeal heard within the 40 calendar days
providing the appeal is heard at the September 14, 2007 scheduled City Council meeting.
Please call me at 760-674-221 Z should you have any questions regarding our appeal request or
this letter.
Sincerely,
�i�
Tom Cullinan
Senior Vice President
Stone Eagle, LLC
�4-001 Rcscrve prive,�ndian We��s,CA 9221 O
����� �����
� �A� � �:.��� �� � �
:�. .
x:� a _ �` ,.. _, y �. � � '� _;4 ti��� a -. � ..:•. �+✓ " �. y�� .. � n
�..
` .. ' �t a �L ' A+ �, {t� �� R .' A q • �'
Y �,' � � �p� �ea.w. e. � ��# ��Y��a1n� 'n ��,L�y,��x�"rtT Sy_ �y�i� �lT :��( ��1�'.a� j
� , ; �y� V �Y i.a+!.�,-�' ♦ . r.���V' ' ._'�j �� d f ""�� X Y.,"^..� , V �Y„,.
r�� � t ��
��� pa.
; .. • �, �,A`� �.;, ', ' £ ,�� - -�r�n r... � g',+ c .
�f f ' ' yy _. ,.. . '�� . � ��. n ht'� �i i�r ,.� � � 14 � b. 1� ,y�.:
' , e��
i
' , '1. . 'i � �-'r" q 3} . _ Y- -Ew .
� li, li , �1-{YM'irj i�i� .,
;��� �117 ii 'r ����` ��F 7:
�
� u i��t+��� � ��,. G° kEz�� �t� � �ro ,.w�,�.�, �,,y :y. h��
'P r.. - 2 �„ ,�✓,... ,�
� ,� � F w ^xer.?-�.: r ^�..:..� •��.a� i:.� �.��� �"';��j�
S Y:
i, ' �' 'iI j ,� �
4Y t$, � '� � :�q ��� :�� y� �� � ' ' (�P�� � �
,� �-�' , � .0 'F�S�! { r�^
6'���� !�.,'� �"i�:�� � u r� �{ a -. �,rt� ��`{��
,�.�k.�. I "rl : ''��r� '
T z `?V?� iy � ; � �����F�� ��4� ��' ��.
��r� j� �� �ti� � � ������ �M� �.-� �����
e: !i � '�N'.�'�a� . �'.r�+�5 S - �")4".,,�: L+[ 1 "#�� a � i 1,,
�� � n ��� tr.tis '���t �����J�i�(�"R'. � 'qyS�&���'����Ts�.'��,�uf�.v� ��,� f� ' _
. .... . , .7?°�' . _.. . .?�������A.�i:� .., �.c.0�T �h�;�'�+��..��,�i��,`���'; .`',��.. ,�'r}4��'4...:6` Y y� �!
.. _ :3:.: � .}... . . . . .
7Z-SOO stone�a�e Drive
Palm pescrt,�a�i�omia 92260
76a773-62i�
www.stoneea�lcclub.com
ThE.RE.SIDENCE.CLU�AT STONE.F�GLE.
,�__ LODGING RES�RVATION POLICIESAND
OPERA�TIONAL DETAILS
SEASON: PLANNED STAY RESERVATION PROCESS:
• Second Thursday in Novcmber through the • ln the first ycar,Owners arc assigned a
Wednesday following Memorial Day. Priority Reservation Number in ascending order of
■ Approximately 2A or 29 weeks. their date of purchase,with the earliest purchase date
• With 27 weeks reserved per casita,the extra receiving the lowest number. In each subsequent year,
time provides t7exibiliry for Space Available and Short the Priority Rcscrvation Numbers are adjusted by one
Notice Stays. (#I becomes#2,#2 becomes N3,and so on).The
Priority Reservation Number establishes each Owner
Reservation siructure does not make a distinction position fo�the First Selection Round for that
between In-Season(second Thursday in Novembcr particular year.
through Wednesday following Memorial Day)and • First Reservation Confirtnation Round-
Off-Screen since Planned Stays can be bookcd at any Planncd Stays are based on an Owner's first
time, rescrvation request.When demand for certain dates
exceeds lodging supply,the Owner with the lowest
PLANNED STAY T[ME: numerical Reservation Priority Number for that year
will be confirmed.
• There are three{3)Planned 5tay Weeks per � Second Reservation Confirmation Round-
I/9 sharc during the Season(27 weeks per casita). Planned Stays are based on an Owner's second
■ Weeks are schedule from Thursday through reservation request.When demand for certain dates
Wednesday(accommodates Thvrsday starts of main excecds lodging supply,the Owner with the highest
club events). numerical Reservation Priority Number for that year
will be confirmed.
SPACE AVAILABLE&SHORT NOTICE ■ Third Reservation Confirmation Round-
STAYS: Planned Stays are based on an Owner's remainin6
reservation requests until all Owners have reserved
■ Owners may stay additional days,subject to three weeks. When demand for certain dates exceeds
availability and Club reservation policies on a Space lodging supply,the Owner with the lowest numerical
Available or Short Notice basis describcd below in Reservation Prioriry Number for that year will be
more detail.Only the published housekeeping fees confirmed.
woulJ apply during these stays.
By August/S, written co�rmation of each Owner's
Season Planned Stays for!he pending Season is sent
to each Owner.Additionally,a reservatinn calendar is
sent indicating which dates have been reserved by
Owners,and a reservalion culendar wrll be
maintained on an Owner website.Ajter September l,
Owners may reserve Space�fvailable Stays as noted
below.
1
SPACE AVAILABLE STAYS: ownership which shall be considered
Each Owner has unlimited access to and use of sponsored guests of Stone Eagle
the Residences of the Owner's Unit 1'ype on a • Development.Rental income,if generated
space available basis. Chvners may stay in a durir�a Space Available or Short Notice Stay
Residencc during a Spacc Available Stay for up to is retained by thc Association�tanager for the
7 nights per reservaaon. benefit of the Residence Club.
• Space Available Stay reservations cannot be
requested prior to September 1 foz the pWNER EXCHANGES:
following Season but can be made for any pwners may exchar�e theiu confiimed I'lanned
available time during that following Season. Stay nights with other Owners. Exchanges should
• Owners may have only one Space.'�vailable be arranged direcdy becween Owners. Written
Stay ceservation on the books at a time. notice of an exchange must be piovided to the
However,each Owner can make one Association�4anager at least I C nights prior to the
additional Space Available Stay reservation arrival dare for thc carliest Planned Stay involved
anytime within 15 nights of a scheduled in the exchange.
acrival date foc that reservarion. . L?naccompanied Guests of an Owner may
• Space Available Stay reservations are stay at a Residence during an Owner's
processed by the tlssociation l�fanager on a Planned Stay, but not during a Space
first come,first served basis. Available Stay or Short Nocice Stay.
• Owncrs may not rent their Planned Stays.
SHORT NOTICE STAYS: . To mauitain the exclusivity of The Stone
Short Notice Use Periods are a way foz Owners to Eagle Residence Club for the benefit of its
book spuc-of-the-moment stays. V(lhile a Space Owners,no Owner may lease,cent,or Gcense
Available Stay may be reserved months in advance, ��use of a Unit with the general public nor
Short Nodce Stays may only be booked within 30 advertise the same.
days of an Owner's desued arcival.Owners simply
need to contact the Club's reservaaon office LOCKOFFS•
within 30 days of theu arrival to check availability Each Residence contains a �fain Living Suite and
and ceserve a linit. either one Lockoff linit in the case of a two-
• Except as provided by reservation policies bedroom Residence,oc three Lockoff L:nits in the
Gsted above,thete is no limit to the number case of a three-bedroom Residence.
of Space:'�vailable Stays and Short:�Iotice • Owners may elect to reserve I'lanned Stays or
Stays an Owner may take. Space AvailaUle Stays iii either their wholc
• Owners may only have one Short:�Iotice Stay unit or any pottion of theu usut. An}' unused
booked at a time,however. portion of the Residence, specifically oCfered
• Once Owners use their Short Notice Stay, b}Owner in writing,will be available to other
they may reserve another. Wlule some Owners for Space Available or Short Notice
Owners may use The Stone Eagle Residence Stays.
Club less ohen,others will use it more oEten. • Ownecs will have a reduced housekecping fcc
• Residence Club Association Manager may if they reserve a smaller portion of thc
book units or lockoffs on Shoct Notice basis Kcsidencc.
for use by Prospects for Club membership,
residenrial ownership and fcacuonal
2
WAITLIST:
The Club's ceservation of6ce will mauitain a
waitlist during each Club Calendar year for each
Use Week in which demand exceeds supply. Each
owner may hold one waitlist position for a Use
Week at a timc.Such waitlist sequests may be
made after written confirmation of Planned Stays
have been gaven each Club Calendar ycar.
CONCIERGE SERVICES:
Residences would have access to a menu of
concierge services subject to a standard fee.For
example:
• Grocery Shopping
• Airport 1'ransportaaon
• Evcning Ttansportaaon
HOUSEKEEPING:
Planned Stav weeks include the following basic
housekeeping services.I3asic housekeeping
sennces included in the Owner's annual fee
include: (a)daily trash cemoval and fresh towel
service to the Unit;(b)a full housekeeping and
maintenance service upon departure,regardless of
the length of stay;and(c)a full housekeeping and
maintenance service pzovided mid-week for stays
of five(5)days oc longec.
If an Owner or Pemvtted User desires addirional
housekeeping services,or causes additional
cleaning or housekeeping services to lx required
over and above that which would ordinarily be
provided,then such Owner or Peanitted User may
be charged a Personal Charge Eoc such additional
service.
• Visits lastin�;two consecutive Use VVeeks or
longer in the same Unit normally fequirc full
housekeeping and maintenance servicrs at the
end of each Use Week.
• Personal Charges associated with various
housekeeping and maintenance scrrlces will
be established by the Club Boacd and annually
published along with the Club Calendar.
ANNUAL FEES:
TIID. *Annual I-IOR Fees and:�taintenance
budgets ace curcendy being prepared for
Department of Real Estate filings and will be
provided as available.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
Commissioner Schmidt noted that it also runs along the east boundary of his
other lot.
Mr. Sperber said they were on three lots: his and the two to the west,
and it stops. Then it goes north and south. In the 1990's they
upgraded that, right before the City incorporated that area, and they
put it underground. He's been there 25 years.
Commissioner Schmidt thought it was a shame the power lines were there.
Mr. Sperber said he tried hard to get rid of them, but there was an
issue with the developer to his east and that one pole feeds that
whole development. It was a major situation.
There were no other questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone
wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was
no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for
Commission comments.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Limont voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2447 approving
Case No. CUP 07-07, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Limont voted no).
"'�', C. Case No. DA 02-01 Amendment#1 - EAGLE 6.5 LLC, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of
an amendment to a development agreement allowing the
increase in number of fractional shares from 4 to 12 fractional
interests per home within "Stone Eagle" located west of
Homestead Road, Highway 74 and the Palm Valley Storm
Channel.
Ms. Aylaian indicated that in November of 2002 a development was
approved called the Stone Eagle development. It is a golf course and
dwelling units in the Cahuilla Hills in the south side of town. As part of that
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3L 2007
project, a development agreement was approved. The development
agreement allowed up to 16 dwelling units to be sold at the developer's sole
discretion in units of up to quarter shares. That meant any single dwelling
unit could be owned by four separate people who occupy it during separate
periods of the year. The development has proceeded ahead. Many of the
parcels have been sold. The developer still retains ownership of roughly 15
units. As of this point, they've asked to amend their development such that
rather than selling the remaining units in quarter shares, they can sell them
in up to 1/12 shares, which would allow up to 12 owners in a single property,
each of whom would own the property for no more than a month.
Ms. Aylaian said the recommendation before Commission is to approve the
development agreement. That being said, with the development of Stone
Eagle, there have been a number of environmental type issues that have
developed and that have resulted in neighbors in the area complaining about
different elements of the project. Those elements were being addressed
outside of this and mostly deal with the built environment. There are
problems and concerns regarding a perimeter access road,drainage into the
finro canyons that come down from that area, and regarding some aesthetic
treatments.The proposed amendment to the development agreement would
not physically change anything in the built environment. It does not entitle
more dwelling units, greater intensity, greater height or anything along those
lines. It strictly addressed the ownership. Therefore, staff felt it appropriate
to separate out this item and bring it to Planning Commission and asked for
Planning Commission's review and approval, if appropriate. The applicant
was present and would be able to answer questions.
Ms. Aylaian pointed out that during their review, staff thought these were
going to be sold so that a single owner could own 30 consecutive days. The
amendment to the development agreement was prepared with that
assumption. Staff subsequently learned that the applicant would like the
flexibility to sell those 30 days so that they aren't consecutive. I n other words,
someone could buy two weeks in January and two weeks in July. That being
said, it started to look, feel and smell just like a timeshare project, so staff
included in the resolution the approval of the development agreement and
noted before going to Council for approval, they would negotiate a fee that
is typically charged to timeshare projects. The fee is handled on a case by
case basis; it is a public facilities impact mitigation fee and they would
negotiate the amount of that fee specific for this project with the applicant
before it went to the City Council for approval.
Chairperson Campbell asked for any questions of staff.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIO JULY 3, 2007
Commissioner Limont said she would recuse herself because she is in
escrow on a piece of property that adjoins this property and left the room.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the units they were talking about were
interspersed within the already sold units, or if they were a phase to the side
somewhere. Ms. Aylaian thought they were dispersed, but deferred the
question to the applicant to explain which ones he still owns and where they
are physically located. Commissioner Schmidt was also curious about the
present occupancy rate. She asked how many are sold and occupied. Ms.
Aylaian clarified that they currently are entitled to sell up to 60 dwelling units.
At this point they have only divided into 44 lots on which there could be 46
units, so 17 of the 46 are unsold, but as far as where they are located, the
applicant could address that.
When this was originally approved, Commissioner Tschopp indicated it was
60 homes with a maximum of four owners in any one home. Ms. Aylaian
concurred. Commissioner Tschopp said it now was going to potentially go
from 60 homes to potentially 720 different owners. He asked if there was
anything in the original agreement or development that enticed the City or
had the City approve it based on the low numbers of units. Ms. Aylaian said
there was nothing that she was aware of; she was not involved in the project
at the time, but had gone back and reviewed the file and was not aware of
anything like that. Commissioner Tschopp said the low number of homes
was a part of it, but questioned if the low number of owners was not an issue
that she saw in the original data. Ms. Aylaian said no, not that she had seen
any indication of.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was language that addresses the
resale of a home which has presently been sold and if they could
fractionalize it on resale. She asked if that had been talked about. Ms.
Aylaian said no, the agreement was between the applicant/ developer and
the City and did not involve any subsequent owner unless the City Attorney
provided some correction. Mr. Erwin stated that normally once the unit is
completed and sold, that satisfies the development agreement as far as that
goes. Now with the 12 intervals in these number of units, once those are
sold, they don't address resales. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that her
question had to do with the existing units that have already been sold and if
they come up for resale. If she owned one and wanted to sell it, could she
sell it as a fractional ownership. Mr. Erwin said he thought not. If it is an
individual owner that wants to break it into intervals, the owner would have
to come back to the City to do that; it was his understanding that the ones
sold now are 100% ownership.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3. 2007
Commissioner Tanner asked if a 25% owner on an original piece could then
sell it to three fractionals. If there were four individuals who bought originally,
which is what was originally presented, if 25% decided to put it on the
market, could they sell to three fractionals. Mr. Erwin said no; they could sell
their quarter, but not to three fractions.
There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell o ened the public
hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. TOM CULLINAN, 74001 Reserve Drive in Indian Wells, said he
would like to address the genesis of this request. What they've found
at Stone Eagle is a lot of national and international members that are
looking for a shorter period place to stay at the club when they play
goif. They originally had 24, a group of three units, that they were
going to put into quarter shares, which would have been about 12
particular spots available for those national members. That would not
be enough. They were finding that their nationa{ membership allows
them to play 21 days of golf during the season and then was kind of
unlimited during the summer, so they were kind of looking for a 21-
day use pattern that would happen over different weeks, not over 21
straight days. They might go to the club for a week in November, a
week in January and a week in April to use their 21 days. They were
finding they need more availability for that.
The word timeshare was brought up and he said they cringe when
they hear it. They look at theirs as a club residence where they are
encouraging club members to take advantage of this as opposed to
going directly to the general public for a vacation home. This is really
a place to stay at the club for club members. Even though they
respect staff's view, they didn't believe the facilities use fee is
appropriate because it really is a private residence club as opposed
to "timeshare". They don't have a hote{ associated with it, they aren't
doing three days, two nights stays and giving a free tv to come and
view the property. The marketing is done much differently and
appeals to a different demographic then the "timeshare".
He said they wouldn't increase the amount of traffic in the community.
When a resident is not there, he would be able to come back and use
the club, but generally they wouldn't, so there isn't increased traffic
from the "national" member using the fraction.
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
Mr. Cullinan said they don't buy particular weeks. What happens is
they go into a pool to where the first person on the list of 12 selects
three weeks theywould like to use,then go to the numbertwo person,
and go down the list and then go through and fulfill those weekly
requests. Some they can't fulfill because they may want the same
weeks, then they go to the second choice. The next year it rotates
again so that the persan who picked 12th now picks first, so there is
a rotation there to where people can kind of every few years get the
weeks they want and weren't just selling a particular week. They
believed it would be an asset to their club. They were getting a great
group of inembers, national members,that are joining from all around
the country who use the restaurants here in town and shop and they
think they are great additions to have in the city of Palm Desert, albeit
they are not here full time.
Commissioner Tanner asked if the fractional use, the 1/12th 30 days, is truly
fractional. It can be a certain month and four weeks, or two weeks in
December and finro weeks in February. So it isn't 30 contiguous days, it is like
he said on a rotating schedule.
Mr. Cullinan said that was correct. There could be a situation where
they had someone there two weeks in a row, but that would be
unlikely.
Commissioner Tanner asked what happens if the 30 days are not used by
one of the fractionals. Does it go into a rental pool and who benefits from that
if days weren't used?
Mr. Cullinan said they were approaching it more as a club program to
where if a person is not there, another member of that particular club
could use it with an appropriate fee. If they went one step further,
maybe another club member thaYs not part of the club residents club
could use it with an appropriate fee. They would manage the
operation through the club house. The general manager there would
be responsible for implementing the program and there would be
some type of moderate split with the owner, nothing like what they
would see with the fractional 50/50. It would be more of an
accommodation. Itwasn'ta money makerto run a rental management
program for that. There was no financial gain to operate it at all.
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that it wasn't a financial gain
for either one of them; on the side of the club or the side of the fractional
owner.
Mr. Cullinan said no.
Commissioner Tanner reiterated that it was just a convenience if someone
wants it.
Mr. Cullinan said they have a homeowner's association that has a
relationship with a club to manage it and they pay a fee. He said it
was almost a dead cost fee; there was not a profit built into that.
Commissioner Schmidt asked where they were with some of the
environmental concerns and the creek.
Mr. Cullinan said that Ten Lennon, his partner in the project who was
not present at the meeting, has been handling that end of it. He hated
to speculate. He read the same material that the Planning
Commission was provided and has a good understanding. He said
that he and Ted have lived here a long time and they have always
been good stewards on the developments they do and at the end of
the day do the right thing. He believed they would be able to positively
find a solution for that certain discussion and debate that is going on.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if there were any ongoing get togethers going
on presently.
Mr. Cullinan knew there was a Director's meeting here at the City a
few weeks back. He wasn't aware of when that next meeting would be
and thought someone on staff might know.
Ms.Aylaian introduced the City's Director of Public Works, Mark Greenwood,
and Bo Chen, the new City Engineer. She said that Mr. Greenwood has
really been heading that up and was in charge of putting together the
Director's Hearing and could probably most appropriately address any
questions on these issues.
Chairperson Campbell noted that it really wasn't part of this application. Ms.
Aylaian said that was correct. Chairperson Campbell indicated they should
stick with the application before them. Chairperson Campbell asked if there
were any other questions for the applicant.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the potential was for 720 members of the
club.
Mr. Cullinan said when doing that math it sounded a fittle scary. He
didn't believe the market was ever that deep. They did have about 27
of the homes sold. He believed the CC&R's would preclude a private
individual from doing "club residents club"; it had to be the declarant,
which is Stone Eagle, to set one of those up. They didn't believe the
market is 720 deep, but they certainly believed it was more than 12
deep, which is what they can do now. They realized that people were
going to come here less than they thought. It's a membership that
comes in and they are members of other clubs all around the country
that come in for a couple of weeks a year. When people start
factoring in the cost of owning an entire home for two weeks of the
year, it precludes them from making the jump, so they believed this
was a good outlet for those residents who want to come and
experience the desert for two to four weeks during the season and
have a really great place to stay.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if these units were segregated from the 20-
some already sold.
Mr. Cullinan said they have some blocks that they held back from
marketing that they would envision these going on. There are some
areas where most of the lots are sold on a particular street, but to go
in and identify one unit in the middle of five to make that a "club
residents unit" would probably be politically challenging. Their
residents receive the same mailing. They only had one call because
they know what they are doing would be the right thing for the club
and forthe members thatwant to partake. In the community,they only
have 43 home sites.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if he anticipated any of the existing
homeowners at some point in time wanting to fractionalize / timeshare.
Mr. Cullinan didn't believe they were able to and that wasn't how they
were looking at this.They were looking at it more as an opportunity for
their members as opposed to a straight real estate play. He thought
they would have to come to the City and didn't believe their CC&R's
allow them to fractionalize or do a club residence.
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
Commissioner Tanner asked if going from four to 12 was a monetary issue
for them to continue this project.
Mr. Cullinan replied no. He said the dollars were the same whether
they sell four for$500,000 apiece or 12 for$250,000 or whatever the
math is, it kind of came out the same. But what they were finding is
that when they do the one-fourth share, which is 13 weeks, the
national membership is good for 21 days of golf during the year and
they feel like they are buying too much time that they won't use and
would ask if they can rent it. They didn't want to get into that rental
program and would rather have another resident of the club stay there
as part of this club residents program rather than to "rent it out"when
they aren't there. So the 13 weeks don't fit with their membership
program and that was the reason why.
Chairperson Campbell pointed out in the staff report that staff viewed the
proposed project as a timeshare. She asked if they had any problem paying
the fees if this project was approved.
Mr. Cullinan said yes, their views differ from staff's on their vision of
what this project is. This isn't the Marriott Desert Springs--the Marriott
Desert Springs is a beautiful community there and they do a great job,
but that isn't what this is about. He said it seems like that is a little bit
of a tough constraint to put on what they call a residents club where
they have club members there and more of a fellowship situation as
opposed to "strangers" coming in and out and renting them and
putting them on vacation rental by owner. That wasn't what this was
about. This isn't about buying a timeshare and getting a personal gain
by renting it out to other people in high season. That he could see
having a fee warranted, but that wasn't what this was about.
Chairperson Campbell viewed it in a different way. If they have an enclosed
private community and she was living in a home and the home next to her
had people coming in and out every two weeks, some could be quiet, some
could be partying all the time, and that wasn't what she was paying for her
home right next to this other home that was going to have people going in
and out of every two weeks. That was her objection in private communities.
Mr. Cullinan said the only rebuttal is that a person could buy and rent
it out and have the same situation there. They would have club
members there that hopefully would treat the neighbors in the
community with a higher standard and higher regard than just a
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3. 2007
person coming in off the street. He thought with the rules, regulations,
peer pressure and the security, it wouldn't be an issue. They have a
pretty tough membership process to get in and usually those people
were somewhat respectful of others.
Chairperson Campbell noted that in a condo she owns and the condo next
door, that's what they are doing.
Mr. Cullinan could understand if they were out renting them and
whoever has a deposit could rent and stay there. That wasn't what
this was about and would really be controlled by the club members.
They could lend to a son, daughter or family member and they
couldn't really control that, and that happens in the summer.The kids
come down and that's when they have challenges because they get
the golf carts out and drive around. Generally speaking, the member
knows when a guest is there and is totally responsible for them. They
don't just walk away and then leave it up to the member to rectify the
problem. So it wasn't just an in and out with the general public getting
qualified to be there.
There were no other questions for the applicant and Chairperson Campbell
asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application.
MR.TIM BARTLETT,73-382 Salt CedarStreet in Palm Desert,stated
that he had two major objections. First, he wanted to clear up some
of the statements made earlier. The developer wouldn't be here if
there wasn't a monetary benefit. The increased traffic is a fact. Urban
Land Institute, a well respected information guide, estimates a
difference befinreen four units and 12 units is a factor of five as far as
usage. What happens when there are four owners is generally some
of those four people know each other or are family members and they
tend to care more about who else is in their residence when they
aren't. If something is broken or something is damaged or someone
acts inappropriately, there are just four people and they can figure it
out. When that number becomes 12 people, iYs a whole different ball
game.
The applicant says he won't be in the rental business, and he was
sure he didn't want to be, but he could guarantee that's going to be
part of this project. What happens is they change the nature of a
private, high-end exclusive community into a timeshare. It smells like
a timeshare and looks like a timeshare. Admittedly, it's a high-end
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3. 2007
timeshare and very weaithy folks who would live here, but wealth
doesn't always guarantee better behavior. He thought they really
needed to look at this from a broader view.
Mr. Bartlett said he was quite surprised to find out that there was any
timeshare element in the project. He just learned that fairly recently
himself. He read the EIR about six times and neverfound a statement
that reflects anything to that, although he was sure it was in there.
None of the staff reports mentioned it, although he was sure it was in
there. He looked over this project many many times and hadn't seen
any mention of it.
The first objection was directly related to traffic. Again, traffic would
increase and 12 members would use it a lot more than four members,
they would care less about who stays there when they aren't there,
they are going to care less about what's in there and not in there, and
rental does become a big factor. It was just the nature of the beast.
W hether high end or {ow end, that was going to happen.
The second issue, which the Director of Planning did a good job of
trying to steer them away from, is giving the developer another
concession when he hasn't met his obligations or conditions of
approvaf. Tom stated that they have been in the community and
always do the right thing; without this project, he would tend to agree
with him, but this was the only project he knew of other than Shadow
Mountain that's been done in Palm Desert. Shadow Mountain has
been done for quite some time. They have not done the right thing
here.
The project has been open three years for playing golf. They turned
half of the property he owns in Cahuilla Hills adjacent to the project
into a swamp. It was a dry canyon and now it is a swamp. There is a
gutter of foul smelling,tainted, human waste contaminated water that
runs continuously down his property and has for three years. He could
no longer even visit his property because his dog gets violently ill
every time he goes there, so he can't go to his property any more. He
was going to build his dream home there and now didn't know what
he was going to do. For them to say they wouid do the right thing is
clearly not the right thing unless they consider turning a dry canyon
into a swamp doing the right thing.
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3. 2007
He noted that one of the Commissioners asked what was happening
and he understood the Planning Director's and staff's interest in
separating the issue, but since the Council, when they approved the
tract map for the residential project(and he didn't know if they had an
opportunity to read the minutes of September 22, 2002), but the
Council at that meeting were planning to delay the approval of the
tract map until they got assurance from the developer that this water
issue would be resolved and that was four years ago. The developer
said yes, they would take care of the matter and at that time the
Council approved the tract map. In his humble opinion, the Council
made the connection between the existing development and future
approval of future developments. Giving the developer another
concession when he is violating the conditions of approval on the
main project he thought was wrong.
Mr. Bartlett said he had with him two pages of EIR, grading plan and
governmental agency violations that he submitted, as well as a letter
he sent to Mr. Hargreaves, who was acting as city attorney for the
Director's Hearing. He said that might have some interest to them and
said at the Director's Hearing, there were 12 items brought up; items
the developer had failed to comply with.
One of the items was the water issue and was probably the most
significant. He thought it was significant for everyone in Palm Desert,
not just the people who live adjacent to that property. Mosquito Vector
Control has been there and identified it as a mosquito habitat. They
all knew that West Nile Virus and e-coli are real dangers. They are
found in the valley and identified. Mosquitos carry those diseases
along with a lot of other scary diseases. Mosquitos have a 15-mile
range, so he didn't think anyone in Palm Desert was safe. When they
combine high nitrate water with human waste contamination with
mosquitos, they were almost assured of an e-coli situation or West
Nile situation. Those aren't always life-threatening and might not kill
you, but they seem to impact the very young and very old. But people
do die from those diseases. He didn't mean to say there would be a
swarm of mosquitos killing everyone in Palm Desert and didn't believe
that to be the case, but he thought it was very probable that
mosquitos would carry one or both of those diseases.
He indicated that currently the City is working with a water testing
agency for the last three months since the last Director's Hearing.
Apparently it would happen in the next month or so and they could
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3. 2007
verify the contaminated water issue, but they start with the abandoned
well. CVWD closed down a well because of some detected
contamination, because of human waste contamination, so they start
with bad water. What they added to it he didn't know and they would
find out. ThaYs what was running down the creeks.
Mr. Bartlett encouraged the Planning Commission not to approve this
until they do the right thing. If this was purely not an economic
consideration, then no harm no foul to them. That's what they were
telling the Commission. It is not economic, so fine, they can wait. But
for three years there has been human waste water running down his
property. The developer made an attempt early on to stop the water.
Essentially he put on two diapers in the canyon to try and trap the
water. He did make an attempt. Those attempts failed and he has
since kind of washed his hands of it and so far they have agreed to
come down once a quarter(once every three months)to clean out the
non-native vegetation. That's what they have agreed to so far, which
to him was remarkable. If he was dumping human waste
contaminated water on someone's property on a continuous basis 24-
hours a day seven days a week and he proposed once a quarter to
come down and send a suit to the dry cleaners, he couldn't make that
proposal with a straight face. He thanked the Commission for their
time and submitted his letters (see attached Exhibit A).
MR. BILL CARVER, 72-275 Upper Way West, stated that they are on
the other dry river bed from Tim's property, which was on the other
river. To get back to the subject of the proposal, Mr. Carver said from
his point of view, although his wife felt a little differently about it, but
he thought that Ted has done a pretty good job of trying to overcome
and mitigate some of the problems they are having with his
development, and from what he sees, he has had a lot of problems
on the other river, the other stream bed on the other side, which was
a much more difficult problem than the problem the applicant was
facing with them.
Mr. Carver said this request has definitely disturbed him a little bit. He
was aware of the fact that this would be a situation where there would
be multiple ownerships;four. This in his mind was turning into a hotel.
It was like a 60-room hotel and people would be coming in and out of
there. Maybe the guy who takes it for 21 days is only going to take it
for 10 days and have a friend come in for the other 10 days or
overnight. He saw this as becoming a lot different project than a
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
residential project in a rural area.That concerned him. He didn't know
the answer as far as how they could have this, but it seemed to him
if they allow a quarter interest, they can then know they have some
people who are interested in the property itself and not just the use.
That's the one thing that had him concerned as neighbors. They
weren't expecting to have a hotel next to their property. He thanked
them.
There was no one else requesting to speak. Chairperson Campbell asked if
there were any rebuttal comments from the applicant.
Mr. Cullinan said he wanted to speak to the point of use of property.
As with any community down here, people could buy the particular
unit and rent it out as much as they want. That happened at The
Reserve, it happened at The Vintage and at The Lakes. It happened
at some more than others. He shared a different opinion on the
amount of use. He didn't think it would be substantially more,whether
they had four that didn't use it and would probably want to put it up for
rent. That was his rebuttal on that point.
On doing the right thing, he thought everyone had a difference of
opinion on what the right thing is. He said they always do their very
best to find a solution that is feasible to do.
Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the Commission
for comments.
Commissioner Schmidt asked forthe number of the quarter share units. Ms.
Aylaian said right now they are entitled up to 60 quarter share units;
however, at this point there are only 46 parcels and of those 17 remain
unsold and 27 have whole ownership. Once they have been sold to a single
owner, then as they heard earlier, they couldn't be sold as quarter shares.
That would mean there are 17 quarter shares.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any code that defines the
difference befinreen timeshare and fractional ownership. Ms.Aylaian said our
code treats fractional and timeshare ownership the same. It was kind of a
nebulous terminology in the hospitality industry. The interval is kind of like a
long period of time for timeshare. Some sources say that fractional
ownership is no more than four fractional units per year. Some say fractional
ownership is up to 12 units per year. She didn't think there was consistent
terminology in the industry on that.
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
Commissioner Schmidt asked where in Ms.Aylaian's view the fee would kick
in. Ms. Aylaian said that the way it is set up in the Zoning Ordinance,
timeshare is permitted and defined as being associated with a 500 or greater
room hotel and an 18-hole golf course. There was really only one hotel that
met that criteria and that was Marriott Desert Springs which has timeshare
with it. There were a number of other projects in the city that they refer to as
timeshare, but they technically didn't meet the code definition of timeshare,
but they operate like timeshare. Some have club residents ownership and
the same type of terminology that they heard this evening. Some flat out call
themselves timeshares. But the City ordinance only addresses "timeshare"
and establishes an exact fee associated with timeshare if that timeshare is
associated with a 500-room hotel.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that Ms. Aylaian was saying in her view the
proposed project is a timeshare. Ms. Aylaian said that when someone
proposes a project that is not associated with a 500-room hotel that operates
as a timeshare,they negotiate a different development agreement on a case
by case basis specific for that project and establish fees that are appropriate
for it, depending on the peculiarities of that case. So these fees are not the
timeshare fees established in the ordinance, because it doesn't technically
meet the definition of timeshare in our ordinance, but they have some other
public facilities impact mitigation fee, or they have project amenity fees, one
time access fees,annual access fees, and a host of different fees associated
with it depending on what type of project it is.
Commissioner Tanner had a two part question. Of the homes that have
currently been sold by this development, how many have been sold as non-
fractional. In other words, 100% of the dwelling is the owner's. Ms. Aylaian
replied that all of the ones sold to date have been sold whole ownership;
none are fractional. Commissioner Tanner said part finro of that question was
as a result of this, understanding that the whole owners know that potentially
there are four owners to the house next door theoretically, he asked if those
owners were notified that the applicant has come to the City and asked to
increase the four to 12. He asked if they knew that this was a possibility and
potential. He asked if there had been any feedback. Ms. Aylaian explained
thatthe public noticing requirements forthis project required that all prope�ty
owners within a certain distance of the property be notified. So the developer
uses a title company to provide the names of all those owners. All of those
people were notified and she only received one call from someone who
reported that they did own property there and was wondering what was going
on.
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that there were no complaints
or concerns about increasing them from four to 12. Ms. Aylaian said she
didn't not hear of them, other than the one call she received that was more
of an inquiry and confusion rather than a complaint.
Commissioner Tschopp said he understood and liked the concept and
thought it would be a great benefit to Palm Desert to bring more potential
upscale individuals and families to the city who spend their dollars in the city
and use other amenities, businesses, restaurants and so forth. He wasn't
sure about the number of when something goes from a fractional ownership
to a timeshare ownership, but 12 owners sounds much closer to timeshare
than four. He could remember when this project first came before them. To
him this is a very sensitive piece of property in a very sensitive area and the
idea of a maximum of four owners would make it a very limited upscale
development. Now they were talking 12 and in his mind they've crossed the
line. Whether it was timeshare, fractional ownership, or hotel, they have
crossed the line. He didn't feel like he had enough information at this point
to approve it. He didn't know what the statistics say on the impact on traffic
and usage and so forth. He didn't feel in some ways qualified to make that
decision without that information. He knew the timeshare fee was to offset
the additional costs, and he agreed with that, so would have to say it is
definitely a timeshare. Most private clubs have restrictions on renting homes
out, such as The Vintage, The Reserve, Toscana, Indian Ridge, so it wasn't
like a homeowner could rent their home out for short periods of time without
the club, when they find out, getting on the homeowner, so he took umbrage
there. He believed that at some point in time other current owners will step
forward who also want to subdivide or get a variance for their homes
because it will be good money for them to do so. So at some point in time
fully developed out they would have 60 homes up there with the majority
being timeshare. The way it is being presented with the lack of information,
he was not in favor of it at this point in time.
Chairperson Campbell agreed. As she stated earlier with her condo, to go
ahead and have four interests in one home is enough. People don't normally
rent their homes for just 30 days, it would be a year or a lease for longer than
that, so she was not in favor of this application.
Commissioner Tanner said the question he asked about single owners, the
answer was, if he heard it correctly, was at this point they have no fractional
owners there. He was inclined to leave it at four. The reason he was inclined
to do that was because of their success in selling these to individual people
certainly presented itself to them tonight. They have no fractional owners
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 2007
there and to potentially increase to 12 would certainly be defeating the City
of Palm Desert's purposes and maybe the applicant's, too. He was not in
favor of increasing from four to 12 at this point.
Commissioner Schmidt said some of her concerns were a little bit different.
Since they have the staff report which includes the administrative hearing
minutes that talks about all the environmental concerns and downstream
human waste, she would really like to see some of that mitigated before they
increase density. She was surprised that fractional ownership was allowed
to begin with, but that was before she was on the Planning Commission. She
thought with such an upscale development, they could handle that. She
wasn't so sure about this. She thought it defeated the purpose of that
hillside. So she was not in favor of it at this time.
Commissioner Tschopp said he would make a motion for denial, but noted
they didn't have the appropriate resolution in their packets. Ms. Aylaian
stated that staff could return with a resolution of denial at the next meeting.
Commissioner Tanner asked if they should leave the public hearing closed
or reopen it. Chairperson Campbell said it was closed now and asked if staff
was going to come back with a resolution of denial and open the public
hearing again. Mr. Erwin stated that if their action is to deny it, they could
close the public hearing now and take action on the resolution at their next
meeting. They need not continue the public hearing. If they wished to hear
further evidence or comments, then they should continue with the public
hearing open. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing has been
closed, they would have a motion of denial and a resolution of denial for
adoption at the next meeting.
Before doing that, Commissioner Schmidt asked if the applicant could
withdraw his proposal and go back to the drawing board before being denied.
Chairperson Campbell said he could do that. Mr. Erwin further clarified that
he could do that or request a continuance, or something else that the
Commission would be willing to approve. Commissioner Tanner noted that
this needed to be done tonight. Chairperson Campbell concurred, before
they vote. Mr. Erwin thought the applicant would like to continue it with the
public hearing open if the Commission was willing and not deny it tonight.
Chairperson Campbell clarified that they were requesting a continuance to
the next meeting on July 17 and to not have a resolution of denial.
Commissioner Tschopp stated that he was only in favor of a continuance if
there was going to be new or more revealing information. Otherwise, there
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 200__7
was a lot of information to gather. At this point in time he would stand by the
decision that it should be denied and let the applicant bring additional
information or do further study and come before the Commission and start
the process over with more information. It wasn't a close vote here. He
thought they needed some real information in order to change their minds at
this time and saw no need to continue it. He was in favor of denying it and
letting them restart the process. Chairperson Campbell agreed;there was no
reason to continue the public hearing just to have the applicant come back
with the same information. She asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, by minute motion directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for
adoption at the next meeting (July 17, 2007). Motion carried 4-0-1 (with
Commissioner Limont as an abstaining vote).
(Commissioner Limont rejoined the meeting at this time.)
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Discussion of conversion of required open space for
development purposes for property located at 74-360 Magnesia
Falls Drive.
Ms. Aylaian explained that this project has been before the Planning
Commission once. In a couple of different guises it has been before the
Architectural Review Commission. It has also been before the Landscape
Beautification Commission. Before dragging the applicant through yet one
more iteration, staff wanted to present the concept to the Commission and
have a little bit of discussion as to what is being suggested so they can either
put the applicant out of his misery or encourage him to keep trying.
Mr. Bagato stated that in a general sense this is a current application, but not
a public hearing. He wanted to touch on some of the highlights on the
concept of converting open space in projects, because while this is a current
project, staff was anticipating the issue coming up again in the future on
other projects.
He showed a picture of the triangular-shaped property at Magnesia Falls and
explained that it was part of the open space area for this residential
development approved in 1987. It's a Planned Residential zone which
28
May 17, 2007
EXHIBIT A TRB
Robert Hargreaves R'�'b�����
Acting Hearing Officer, Assistant City Attomey o� � �4 oa-ol � , �/
City of Palm Desert --r�,,,, Ic
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Stone Eagle Director's Hearing Report Rebuttal
Dear Mr. Hargreaves:
Thank you for officiating the Director's Hearing. Often a fresh view of the facts
conceming a controversy by a new party can result in a just resolution. As the Assistant
City Attomey I imagine you are representing the will of the City as defined by its oodes,
ordinances, statues, and general and specific plans. Furthermore, I would expect that
you or other staff members will insure that the conditions of approval of a project are
fulfilled. As stated in the report the purpose of this hearing is to evaluate the results of
mitigation measures and determine compliance with the project EIR. I understand that
once you hear the evidence you are to make a written recommendation to the Director of
Public Works who will make the final determination.
Unfortunately, the only "evidence" offered in the Directors Hearing Report is the
"testimony" of a number of consultants. While I acknowledge that the City has and will
likely continue to employee these same consultants for various projecis, in this case,
none of them were contracted by the City. All of the consultants were paid by the
developer and consequently are biased. We were led to believe that the consultants
were hired by the City, i� fact Homer Croy; Acting Director during Mark Greenwoods
absence during sick leave confirmed this to me in no uncertain terms. Consuttants by
their very nature offer expert advice to confirm what you want them to confirm. Asking a
consultant to review compliance with his own project is like asking an Architect to do his
own plan check and final inspection. tnterestingly, very little of the evidence provided by
the surrounding property owners has been considered. Please allow me this opportunity
to offer my rebuttal to the information contained in the report.
1. Runoff into Bruce Creek
The developer has done an exceptional job trying to charge the residents of Cahuilla Hills
with contributing to the water in the creek. In fact, they do, some water does seep into
the creek. There are thirty individuals that reside in eleven homes and five vacant tots
with irrigation that can possibly contribute to the creek. CVWD estimates that on
average a person consumes 100 gallons per day. If we then add for example 400
gallons per day for the five irrigated lots we get a total of 5,000 gallons per day, assuming
no loss to evaporation and percolation which are a requirement of the County septic
systems. Conversely the golf course irrigation is somewhere between 1,000,000 and
1 �,r?�ii: '.�_z;*'�t±r_.:t:�oi.c�.�„
. >- '_ :'t , �i1 :; . `�.
-i.,t „ n„�;,rt (;!1 a:? ?riO
. , , .. ,�; , , ,. . , .
TRB
2,000,000 gallons per day. Due to the undulating topography I'll bet it is even higher.
Anyone who witnessed the earth moving could confirm that ail lose or fractured
decomposed granite was scraped off the mountain, (with an enormous amount of
additional blasting required), then pulverized to pea gravel and then spread over the
entire turf area to a depth of six inches. Consequently the turF, which by its very nature
only survives in well draining soil, rests on six inches of pea gravel which lies on solid
granite. It is similar to a bald man's toupee, in a shower his scalp will get wet, but most
of the water simply runs off. Don't let the developer fool you, this came as no surprise.
One merely has to inspect the golf course and see that the holes drain right into the two
creeks mentioned. tn fact, actual portions of Bruce Creek have been filled in with twenty
or more feet in some areas, toped with turf; consequently portions of the creek are
directly irrigated. In other areas drainage pipe extends past their property line to convey
water to the creek. No effort has been made to control the surface or subsurFace runoff,
even though the EIR clearly warns of its eventuality and in fact recommends further
study, which was never performed. Earth Systems informed us at the very first meeting
that irrigation water runoff was specifically excluded from their contract. The plastic lining
"diaper" that was installed in Bruce Creek was affixed with hydraulic cement. By doing
so, back pressure drove the subsurface water to seek a new path of least resistance
which coincidentally made it enter the creek at an adjoining branch of the creek
appearing like it was coming from existing residences. Except for during and
immediately after rain, the diaper has been dry. It is completely ineffective. The
statement that the sophisticated irrigation management system minimizes runoff to the
greatest extent possible is also false. The turf is irrigated with long intervals which
creates the greatest amount of runoff.
Stone Eagle's golf course irrigation has tumed downstream portions of two normally dry
desert canyons, Bruce & Ramon, into wetlands complete with harmful algae, non-native
vegetation and insects, of most concem, ideal disease carrying mosquito breeding
habitat. The stagnate and low flow algae covered surface water in both canyons
combined extends over a mile in length and provides ideal habitat for breeding
mosquito's. The high nitrate, human waste contaminated water, Stone Eagle uses for
irrigation, nearly insures that some mosquitoes will carry E. coli bacteria and the West
Nile Virus. As you may know, these conditions can be life threatening, especially to
mature individuals, with just one bite from a contaminated mosquito. With a normal
range of five miles, no one in Palm Desert is safe. The statement that the net result is no
harm to the environment couldn't be further from the truth. I no longer enjoy my property.
My dog gets violently ill every time we enter the canyon. She has learned to avoid
drinking the water; however, she still gets poisoned by the plant material thriving in the
contaminated water. The only water test presented, which the Director and the
developer tried to imply was acceptable was from the Fruit Grower's Firm which identified
the water as good for growing Bermuda grass. It was no surprise. Human waste
contaminated water is good for growing just about anything.
Z i:l'1_;i�: �;:1�t:..�:�; 1���.�•.)�2`i
- ; ,'; = '�. ' .':,1' ._ . '�t
. :i .
'� ?.':1�1 1�'• . �f 1.� '�;�?'r,!)
..,,.. . -i..��� :. , ._ ;
TRB
The recommendations offered are ludicrous. A large portion of my property is
continuously contaminated with foul water which creates algae, weed and insect
proliferation. Offering to clean it up every quarter is an outrage.
The City Council was aware of this condition when Stone Eagle gained approval of their
residential tract map. In fact, at the City Council Meeting of September 22, 2006, see
pages 17 through 19, they prudently addressed the problem and diligently gained the
developers assurance that the problem would be solved. Surprisingly at an earlier
council meeting they forgave a $1,000,000 drainage fee because presumably they were
led to believe that the developer would be making $1,300,000 worth of improvements to
Bruce and Ramon Creeks to control drainage. In fact, the funds were used to construct
scenic water features for the aesthetic benefit of future residents of Stone Eagle.
2. Golf Course Perimeter Fencing and Road
The perimeter road is not shown on any plans, nor mentioned in the EIR. Portions of the
road which curren�y led to nowhere perform no function and yet have been substantially
improved. In fact, they are ready for paving. The portion that concerns us most is
adjacent to the driving range and travels westerly to the large acreage between the
conservancy land and the golf course ideal for residential development. I believe that
members of staff and other City officials are allowing this unpermitted road to remain
knowing the application for additional residential devetopment is forthcoming. One
merely has to inspect the developed condition of this roadway to confirm ulterior motives;
as I pointed out in a letter to the developer confirming his commencement of grading five
months prior to rec;eiving the grading permit. The cart path was designed to convey
emergency vehicles, as well as other vehicular access and equipment.
Fish � Game has approved welded wire fabric fence in every City in the valley, chain link
is not their preference nor is it allowed in the City of Palm Desert.
3. Access to Adjacent Properties
No comment.
4. Maintenance of Debris basin
Eliminating the low-flow bypass of the Debris basin has nothing to do with disturbing the
surrounding terrain, since it has already been disturbed. It will over time however,
prevent the natural flow of sand from replenishing the sand blown out of the canyon
resulting in the loss of all vegetation. Alfowing the developer to pump water out of the
basin at his leisure will insure failure based on his pertormance to date.
5. Temporary Equipment Pad
This pad is also absent from any plans inctuding the grading plan, even though iarge
quantities of earth were moved. I have been informed that it is to be used as a sod and
tree farm, none of which were even contemplated in the E(R. Interestingly there is no
landscape plan, a basic requirement for every development.
3 � ._.. . � ..
..�: �f ').3it�t:(� ''r:;:i��1.� Tl
� , . . � 1:I �` ../1 I ): . .�
' ._ � . ' ���t (Y^ 1 � : )��
. .. . . . i �./ � . , . i �
. .j , - t . . ,��
TRB
6. Golf Course Exceeded Allowed Acreage of Turf
If in fact that is true, no comment.
7. Water Source For Golf Course Irrigation
If the EIR contains mandates that staff later determines is unnecessary and wasteful
what good is it?
8. Snack Bar
Once again there is mention of an open air pavilion in the EIR; however, it became their
fully conditioned secondary clubhouse complete with a full kitchen, which is not
mentioned in the EIR. There is no mention of the snack bar nor is it shown on any
approved plans.
9. Maintenance Building
Buildings require ARC approval. Metal buildings are prohibited in Palm Desert. Once
again a direct violation of the EIR.
10.Comfort Station
The EIR clearly states that the comfort stations be self contained not on septic and have
natural materials not stucco as they are constructed.
11.Residential Pads
Palm Desert's Hillside ordinance, in place at the time clearly states:" Policy 1: In order to
maintain the natural contours of the hillsides, developments shall be designed as to
require minimal grading and avoid a padding or staircase effect as a result of extensive
cut and fill slopes"
12.Archeological Sites
The EIR clearly calls for three sites to be investigated further. They were later destroyed
without investigation.
I believe that the City has not acted in good faith, has supported developer claims
knowing they are false, has delayed taking any action until ideally suited for the
developePs interest, has conspired with the developer for future development, has gifted
the developer with unusual practices and has knowingly disseminated false information.
Furthermore, I believe the City has failed to enforce the conditions placed on the project
and more specifically the Palm Desert Charter and Municipal Code, the Penal Code, the
General Plan, the West Hills Specific Plan and the conditions of approval including the
EIR. Following is some of the Municipal Code and Penal Code Violations. The
violations of the General Plan, the West Hills Specific Plan and the conditions of
approval including the EIR are too numerous to include herewith, however, they have
been documented in previous correspondence.
4 !:�?•?1�: ;:ii".. .<`i.���,':lO�. . )I;
, �, . �� > -,;�. , _�.i�ir '�t . :
�J ,ir., ;l -f (' 'S. .�� .. . .
� . . .,. � ,�.�.. . . � 1 ,
TRB
Palm Desert Municipal Code:
8.20.020 Unlawful property nuisances.
F. Land graded without an appropriate city permit which causes erosion, subsidence
or su�face water drainage problems of such magnitude as to be injurious or potentially
injurious to the public health, safety and welfare or to be injurious or potentially injurious
to adjacent properties;
J. Any swimming pool, spa, pond, fountain or other body of water which is, may
become, or which has become polluted, stagnant, a breeding place for insects or
otherwise hazardous, odorous or unsightly;
M. Premises so maintained as to cause the accumulation of polluted or stagnant
water when such water causes a hazardous or unhealthy condition, breeding areas for
insects, or erosion of foundation wails or soil;
N. Maintenance of property so out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance
standards of adjacent properties as to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of
property by neighbors, and depreciate the aesthetic and property values of surrounding
property;
R. The substantial lack of maintenance of grounds, landscape, shrubs, plants or
vegetation within the city which are viewable by the general public from a public right-of-
way or viewable from neighboring properties such that the property values of surrounding
properties are reduced or such that the aesthetics of surrounding properties are
detrimentally affected;
10. Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, hedges, weeds, shrubs and
overgrown vegetation, cultivated or uncultivated, which is likely to harbor rats, vermin or
constitute an unsightly appearance, nuisance, fire hazard, or that is detrimental to
neighboring properties or property values,
11. Refuse and waste matter defined in this chapter, which, by reason of its
location or character, is unsightly and interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of
property by neighbors, detrimentally affects property values in the surrounding
neighbofiood, or which would materially hamper or interfere with the prevention or
suppression of fire upon the premises. (Ord. 638 § 1, 1991; Ord. 541 § 1 (part), 1988)
24.12.040 Subject sources and thei�control requiremenffi. All performance
standards and test methods referenced in this section shall be based on the
methodologies included in the CoacheNa Valley Dust Control Handbook.
F. Public or Private Paved Roads.
1. Any owner of paved roads shall construct, or require to be constructed all
new or widened paved roads in accordance with the following standards:
a. Curbing in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials guidelines or as an alternative, road shoulders paved or treated
5 =.;�1.�i�: -. �rt:�,.. ��:,;+�.;I. . :;:�
�' . . . . ; . � �;
�, i � � � i- ,
, ,
. �
TRB
with chemical dust suppressants or washed gravel in accordance with the performance
standards included in subsection (D)(4) with the following minimum widths:
i. Average daily tripsMinimum shoulder widths
ii. Five hundred to three thousandfour feet
iii. Three thousand one or greatereight feet
b. Paved medians or as an altemative, medians surrounded by curbing and
treated with landscaping, chemical dust suppressants, or washed gravel applied and
maintained in accordance with the performance standards included in subsection (D)(4).
2. Any owner of public or private paved roads shall remove or cause to be
removed any erosion-caused deposits of greater than two thousand five hundred square
feet within twenty-four hours after receiving notice by the city or the AQMD or prior to
resumption of trafFc where the paved area have been closed to vehicular traffic. (Ord.
'1074 § 2, 2004; Ord. 1056 § 2 (part), 2003)
24.20.050 Discharge of pollutants.
A nonstormwater discharge to the storm drain system is a violation of this chapter
except as specified below.
A. The prohibition of discharges shatl not apply to any discharge regulated
under a NPDES permit or waiver issued to the discharger and administered by the state
of California under the authority of the EPA; provided, that the discharger is in full
compliance with all requirements of the permit or waiver and other applicable laws or
regulations.
B. Discharges from the following activities will not be considered a source of
pollutants to waters of the United States when properly managed: water line flushing and
other discharges from potable water sources, landscape irrigation and lawn watering,
irrigation water, diverted stream flows, rising ground waters, infiltration to separate storm
drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation and footing drains, water from
crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, individual residential car
washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool
discharges or flows from fire fighting. (Ord. 843 § 1 (part), 1997)
24.20.200 Concealment
Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing a violation of any provision of
this chapter shall constitute a violation of such provision. (Ord. 843 § 1 (part), 1997)
24.20.210 Acts potentially resulting in violation of federal Clean Water Act and/or
Porter-Cologne Act
6 =��._�;l: .. ,. .; .,,.. - .,�.. . . .
, � . � �. �� . ,
TRB
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, any provision of any permit
issued pursuant to this chapter, or who discharges waste or wastewater which causes
pollution, or who violates any cease and desist order, prohibition or effluent limitation,
also may be in vio(ation of the federal Clean Water Act and/or Porter-Cologne Act and
may be subject to the sanctions of those Acts including civil and criminal penatty. Any
enforcement actio� authorized under this chapter should also include notice to the
violator of such potential liability. (Ord. 843 § 1 (part), 1997)
25.46.030 Conditional uses.
The following uses and structures shall be permitted in the D district subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit by the planning commission:
A. New residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural structures
permitted by the undertying district regulations involved, and when they comply with all of
the conditions listed below:
4. Landfills, improvements, developments, or other encroachment effect on
the one-hundred-year flood level such that the water surface elevations of the one-
hundred-year flood are increased by more than one foot shalt be fully off-set by
requirements for stream improvements meeting with the approval of the chief engineer of
the affected flood control district;
25.46.040 Prohibited uses.
The following uses are specifically prohibited in the D district:
A. Excavations that will tend to broaden the floodplain or direct flood flows out
of the natural floodplain;
B. Landfills, improvements, developments, or other encroachments that would
increase water surface elevations of the one-hundred-year flood more than one foot or
that cannot be fully offset by stream improvements as provided in Section 26.46.070;
C. Storage of floatable substances or materials which will add to the debris
load of a stream or watercou�se. (Ord. 97 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.26-4)
25.46.070 Special standards.
A. Development of hillside canyon areas shall not occur until hydrology is
submitted which specifies techniques for management of runoff. The exact tocation of
development shall include the determination resulting ftom a hydraulic study.
B. Other standards required under conditional use permits shall also apply.
(Ord. 212 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 97 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.26-7)
7 .-�;..?�i: s:.:ltf=i`" :.t._i... `i-�.
. . . .' ,.t , . .J .
� " �i `i �'� ^ , '. .
�' .
. . . ;,
TRB
27.12.059 Drainage devices.
A. Except on slopes, drainage devices shall be constructed with minimum
gradients as follows: Portland cement concrete construction - 0.5%; air-blown concrete
construction - 0.5%; asphaitic concrete pavement- 0.5°r6; soils swales - 0.5%; pipes -
0.4%.
B. Drainage devices constructed on slopes shall have a minimum gradient of
five percent. Such drainage devices shall be constructed of air-blown concrete or
Portland cement concrete with suitable reinforcement. Closed conduits, unpaved swales
and asphalt concrete drainage structures shall not be used for siope drainage.
C. Drainage devices shall be constructed to convey drainage to an established
private or public water course, channel, storm drain or public sVeet and shall be of a
design to prevent erosion.
27.12.140 Nuisance prevention.
The permittee shalt take such steps as are reasonably necessary to prevent
creation of a nuisance, including but not limited to spillage, dust, erosion and noise
control. (Ord. 294 (part), 1982: Ord. 126 § 1 (part), 1976: Exhibit A § 27.2-8)
27.12.200 Final inspection.
No final inspection approval or certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the
building official until final approval of the finished grading has been given by the city
engineer. (Ord. 465 § 2 (part), 1986)
28.10.060 Floodways.
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 28.06.020 are
areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due
to the velocity of floodwaters, which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion
potential, the following provisions apply.
A. Prohibit enc�oachments, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvement, and other new development unless certfication by a registered
professional engineer is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in
any increase in the base flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood
discharge.
B. If Section 28.10.060(A) is satisfied, all new construction, substantial
improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other
applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Chapter 28.10. (Ord. 985 § 1 (part), 2001)
. 8 =:,�ai�: :��::?: �. __ �% �<:! <. ���i
. . �. . .
� . , . . •r ,� � �;; � ';}
. . ' ; . , ; ;
,. : , ; ; �
TRB
28.10.070 Mudslide (mudflow) prone areas.
A. The floodplain administrator shall review permits for proposed construction
of other developrnent to determine if it is proposed within a mudslide area.
B. Permits shall be reviewed to determine that the proposed site and
improvement will be reasonably safe from mudslide hazards. Factors to be considered in
making this determination include but are not limited to the:
1. Type and quality of soils;
2. Evidence of ground water or surface water problems;
3. Depth and quality of any fill;
4. Overall slope of the site; and
5. Weight that any proposed development would impose on the slope.
C. Within areas, which may have mudslide hazards, the floodplain
administrator shall require that:
1. A site investigation and further review be made by persons qual�ed in
geology and soils engineering;
2. The proposed grading, excavation, new construction, and substantial
improvement be adequately designed and protected against mudslide damages;
3. The proposed grading, excavations, new construction, and substantial
improvement not aggravate the existing hazard by creating either on-site of off-site
disturbances; and
4. Drainage, planting, watering, and maintenance not endanger slope stability.
(Ord. 985 § 1 (part), 2001)
Penal Code Sections:
370. Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or
an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interFere with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any
considerable number of persons, or unlawFully obstructs the free passage or use, in the
customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or
basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a public nuisance.
374.7. (a) A person who litters or causes to be littered, or dumps or causes to be
dumped, waste matter into a bay, lagoon, channel, river, creek, slough, canal, lake, or
reservoir, or other stream or body of water, or upon a bank, beach, or shore within 150
feet of the high water mark of a stream or body of water, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by a
mandatory fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than one
9 :�:�.,.i: '�..,r� _:t:� ,,:' ,,��
, : i .. .
• , � .} , ,
TRB
thousand doliars ($1,000) upon a first conviction, by a mandatory fine of not less than
five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than one thousand five hundred dollars
($1,500) upon a second conviction, and by a mandatory fine of not less than seven
hundred fifty dollars ($750) nor more than three thousand dollars ($3,000) upon a third or
subsequent conviction.
(c) The court may, in addition to the fine imposed upon a conviction, require as a
condition of probation, in addition to any other condition of probation, that any person
convicted of a violation of subdivision (a), pick up litter at a time and place within the
jurisdiction of the court for not less than eight hours.
We are only making three requests, which have not changed from day one: Mitigate the
water flowing in Bruce and Ramon Creek, this can be accomplished by increasing and
channeling the flow and prohibiting contact with soil, with some weekly maintenance if
necessary , which if the water is recaptured will pay for itself over time, (similar to the
onsite stream created for the enjoyment of the members); remove and renaturalize the
equipment bunker and the roads leading to it; and maintain the debris basin.
Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Timothy R. Bartlett,
Palm Desert Resident
10 :,,r�ii• .�:� `'.�t�{: -�`,-��;! �. , ,
, . . � , ': . ��:
, ,,,.,, �,.,::. . �' � �., ;,..,
� , .. . . . ... ,
� ,. ,
Stone Eagle
EIR, Grading Plan & Governing Agency Violations
Prepared by Tim Bartlett on June 1, 2006
Bruce Crsek
•Ignored EIR engineering consultants facts: "Ephemeral wash cutting through
bedrock is dry" EIR III-28, no surface water and no groundwater to a depth of 50'
ES-5, two seeps do not have free waber EIR III-57, nearest wa�er source for sheep
is located 1.5 miles north northwest EIR VIII-10
•Failed to meet requirements, "Hydrologic conditions would not be aifected by
this development" E!R V-9 "no significant cumulative impacts to affec�ed drainage
systems" and "net reduction in anticipated runoff discharge EIR VIII-4
•Failed to "prepare and submit for department approval a storm water pollution
prevention plan and a detailed re-vegetation/enhancement pian for the restoration
of the dry wash habitat EIR III-58 and failed to "remove silt and revegetate afber
each major event" EIR Ilf-29
•Omitted "low flow outlet structures to allow 10-yr or less to pass" EIR III-29
•Failed to "remove invasive non-native plant species on affected lands" EIR III-57
Inigation Water
•Omitted study of irrigation water runoff, only studied storm water runoff and
project required to retain 100q6 of the 100-year storm SEtR-18
• Ignored EIR engineering consultanta facts: "Positive measures shouid be taken
to finish grade the building pads and other improvements so that drainage is
directed away from foundations and the tops of slopes into controlled drainage
devices. Experience has shown that even with these provisions a shallow
groundwater or subsurface condition can and may develop in areas where no such
conditions existed prior to development; this is particularly true where a
substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an increase in
landscape irrigation" Geocon 21-22
•Failed to "prohibit non-$torm water discharge into storm drains" a NPDES
requirement EIR III-41 and failed to follow streambed alteration agreement
• Ignored EIR engineering consultanfs fac�s: "Mosquito carrying E coli bacteria
found in Desert is related to high nitrate levels of water" EIR II-9 III-39 and 40% of
water returned to aquifer EIR III-38 and the relatively flatter Reserve used as
estimate for water usage is false due to undulating topography of Stone Eagle EIR
III-43
Golf Course
•Exceeded maximum 92 acres of turf and 10 acres of desert landscaping EIR III-42
and failed to gain approval of additional golf car patha
� •Omitted "potable ground water for tees and greens to regulate nitrates" EIR III-42
•Failed to use acceptable material for the chain tink sheep exclusion fence, and
failed to gain ARC approval.
•Failed to gain ARC approval of °Open air" pavilion which is a fuily conditioned
mini-clubhouse overlooking the 19"' hole EIR III-84, III-100 and added an open air
pavilion overlooking the 9�' hole without including in EIR
•Failed to use "structures planned for the project will consist of stucco and rock
veneers that emulate the color and texture of the surrounding landscape" EIR III-
99, IV-4
•Failed to use contained septic system for comfort stations, used leach field
•Exceeded grading boundary with additional driving range tees and additional turf
not shown on grading plan
.Failed to remove temporary equipment pad and roadways leading to it
•Exceeded "all rock in fill soil shall be no greater than 3" diameter" EIR III-24 and
exceeded "unprotected graded slopes no steeper than 3:1,H:V" EIR III-25
•Removed 100+ year old barrel cactus to use for golf course when restricted for
use in natural open space AMEC 16
Residentia! Village
•Failed to avoid staircase effect with minimal grading Hillside Planned Residential
Zoning: Policy 1: "In order to maintain the natural contours of the hillsides, developments
shall be designed as to require minimal grading and avoid a padding or staircase effect
as a result of extensive cut and fill slopes" EIR III-2.
•Destroyed three archeological sites that required further investigation
•Failed to remove silt and revegetate washes after each major event EIR III-29
•Violated 404 Permit: bank protection will be designed to allow native vegetation
to be planted PACE 58� 6
Agency ReportingNiolations
•Failed to prevent leaky fuel storage tank and illegal human waste discharge
during construction CRWQCB EtR 111�1
•Failed to foflow SCAQMD requirements EIR III-81
•Failed to complete agency notification to USFWS, CDFG, Army Corps EIR III-59
�-�-� CITY OF PALM DESERT
/ , � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
'� , .
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a development agreement
allowing the increase in number of fractional shares from 4 to
12 fractional interests per home within "Stone Eagle"; west of
Homestead Road, Highway 74 and the Palm Valley Storm
Channel
SUBMITTED BY: Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner
Department of Community Development
APPLICANT: Eagle 6.5 LLC
74001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
CASE NO: DA 02-01 Amendment# 1
DATE: July 3, 2007
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and
Resolution No. approving the development agreement
amendment subject to conditions.
Discussion:
The original development agreement for Stone Eagle and allowed each of
the 60 homes within the project to have 4 fractional interests, similar to a
timeshare. This amendment will allow the homes to be divided into 12
fractional interests of not less than 30 days. The applicant has clarified
that the 30 days may be broken up with half during season and the other
half off-season. Staff views this as a timeshare and recommends that
the units utilizing this arrangement be subject to the "facilities use
fee" paid by all other timeshare projects within the city.
The Stone Eagle Project is nearly complete and is in the process of having
the project pass a final inspection, thereby allowing bonds to be released
by the city. In May, the Assistant City Attorney chaired a hearing with
. Staff Report
July 3, 2007
Case No. DA 2-1 Amendment# 1
Page 2 of 2
area residents that are unhappy with the project's progress on outstanding
issues including runoff from the project into a canyon named "Bruce
Creek" and the hillside disturbance that created a dirt road adjacent to the
perimeter fence. These environmental issues are being addressed
through the Director's Hearing process, and are not related to the
proposed amendment to the Development Agreement submitted here for
consideration.
Staff notified residents within 300 feet of the entire project, those noticed
for the Directors' Hearing with the Assistant City Attorney, and a late
mailing was made to property owners within the project. Staff received a
few calls with no opposition voiced after a further explanation of the
request was made.
Attachments:
• Resolution
• Legal notice
• Minutes from Director's Hearing
Submitted By:
/
PHI JOY
Associate Transpo tion Planner
Approva �
� ���
LAURI AYLAIAN �
Direc f unity De opment
��
HOMER C Y
ACM, Development Services
� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "STONE EAGLE"
LOCATED ON PROPERTY IN SECTION 25 T5S R5E AND A
PORTION OF SECTION 31 T5S R6E.
CASE NO. DA 02-01 AMENDMENT #1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
3RD day of JULY, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to considerthe request of EAGLE 6.5
LLC for a recommendation of approval of DA 02-01 AMENDMENT# 1 to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of
said request:
1. The proposed development agreement is consistent with the provisions of
Municipal Code Chapter 25.37 Development Aqreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
2. That approval of Development Agreement DA 02-01 Amendment# 1(Exhibit A as
amended to include a "Facility Use Fee" is hereby recommended to City Council
for approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 3rd day of July, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SONIA CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Palm Dcsert
Attn: Carlos Ortega
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
First Amendment to Development Agreement
This First Amendment to Development Agreement (this "Amendment") is made
and entered into as of this day of , 2007, by and between the CITY OF
PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and STONE EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC ("Developer") as successor-in interest to DESTINATION
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation ("DDC") (City and
Developer are, collectively, "the Parties"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et
seq. of the Government Code of the State of California.
RECITALS
A. City and DDC entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated as
of November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003-172463,
in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the"Agreement"). The
A��reement was entered into to facilitate the development of certain real property ("Site")
more particularly described in the Agreement.
B. City and Developer now desire to amend the A��reement in the manner set
forth herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the A�-eement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises
of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date
which is two (2) business days after the date which is thirty(30) days after date of final
adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Amendment ("Effective Date").
From and after the Effective Date, all references to the Agreement shall automatically be
deemed to mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.
a i oas i�b.a �
2. Defined Terms. All capitaliLed terms used but not defined herein shall
have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
3. Effect on Site. This Amendment will bind the Site upon the Effective
Date.
4. Amendment to Section 20l. From and after the Effective Date, the last
sentence in Section 201 (1) shall be revised to read: "Notwithstanding any provisions to
the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, each DU
may(but need not) in devcloper's sole discretion be sold as up to twelve (12) fractiona]
interests, each of which fractional interests shall permit the owner of such fractional
interest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be the DU in which such owner llas a fee
interest) for a portion, but not less than 30 days, of each calendar year."
5. Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by
and between the Parties hercto that the Agreement and this Amendment shal] not be
severable from Developer's interest in the Site, and the provisions of the Agreement as
amcnded by this Amendment shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Site or
any portion thereof upon the recordation of t11is Amendment, and that thereafter the
benefits and burdens of the Agrcement as amended by this Amendment shall bind and
inure to all successors in interest to the Parties who acquire any interest in the Site.
6. Interpretation. This Amendment shall be interpreted to give each of thc
provisions their plain meaning. The Recitals are incorporated into this Amendment.
7. Entire A�reement. This Amendment is executed in duplicate originals,
each of which is deemed to be an original. This Amendment consists of four (4) pages
which constitute the entire understanding of the Parties as to the mattcrs set forth in this
Amendmcnt.
8. Status of A�reement. Except as modified by this Amendment, the tern�s
and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
-31048 I 7G.4 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have cxecuted this Amendment as of the
date and year first above written.
"CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California
Municipal Corporation
Effective Date: By�
(Mayor, City of Palm Desert)
, 2007
Attest:
Carlos L. Ortcga
City Manager
Approved as to form:
David Erwin
City Attorney
"DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
Datc of Submission by Developer: By:
, 2007
�t i oas�n�.a 3
,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
� SS.
COUNTY OF )
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory cvidcnce) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signaturc(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, cxecuted the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their si�,mature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
a�oaxi��.a q
,.1=, . CITC' � f � fl � (� D � S � R �
� 73-S�o Ft�u WnkwG D2tve
I�ALM�F.SERT,CALI((�RNIA y2260-257E
TEt:760 ;q6—ob�i
Fnx:760 ;qi-7o98
, in{o@palm-dcscrt.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. DA 2-1 Amendment#1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by Eagle 6.5 LLC for approval of an amendment to a
development agreement to allow the division of homes from 4 to 12 fractional interests within
Stone Eagle;west of Homestead Road, Hwy. 74 and the Palm Valley Channe!(Tract 30438).
— C of Palm Desert Me -- ----- - -----
': ��;r,�•�.- o _
,'"'� �,��' �� �+
s�''t�'
'�%� I,
t .� i,
"�:�:�-�r�, I
,.
`;: yi4: i i,
N� T t# J
}'K"'��f��� I �� I
'1 7
,�.r.tg..2,
I
I
I
I
TM � 'lii�iii I II
� n�-, ...afe, i
... .'i t.y"i,�..7<:.'>�r F ...i
. . ����" "�.�:;�y.�>�B' uy
I
I
i
�
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,July 3,2007 at 6:00 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 ofthe
hearing. Information concerning the proposed project 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,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or city council)at,or
prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun � Laurie Aylaian,Secretary
June 23,2007 Palm Desert Planning Commission
Stone Eagle Director's Hearing
05-17-07 2:00 PM
Administrative Conference Room
Assistant City Attorney Bob Hargreaves began the meeting at 2:00 by introducing
himself and stating that the meeting was being recorded. The purpose of this meeting
is to allow the City to decide whether to accept the Stone Eagle project as complete.
This decision lies with Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works; however, due to the
high level of interest and involvement that the adjacent property owners have
maintained, it was decided to open the process so that concerns may be heard and
worked through. Mr. Hargreaves will later summarize the issues and any compromises
or agreements in a written recommendation to Mark. Mr. Hargreaves stated that we
would go through the staff report dated 05-10-07 and discuss the issues one at a time.
Staff is to state the issue and their recommendation, and residents may then comment
on that issue as we go along. Mr. Hargreaves asked that anyone wishing to speak raise
their hand and give full name and address the first time they speak and after that to
state their name before they speak.
Going around the table, each person gave their name and affiliation or address.
Robert Hargreaves, Assistant City Attorney and Hearing Officer
Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert
Lynn Calardine, LSA Associates
Dr. Jerry Meints, Resident, Cahuilla Hills
John Criste, Terra Nova, EIR Preparer
Mark Fisher, Staff Biologist, UCR/Boyd Deep Canyon
Dr. AI Muth, Biologist, UCR/Boyd Deep Canyon, present only to speak to biological
issues on their report
Dr. Peter Schear, Resident, Cahuilla Hills
Doug Hart, Resident, Cahuilla Hills
Walter Hoffmann, Cahuilla Hills HOA
Ruth DeWitt, Resident, Cahuilla Hills
Tim Bartlett, Property Owner, Cahuilla Hills
Nancy Scott, Resident, 71-487 Painted Canyon, presented a packet to Bob Hargreaves
so that he could follow along with her prepared comments
Piero Pierattoni, Resident
Rod Chamberlain, CV Mosquito and Vector Control
Ms. Carver Carver, Resident
Bill Carver, Resident
Ted Lennon, Lowe Enterprises, Stone Eagle Development
Phillip Joy, Associate Transportation Planner, City of Palm Desert
Terry Cechin, Public Works Inspector, City of Palm Desert
Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works, City of Palm Desert
Debra Lee, Secretary, Public Works Department
C:\Documenls and Settings\pjoy\Loc4 �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 Stc. �agle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
1. Runoff into Bruce Creek
Mark Greenwood gave description and boundaries of the property. The project EIR for
Stone Eagle indicates the creek is normally dry but since the golf course has been
completed Bruce Creek has had water in it almost continually. A representative photo
of the creek taken earlier during the week was displayed. This is the one issue from
staff perspective that is the most serious. Mr. Greenwood indicated that we asked a lot
of experts for their opinions and have received them (see staff report); the consensus is
that there is water present but that is not detrimental. Mr. Greenwood explained the
four recommendations for Bruce Creek in the staff report and added that Stone Eagle
has responded to these recommendations by providing a schedule for the staff
inspections and indicating a willingness to comply.
Mr. Greenwood displayed a second photo of Bruce Creek that shows water seeping
directly out of the rock wall on the side of the creek. It is reported by the Public Works
Inspector that if you cup your hand under the seepage it will fill your hand in just a few
seconds, so it's a significant amount of water. IYs on the Stone Eagle side of the
canyon.
With regard to recommendation #4, Ted Lennon said that half a million dollars is too
much, and indicated that Stone Eagle would propose a reasonable bond for a certain
number of years, and would also suggest a five-year review of the program by staff. He
reiterated that Stone Eagle would be willing to do a bond or an agreement that would be
enforceable.
Bob Hargreaves stated that he would anticipate that we'd have some sort of mitigation
agreement with a security component that may be subject to review sooner than five
years.
Dr. Meints asked whether this is the only plan in existence, because he has heard of
other plans that were more creative—for example, circulating the water back to the golf
course lake. Mr. Greenwood agreed that this idea had come up early in the process.
Mr. Lennon explained that it would take three to four years to get such a thing through
the various agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, in order to allow Stone
Eagle to do this over a blue line stream. In addition, there would be huge water and
electricity costs, making it seem impractical from the environmental side.
Lynn Calardine asked to clarify a recommendation, whether removing non-native
vegetation includes the property owners downstream if they agree to allow access to
their property, and Mr. Greenwood answered that it does. Mr. Calardine asked about
any extra sedimentation or erosion that would occur, and John Criste stated that the
water coming out of the side walls is clear, and the volumes are such that most of the
water is running across bedrock so that there isn't a sedimentation issue.
Page 2 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc� �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Dr. Schear stated that the residents have already seen erosion of some sort after one
and a half years. He said it appears foolish to ask Stone Eagle to have a retention
basin and a generator and to recirculate water when the end goal is to avoid having
stagnant water in the base of the creek. It would waste money because it wouldn't
prevent the water from coming back into the creek.
Mr. Lennon explained that the purpose is that it reduces the sedimentation. Stone
Eagle must eventuaily have to clean out the basin and haul the sedimentation away.
He commented that erosion is going to happen two or three times a year with major
floods.
Dr. Schear asked why there is still a generator catching the water. M. Lennon said that
all the water used to come into the creek at that point but that iYs been moving down the
creek so that iYs past the pump now, and that iYs dried up at the point of the pump. Dr.
Schear said that it doesn't make logical sense to have a pump/generator disturbing the
neighbors. Mr. Lennon said that they hope to take the pump out when we know the
water's dried up, and that the pump actually hasn't been operating for a long time.
Ms. Carver stated that she has concerns about removing the pump from Bruce Creek
and the impact on Ramon Creek. Dr. Schear stated he is speaking about Bruce Creek
only.
Dr. Schear asked, with regard to the weekly maintenance, whether we should have
some sort of indemnity agreement so that property owners are held harmfess when staff
enter their properties to perform the maintenance. Bob Hargreaves said that if the
residents choose to give permission for people to come onto their property, those issues
would be worked out in their contract.
Ms. Scott said the algae seem to be proliferating every couple of weeks, so that
quarterly inspections aren't enough given that mosquitoes breed every 10 days. Ms.
Scott asked that we keep in mind that whatever is agreed to will amount to a
compromise on the part of the Cahuilla Hills residents, because they don't want water in
the creek.
Mr. Pierattoni said that iYs a fact that there is water there now and it wasn't there before.
He stated that his dog got sick drinking the water. Mr. Pierattoni passed a picture of his
guest bedroom taken this week, stating that he has never had a mosquito, ever, since
he lived there but on that day he counted 14 of them, and he doesn't know why. The
photo seemed to depict flying insects on the walls of a room. He said we are creating
problems for animals; and that he just doesn't want to have mosquitoes there because
he's pretty sure that the cause of them is that water. He remembered when Phil Drell
commented that plenty of millions of dollars have been spent on the golf course, so Mr.
Pierattoni doesn't see why they don't do whatever is needed to mitigate the mosquitoes.
Dr. Muth, who was looking at Mr. Pierattoni's photo, stated that those insects are not
mosquitoes, they are flies, and passed the photo to Rod Chamberlain to verify this,
Page 3 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc. �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
which he did. Dr. Muth went on to say that in the creek there is a habitat set up under
running water, which means there will be an increase in aquatic invertebrates, and from
a stream health standpoint thaYs exactly what you want.
Mr. Chamberlain said that CVMVD techs have done inspections and that he himself has
personally walked the creek. He explained that mosquito breeding is a very dynamic
situation; and this creek is not a breeding habitat. If the vegetation blocks the water
flow, that will cause breeding but mosquitoes will not put their eggs in moving water,
and they tend not to put their eggs into deep water. Small, static pools are where you
find most mosquito breeding. He further stated that it is important to understand that
the mosquito and vector control agency does not perform ongoing programs at will; they
are more interested in source reduction so that if there's a creek that does breed, they
will go in there and notify the property owner. It's the property owner's responsibility for
anything that occurs on their property, according to the state health code; if they have a
public safety issue on their property it needs to be corrected, and thaYs how the agency
would approach future issues.
Mark Greenwood asked whether Stone Eagle would be allowed to do mosquito control
as long as they are already there doing inspections. Mr. Chamberlain answered that
there's nothing in the code preventing it as long as they have the proper license and
training and follow pesticide requirements.
John Criste said that he has photos taken in 2002 that depict very healthy seeps in the
mid-portion of the creek; there were tadpoles and invertebrates. John Criste asked Mr.
Chamberlain whether a balanced creek ecology would contain mosquito eaters and Mr.
Chamberlain said yes. John Criste then asked whether we are running the risk of
upsetting the creek environment, questioned whether we really have a problem and
suggested that the cure could be worse than the disease. John Criste asked Mr.
Chamberlain whether any kind of chemicals introduced could affect birds and small
mammals, noting that at least 3 species of tadpoles have been observed along with
many invertebrates, which constitutes a self-maintaining system and Mr. Chamberlain
said that yes, any time you use products you want to minimize unintended
consequences. Some situations are too far along and the agency has to use products
that basically wipe out everything. However, biological control is the best way to go.
Mr. Lennon, commenting on what Ms. Scott had said, said Stone Eagle submitted a
maintenance program to staff that they would inspect monthly.
Tim Bartlett said he has a 10-page letter to submit to Mr. Hargreaves, discussing the
facts or the evidence provided, and then he stated the facts and evidence in the letter:
The first problem he has is that the consultants have been hired by the developer; that
the City has not employed one of them to work on the City's behalf. He expressed
concern that the consultants are biased because they represent the developer's best
interest.
Page 4 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc. .ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Another problem he has is that about half of his property is now contaminated and
causes his dog to become violently ill. He stated he can no longer take his dog into the
canyon because she gets sick every single time, that normally she's a very healthy 12-
year-old, that now he can no longer enjoy half of his property, and that for someone to
suggest that dumping contaminated water on his property on a continuous basis is
acceptable, is outrageous. He was told that the water was good; the developer handed
him a water report and said it was good; however, the irrigation they use comes from a
well abandoned by CVWD because of the nitrates, so they're "dumping shitty water on
our property and propose to do inspection on it once a month."
Mr. Bartlett stated that there's been language indicating that Stone Eagle has made the
efforts to restrict the water flowing into the canyon, but that is untrue. There are pipes
pointed toward the canyons; they're directly irrigating the canyon, so to say an attempt
was made to avert it is far from the truth. Mr. Bartlett stated that while they say they
have a sophisticated irrigation system; if turf is watered on short intervals it tends to be
sucked up by the roots; however, what the developer did was to scrape up all the DG
and loose rock, grind it up, and spread it over the course and that's what the turF sits
on... iYs not loose soil, iYs granite. To say they were surprised this happened and not
part of the plan is nonsense. In fact, Earth Systems told us at the first meeting that any
hydrology as a result of irrigation runoff was specifically excluded. Mr. Bartlett
suggested we look at the municipal code regarding management of runoff.
Mr. Bartlett said that to say the algae and weeds are all great is also nonsense; the
canyon should be dry, we live in a desert.
Mr. Bartlett stated that there have also been implications that the water's coming from
the 11 homes (30 people), but the amount of water 30 people use per day is nothing
compared to 1-2 million gallons per day that goes onto the turf.
Mr. Bartlett said that he's lost the use of his property, that he had every intention of
developing it but now he doesn't even want to go there, and he's not the only one.
Maybe iYs friendly for the tadpoles but iYs not healthy for his dog and maybe for
humans. To allow the biology of a canyon to be changed from a dry canyon to a wet
canyon and then to suggest that you come down once a quarter is unimaginable.
Mr. Chamberlain agreed that they found two breeding sites for mosquitoes.
Mr. Bartlett said there's a mile in length of algae from top to bottom, both creeks added
up, from an aerial photo. He said he doesn't believe this is just the Cahuilla Hills
residents' problem. He believes Stone Eagle's own residents will incur the wrath of
disease-carrying mosquitoes; they are a viable health risk and you can die from one
bite. He doesn't believe the EIR was done properly because it doesn't address this
fact, it was clearly left out. Mr. Bartlett does not believe the developer thought the water
would go anywhere else than downhill, that is complete nonsense.
Page 5 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc� .,ettingslTemporary Intemet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 Stc, cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Another issue is that a half-million dollar bond is not excessive. The City forgave Stone
Eagle a one million dollar drainage fee.
Bob Hargreaves stated that was something that was agreed upon thaYs not part of this
process.
Dr. Muth stated, speaking for the biologists, that "We were not compensated, we
volunteered our time to give our professional opinion to the developer and the City."
Mr. Hargreaves asked whether the water has been tested and has nitrates, and Mark
Greenwood said yes, but that thorough testing of the constituents has not been
conducted but would be required by his (Mr. Greenwood's) recommendations.
Ms. Scott asked whether there had been tests to verify septic runoff. Dr. Muth said
there was water running across the road and down into the portion where they found
mosquitoes, it was clearly coming from the community's side; also there was a strong
smell of sewage, but he doesn't think he ever said that the water in the canyon was
entirely coming from the community; clearly it was not.
Ms. Scott said she has provided documentation to the City by way of Dick Kelly that the
flow has been tested and it was clear of septic; also we had 13 significant precipitation
events from 2000-2006; two of these were August 13 and 14 in Indio and Idyllwild;
perhaps what you were seeing 12 days later, the dampness in the ravine, was due to
those events.
Dr. Muth said he will provide her and the City with records.
Mr. Hargreaves asked whether by future testing would we be able to determine the
origin of the water.
Dr. Meints said that it's always been dry. A few months ago he went up Painted
Canyon; one of the other property owners has 5 cisterns up there, and someone had
pulled the caps off of them and they were running full-bore like a garden hose. One of
them ran into John Dunlevy's seepage pit, filled up the tank and the effluent was
running down the canyon. The cisterns were capped and all the water has stopped. Dr.
Meints followed the flow and it did end up in Bruce Creek, so there's the answer to the
mystery.
Mr. Hargreaves asked whether anybody would know if by periodic water testing you can
reasonably determine whether it's irrigation or septic. Mr. Lennon said iYs difficult
because the percolation changes the water; however, you can compare it to the well
water.
Ms. Scott said if the leech pit works the septic doesn't come to the top of the ground so
with the cisterns being unplugged for many months we did have water coming across
Painted Canyon and now it's been dry for many months and that's the way it should be.
Page 6 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc,. �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Dr. Schear said we are consistently not addressing the creek bed and that his big
concern is that the creek bed is following the southern wall rather than the northern wall
where the water is originating; there are 5 little springs coming out. Also we're all
talking about septic but there are 11 home sites on approved septic up on Stone Eagle
and there are several comfort stations on septic, where 100+ golfers a day use the
facilities. So if we do the math, the septic from the Stone Eagle side has a significantly
higher impact than Cahuilla would ever have.
Mr. Greenwood asked what was the source of the water in the cisterns and Dr. Meints
said it was precipitation and also one small spring.
John Criste said there are natural sources of water that take years and years to move
through the bedrock and break out from a cut; this is a natural condition. There is plenty
of documentation that the Cahuilla Hills development has contributed to that flow and
that the nitrates and algae growth showed up before Stone Eagle ever came in there. It
is not an uncommon occurrence when a golf course is in the first stages of development
for the ability of the earth to sponge up water and hold it to change, until the water
management is fine-tuned. Mr. Criste said he will submit his photos which clearly show
seepage coming out of the canyon walls and pools with life present prior to
development of the golf course.
Mr. Pierattoni disagreed with that assessment. He said he has been there 15 years,
there's never been running water there, never, unless there was precipitation. IYs been
changed since the golf course.
Mark Fisher pointed out that on the USGS map the creek is blue, and that in the last 20
years we've had below-average rainfall—therefore, the creek wouldn't have water in the
fast 20 years. He's not saying Stone Eagle isn't adding to it, they are; but it's not bad if
they do the mitigation.
Lynn Calardine said that the allegations that animals have been harmed is important
and asked whether we can we verify that by testing the water. Dr. Schear said the
nitrate levels are 400 times the normal baseline. Mr. Calardine said it would be good to
get a formal test done by the City. Mr. Fisher said he wouldn't take his dog anywhere
near there; because there are herbicide containers all over the place. Dr. Schear said
Stone Eagle's herbicide-resistant grasses are now down on the bottom, and we would
be wise to have an independent evaluation done and use that as a baseline. He
wanted to be on record as saying it is what it is so how will we manage it and mitigate
the effect of the water, create a defined streambed, have water running as much as
possible to mitigate the mosquitoes... he feels the water enhances the beauty of the
creek if managed properly.
Ms. Scott said she asked the water district how she could do independent water testing
and Babcock Labs was recommended. She said there is an enormous grading project
going on up above and water has been dumped for grading and compaction and
Page 7 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc. �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
irrigation problems that the developer has corrected. So you won't see water coming
across that street because it's being taken care of.
Mr. Chamberlain said another concern is that the open stream rock system has a
tendency to grow black flies, which are nasty biting bugs, and that he did observe small
numbers of black fly larvae there. Mr. Chamberlain advised that if the flow is increased,
it should be kept narrowly channeled. Black flies aren't vectors but they are multiple
biters.
Mr. Lennon said the $1 M drainage fee forgiveness was because Stone Eagle does not
drain through the City of Palm Desert. Stone Eagle spent all their money to put their
drainage directly into the channel. The main bathroom on top of the hill is on a sewer
line; the golfers rarely use the other two bathrooms out on the course. They know that
some water comes from Cahuilla Hills; Stone Eagle accepts it, they're willing to go in
and do the items that have been projected here; they know that people will put in septic
and landscaping and these things add to the water there but they're willing to do this
program with monthly checks and a pump check every day.
Mr. Pierattoni asked whether it would be easier to add some water to keep it flowing,
and asked who's going to be the police officer to monitor it.
Mr. Hargreaves said that the idea of intentionally adding some water to the creek and
running it for some distance would mean studies forever.
Mr. Criste asked if we have from the recommendations the means to at least start to
address the concerns. He said that with an adaptive management protocol everyone
will learn as we go along but it seems wise to at least get a start on it, and the developer
seems willing to cooperate. Everybody who contributes to flows in that canyon has a
responsibility as well; these recommendations would be a good start, with the City
providing oversight.
Mr. Hargreaves stated that whatever comes out of this process is not set in stone; there
will be feedback, and natural systems can't be controlled so well.
Mr. Criste suggested that we adapt the management practices as certain failures occur
or measures are identified.
Dr. Muth said that unless you flush that canyon wall-to-wall, tamarisk and other exotics
will appear in there and will have to be removed.
Mr. Greenwood commented that Dr. Schear's suggestion about containing the water to,
say, a 6-inch trough would keep it flowing so that it wouldn't pond and allow mosquitoes,
which would mitigate some impacts.
Page 8 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc. �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Mr. Criste said that would require a permit and commented that some owners have
already done that and some also have done filling that requires a permit, which will have
adverse consequences on other things because this is basically bedrock.
Dr. Schear said there's one specific and well defined area of 150 feet where the creek
bed runs swiftly along the southern edge of the bottom of Bruce Creek and adjacent to it
are four or five springs that come up from the Stone Eagle wall that weren't there
before. That is the highest potential for breeding grounds, and it should be gently but
firmly redirected to where the creek wants to flow.
Mr. Calardine said this would require a permit, and that Fish and Game would support it.
Ms. Carver said that whatever's in the water ruins the look of the creek. It coated every
single wall with this thick stuff that's unsightly and it was a tragedy because they had an
extremely beautiful creek.
Mr. Bartlett said that in 2005 the developer assured City Council that they would solve
the water issue.
Mr. Carver said it should be considered as part of this discussion that the developer
assured the residents that they would solve the problem; iYs important to remember.
Mr. Hargreaves said that in exploring Dr. Schear's suggestion that we compact the
channel there at that segment, how would we do that and did the biologists have any
concerns?
Mr. Fisher said he didn't have any but doesn't know if Kim Nichol of Fish and Game can
do that.
Dr. Muth said that the issue for Fish and Game is whether or not the disturbance rises
to the level of significance, and he recommends asking Ms. Nichol for an off-the-record
opinion.
Mr. Criste said that perhaps it could be added to the recommendations that we maintain
an ongoing consultation with somebody like Fish and Game.
Mr. Greenwood asked Mr. Bartlett if channeling the water would resolve his concerns.
Mr. Bartlett responded that he had made the suggestion himself three years ago. He
further stated that what is needed is to remove the contact of the water from the soil.
He said the creek the developer built on-site seems to be working magnificently; that is
proof that they know how to do it.
Mr. Hargreaves commented that all the issues won't be settled in this one meeting.
Mr. Greenwood said the City will hire a water quality lab to do testing for a broad
spectrum of constituents.
Page 9 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc,. �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� �agle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Bob Hargreaves said the City will follow up on the channelization issue.
Dr. Muth suggested that for the water quality issue we also take the results to a
veterinary toxicologist to ask what the result would be of a dog drinking this water on a
short-term basis so that we can get that issue resolved as a fact instead of an anecdote.
Mr. Hargreaves said the proposal is to do the "after" quality toxicology test and to look
into the channelization issue, and we should move on to other issues.
Mr. Greenwood stated that we would sample water from a number of sources.
Nancy Scott, speaking to John Criste, said that the EIR report which John signed states
there is no water in Bruce Creek.
Mr. Greenwood commented that he had neglected to mention Ramon Creek in his staff
report.
Ms. Carver said that Stone Eagle has managed to stop the flow onto her property and
that they are grateful for that.
Mr. Greenwood read the description of Ramon Creek and displayed photos of the creek
taken earlier this week. Mr. Greenwood said he believed all the water to now be
contained on Stone Eagle property; however, the retention areas aren't being
maintained as well as he'd like. Also, the pipe keeps breaking on the pump. Stone
Eagle had said the pipes would be steel but they're not; and Mr. Greenwood intends to
require these pipes be steel and that these basins maintained. Mr. Greenwood
classified Ramon Creek as "a near success."
Ms. Carver said she has no further issues with regard to the water.
Mr. Chamberlain said the mosquito and vector control agency will inspect the facility, as
they are interested in source reduction, and will continue to inspect and treat it to
minimize the risk to public safety.
The group took at ten-minute break and reconvened at 3:45.
2. Golf Course Perimeter Fencing and Road
Mr. Greenwood displayed a photo of a representative length of the fence/road, and
stated that Stone Eagle has a perimeter fence around the project and a dirt road that
parallels that fence on the inside. The issue is that the EIR stated the fence would be of
a wrought-iron type of material; but when the material was chosen, the Bighorn Institute
was consulted and they requested chain link and the City's previous Planning Director
agreed. The chain link was installed and appears to get damaged and need a lot of
repair, but with the possibility of bighorn sheep being caught in other types of fencing
Page 10 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc,. ,ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
materials, this fence still needs to be chain link. Mr. Greenwood read staff's
recommendation as contained in the staff report, and stated emphatically that the City
does not and will not okay a dirt road because iYs a PM-10 violation.
Mr. Lennon asked why they couldn't do soil stabilization on the natural soil, as the City
has used on its projects.
Mr. Greenwood replied that the City has used that stabilizer with disappointing results; it
was an experiment and the City no longer accepts its use.
Mr. Lennon asked why the road couldn't be asphalt like Cahuilla Hills.
Mr. Greenwood answered that there may be solutions that can be agreed upon;
however, dirt can't be driven on so it is inappropriate for a vehicle road.
Mr. Lennon stated that his preference would be asphalt due to the undulations on the
ground in question (concrete would crack).
Ms. Scott said that golf cart paths are adequate for emergency and maintenance
access, and that this road wasn't shown on the plans. She asked whether homes are
planned for the back, which she suspects is why Stone Eagle built the road.
Bob Hargreaves stated that there are going to be no homes back there.
Ms. Scott said that the huge perimeter road is now a scar and that she watches people
racing their golf carts on it every day. She stated that it shouldn't require a whole road
to maintain the chain link fence, and besides it's ugly. She said that Cahuilla is in the
county and they don't have the same dirt road issue that the City does.
Bob Hargreaves said that the roads at Cahuilla aren't an issue here.
Mr. Calardine commented that the maintenance of the sheep fence is critically
important.
Tim said that every city he knows of uses welded wire sheep fence, so he finds this
interesting, and said he's always been told that the City of Palm Desert doesn't allow
chain link. Tim questioned why Stone Eagle would develop this road so well and added
that they've improved it since they built it. In addition, he said Stone Eagle says they
need it for emergency vehicles or to fix the fence but that is not true; fence guys don't
need roads. And if it is so crucial why wasn't it on the plan or mentioned in the EIR?
There was no permit, no discussion, no plan, and from the approval standpoint it
doesn't exist, yet now fhey say iYs necessary.
Mr. Hargreaves asked Mark Greenwood if he understands the necessity for the road.
Page 11 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc.. �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Mark Greenwood said he does to some degree and that he included the requirement to
provide plans for it in order to memorialize why it's there and what it's made of.
Mr. Hargreaves summed up that the understanding is that Stone Eagle will show the
necessity of the road and there will be an agreed-upon dust-free surface to the road,
and those portions that are agreed to be necessary would remain and the rest of it
would be naturalized (defined as returned to its natural state—not as a road but as a
natural hillside).
Mr. Lennon said they would submit a plan and review it with the City. Mr. Hargreaves
asked Mr. Lennon how long that will take, and Mr. Lennon responded a week or ten
days.
3. Access to Adjacent Properties
Mr. Greenwood stated that there's a dispute about access to various properties and
various easements that have existed back to when these lots were developed, and the
patent easements don't conform to the terrain so that as access was developed they
didn't honor those easements. Some property owners believe that the approval of
Stone Eagle's tract map may have severed their access rights; however the map did not
identify any patent or specific easements, so it did not affect access rights. On the other
hand, construction issues may have.
Mr. Hargreaves said that the recording of a map cannot take away private rights that
may exist on that property.
Dr. Schear spoke, saying that in 1982, in conjunction with Mr. Richardi and the City of
Palm Desert, an easement agreement was drafted, ratified, voted, and recorded with
metes and bounds and description, which takes their easement down into Stone Eagle;
that easement has now been completely blocked by the construction and it, in fact, goes
right through the clubhouse and through a future planned clubhouse. The City did
approve Stone Eagle's plan and Stone Eagle's position has been that they do not
recognize the property owners' access rights and have blocked their properties. Some
owners do not have access rights and clearly when an original easement is taken away,
a reasonable alternative route needs to be provided.
Mr. Hargreaves asked Dr. Schear whether this issue were subject to litigation and Dr.
Schear answered "Not at this point. We've been trying diligently over the past year and
a half to provide a reasonable solution. Litigation will take us 3 years; we are actively
working on it."
Mr. Hargreaves said that this dispute goes way back and has many ramifications and
iYs not something we can resolve here.
Dr. Schear said he wanted to go on record that the City has nothing to do with it. He
said he will look at the data and continue to work behind the scenes.
Page 12 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc. �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Dr. Meints said that if this is leading to final approval of the golf course, it somehow has
to be resolved before final approval can be facilitated, thaYs a big issue. This is a long-
term process. Dr. Meints said he joined Richardi and his group in 1991 and agreed to
maintain the roadway known as Richardi Road and they had access through jeep trails
to their properties; when that fence went up the road Dr. Meints had taken for over 15
years on his property, that fence cut right across the roadway and Phil Drell said to take
the jeep trail on the other side of the fence and improve it and use that. Dr. Meints said
they went to the county transportation department and were told that the residents have
the right to improve it. This has been a prescriptive easement for many years. Dr.
Meints has been working with Mr. Lennon's office and would like to work this out in an
amicable fashion.
Dr. Schear has significant concern as to the EIR conditions of approval. Stone Eagle
was conditioned to put in a City trail, Hopalong Cassidy Trail. By EIR approval, that trail
is to be entirely on Stone Eagle's property; however, on a number of spots it comes
onto Peter's property. There's a public safety issue, as the trail is being used by
mountain bikers who go up the trail and when they come back down they see a paved
road so they drop from the trail onto Dr. Schear's property and the joint easement. The
bikers come hauling down the hill while Dr. Shear and his visitors are driving up the hill.
He does not wish to have that liability and wants the trail moved to where it belongs to
keep people off his property.
Mr. Greenwood said the surveyor said the trail is on Stone Eagle property except for
one particular point.
Dr. Schear said it's clearly on his property and that Mark was talking to staff that didn't
know.
Mr. Greenwood said that Stone Eagle did set their fence off their property line and that
relocation of the trail is a City issue since it was done by a City contractor.
Mr. Lennon said there ought to be a black diamond sign on that trail, like they have on
ski slopes, and said that signage is going to be needed to keep people off private
property.
Ms. Carver said the Carvers have the same condition and that they did have a near-
tragedy on that road.
Ms. Scott said they, too, have problems with people trespassing looking for a route to
the trail because the City brochure says there's access. It is a safety issue and some
people are quite rude when told they are trespassing.
Bob Hargreaves said the City has some issues to work out with respect to the trail and
we need to work on the location, hikers and bikers.
Page 13 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc,_ ,ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Dr. Schear said he doesn't have a problem with the trail on his property but he has a
problem with the safety issue.
Mr. Greenwood asked what the solution to this could be. Bob Hargreaves said these
aren't Stone Eagle issues, and with respect to the easement issue Mr. Hargreaves
suggested we resolve that in a different process.
Dr. Schear stated his point was that the City was actively involved in establishment of,
and then alteration of, the easements. Mr. Hargreaves said if the easement was
established the City could not unilaterally take it away from him.
4. Maintenance of the Debris Basin
Mr. Greenwood gave a description of the problem. At the time of the complaint the
basin was swampy and full of insects, which is not good. The EIR does say the basin is
to have an outlet to allow small storms, sediment and such to pass through to maintain
the health of the creek further downstream. There is a concern that this is solid bedrock
so the process of installing a drain will cause more harm than good, and Stone Eagle
saw that and didn't install the drain at that time. However, in response to complaints
they have installed a gas-powered pump to drain it and iYs been successful and the City
thinks that's an appropriate solution.
Ms. Scott said the pump ran 24/7, and it was maddening to hear the drone in the ravine.
The hours of operation got so bad she had to call Code Compliance and the developer
after hours. Having this in an echoing ravine is unacceptable; there needs to be a
provision that it stops at a reasonable time without Ms. Scott having to call, and it should
be silent. Mr. Lennon said Stone Eagle can do that.
Bob Hargreaves said to make sure it complies with the noise ordinance.
5. Temporary Equipment Pad
Mr. Greenwood read the description from the staff report and said that at one time they
were storing all sorts of stuff on the pad. Stone Eag(e has complied to what the
residents wanted; so staff believes this issue to be resolved. Mr. Bartlett asked whether
they will introduce a tree farm as well as a sod farm, and Mr. Lennon said they would
plant just palos verdes.
6. Golf Course Turf Acreage
Mr. Greenwood stated that aerial mapping shows that the development is well within its
allowed amount of turf. There was no further discussion.
7. Water Source for Golf Course Irrigation
Page 14 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc.. .,ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
Minutes.doc
Ms. Scott indicated that she does not want to take this issue "off the table." Mr. Lennon
explained that the water used is just for the greens, which represents perhaps 5%, or 3
acres, of grass. No other parties expressed concern regarding this issue, nor the staff
recommendation that it be considered closed, since using potable water for irrigation
would be wasteful.
8. Snack Bar
Ms. Carver stated she was concerned about the light because it was monstrous, but
that it was put on a timer to keep it off at night and as long as they continue to do that,
she is happy.
Mr. Bartlett stated that it's not an aerie as the plans said; it's enclosed and conditioned,
with a kitchen, bar, etc.
Bob Hargreaves asked what the impact issues were. Mr. Bartlett answered the septic
system was an impact issue. Mr. Lennon stated that the snack bar is on a sewer
system as is the bathroom next to it.
9. Maintenance Building
Mark Greenwood read the residents' complaint that the building is made of inetal with
little architectural feature. Mr. Greenwood stated that it was approved by the former
Planning Director. There is also a lighting issue because the lights are left on at night
and the light escapes through the skylights. Residents have worked with Stone Eagle
to arrive at a system for mitigating that issue.
Ms. Carver said Stone Eagle has been keeping the lights out, so she's happy, but that
it's too bad the City approved the metal. She also said she does not have a phone
number to call if lights are left on.
10. Comfort Station Septic Systems
Mr. Greenwood said that the stations were inspected by the City and the County Health
Department and approved by both. Tim said it's still a direct violation of the EIR which
says they will be self-contained.
John Criste stated that the purpose of the EIR is not to preclude the Health Department
from finding a good way to deal with things. The issue is whether or not there is an
adverse significant effect. The Health Department says there isn't, so there's no
violation.
Ms. Scott said there is more reason to have regular water testing as more and more
people use the comfort stations.
Page 15 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc.. ,ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 St� cagle Director's Hearing
• Minutes.doc
Both Mr. Bartlett and Ms. Scott complained about the materials and architectural design
of the comfort station. Ms. Scott said, "I see a square box on the hill." Mr. Lennon said
that 10-15 palos verdes will be planted by end of the summer so that she won't see it
anymore.
Bob Hargreaves indicated that if the palos verdes don't resolve the problem we would
consider other measures.
11. Residential Pads
Mr. Bartlett stated there is a violation of the City of Palm Desert hillside ordinance. Mark
Greenwood agreed that the EIR does say that. However, the City authorized this pad
configuration because it minimized the footprint of the overall development; otherwise,
the homes would've had to have been spread out. This way the net impact,
environmentally, is reduced.
Mr. Hargreaves asked whether development and landscape will mitigate the
stairstepping effect and Mr. Cechin said no. Mr. Greenwood added that very few people
are actually able to see the homes in question. Mr. Bartlett said he can see them from
his property but that iYs not an important issue for him.
Ms. Scott said that when Stone Eagle did their beautiful Powerpoint presentation years
ago, it didn't look like this. Mr. Lennon asked her whether she has seen the homes in
their finished state and Ms. Scott said she has not.
Mr. Hargreaves said that his sense is that there's nothing we can do about this at this
time.
12. Archeological Sites
Mr. Greenwood said that staff has tried to verify the claim that three archeological sites
were destroyed, but there is no evidence of it and no independent evidence has come
forward, so he believes this to be resolved.
ACTION ITEMS
Mr. Hargreaves asked if there were any issues that hadn't been addressed. There were
no responses. He summarized the follow-up items:
(i) The City will take responsibility for getting water testing and a toxicology report
(John Criste will get a recommendation from his vet). Dr. Muth asked whether
the homeowners would want to get their own so that there's no bias.
Recommendations for test labs and/or veterinarians will be submitted to Ms.
Aylaian and Mr. Greenwood. Ms.Aylaian will contact Ms. Scott to find out where
the residents want testing.
Page 16 of 17
C:\Documents and Settings\pjoy\Loc4 �ettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\05-17-07 Stc �agle Director's Hearing
• Minutes.doc
(ii) Mr. Hargreaves said we need to look at the stream channelization issue from a
feasibility standpoint. Mr. Criste will be in the group and will contact Kim Nichol
from Fish and Game. Mr. Lennon and Dr. Schear will review possible ideas, and
Mr. Bartlett will participate as well. Ms. Scott wants representatives for the City
on all of these issues, and thinks the City should have first oversight.
(iii) Mr. Lennon will come up with a road mitigation plan for review by the City.
(iv) Mr. Lennon will continue to work on the property access issue with the neighbors;
the City also has some issues to address.
(v) Mr. Lennon will provide Ms. Scott with a copy of the recorded conservation
easement that restricts use of the land so that additional homes cannot be
constructed. Mr. Hargreaves clarified that additional homes would also require a
change of zone and a general plan amendment, which require public hearings
and notification of neighbors.
Mr. Hargreaves asked whether we can accomplish these things in two weeks and Mr.
Greenwood said not the water testing.
The City will expedite and monitor these follow-up steps and when it is determined how
long it will take, another meeting will be scheduled.
Ms. Scott said it is really important that whatever we come up with be specific, with time
frames, penalties, a bond. She does not want to have to police the situation any more,
she's done it for 2 years and it's time to get back to her life.
Mr. Hargreaves said that the issues will all be wrapped up with agreements, security,
enforcement, and an adaptive management component.
Bill Carver thanked the City for holding this hearing.
Meeting adjourned 5:00 PM
Minutes recorded and transcribed by Debra Lee.
Page 17 of 17
i�. �
�t�w�>;� r,�l ,�..
�y 'y�yr�' c`v� ¢�S ��, �.r ��. 'Se.� ; e.�� ,. .
. t 5;'' .. �k4
yri !'��M� 7�'f�}� �-t�'� ( �,r`�`}'M � 'f' .�"qfr � r
�S��� �y i j���� .rF ?+s, �.�!� 3 �" ,,�t: '�
�'�S�i��N?.� C ,� ��.� ,�,c ,4`�-*�;. * �.��, �,�1 �,
y,�•�. ,a n ,�.�`- : �� �f�,�, ,q.
�� �°�` � y " � 1. ?�.'� �,�''� � �. °�*�e a
i���t��`�`�S �x' t� t k �' �., �, = ' w� �� � �.�;�
+ '�' ' �'' ,�„ � �s ,� f �+ �
���� �� 4r �� . . �`�>r`�'"Y� p. `�:y.:i i�: ''r f �� �^�� >� t.
"t ���, w�,r^f" � rt^ +r +C° :�`tas.... ✓ ( s"� ' str .�s�y �, �� '"
��i/��1 i7 ��ks�,`qw/t �' k � �� �t►r�s!�{ �r ''•, ^ ���. � �ry � � '
�"'' 6��'f!j� �_�7`�,�n .��;���.' '�'� o �,� r&:� :,' ,.�" ; `� •, " • t�
`»���''��� ,��;�'�', ��w.�' .�u ;h .�, , � �"� � ' y� � � a �x �
y, � �, . �, , +
����� � Y s.A'�t..}�rt. 4. �'. ; '�!�"✓�` . r ,#,'�
��S� � tr p' at S� i 't�r�,ue- � � � • �..
t
t f� ,�t :vy �,�!X s Y:� z,:. �n
����� �'' r'F.:� :C.K,�h ��'^`�r•: k�' .�- ''"�r 4�.
x �
!r�' v?Y`?�w r��� t .Tn _ '�,'i �,w1 r ��,��'y,' �-w i
a �� ,� � 4 i� t f +Y^ �.fm�':
•:v�r�irls''r' ��` .�§�� 4� f$.,itf`,J,:� a;.,� , � 3 F'�
" +r t r p �� �'� ���,�����r ° 3t� .� � � •,�
��r � _�.n � T a�,�y�� ;p A.r�y*"n�'�"n j�. �. . � �,"' �;�i�.
..:'d�; '�,SS.� 'xi:ryf ,. +e .'pu
�s r ,1 {
.�J� w��.:t) 't♦ �t L�5 �'��'"'S'�"��,°��.,��yP s' �v�y' ��: i 3 °t �"r r �V$',�` �..�P k' ,.�
��"g� rA �1 b� �..a`�.� .++� ����44�q ��i � ��` ,�r* {R�M:�e ���:
rt ��� r.�^�y .r1;.. '+'�°� ^ 'aM� . y ' a" �� ��, . �
t ,,;.
n M�. MY',✓' ' � T� �•.Exe,..�y_,' �"F. ,� t� .. ,y . :. .a�Fi,
>P*a°M �'�,.. ..r� q�• ��.,ey- 5 rt! T,� ��.' ti$ . .r '�+:
;�:i.,��7.�-. ':r,� ,�,+��o.-:i` �Y! �t�.: �a�� � � ,t., �, '�'� {, ..s ,� �R', ,b
,r ' R `-� �c h? V t � t' :
�; Vk:v .,,�"• r � ..�..� �4" +�� � .t
�:S` ��yi.. 6G�'�; ��,y :�a�r'. ,y� �:,� � i,. S�Y:r`. f�,� ���,
i r�, t ..r !'� � 7i � � �a /� .4 { 'q`� ib.
� x � "� 1 .A' : � ��
i.y �i,� � +�t � �i* �:�+� �h.
� �,,, <.,
°1�'�.� �; � � h�'i o� ��`^'�a `'� y.� ,.' r ,:�r ' •,p�, yY, '�R.�u�,y(A 'f ��� �.��.
�+��` � � ..'n' �"3,y � x '�'� �� r �. � '.� ^�ti�@��
'k,y✓h �- • � +F,� ��x i. �i�' Y, %,
i'� d � +�T (�w
,�`����`'y�, i' yY ,JR�' t �" y� �rY� w� A., �' Y : +�i
��'.yi ,� �r , r� r} � ,��' �
�'•''Wssy� ' 'L�`j #.� �w m��� y ;
?� �Ei '-^5�-,} . ���G` w. ��;r�P� �$'�J:� s�A � �'�
��"^ .�;S���i � :r:J`t�!' .�+.. a� �"�=�< , :�� � '� .��;y,��
:.,s�, Y� L^'i-�'y..,�,in �(1,� _ i �•���«� .^y. + -: +: �� .'��:
1 . r ��.fl��u �r(+ w �rrs�'.�W
�r . 'K ,: �g,:' �7 Y I 1 .�'*'
�'� '-^�`S'�' "� L E � ��+h�'✓� � ,�' � . �.K '� ,pp�,, � �,* y,�"�f�, � ��.� tu���
.s��y : t�it '°��?�,r` S't�t �.' , 7 .
��k' � � � .s . l .' sa. � yt � �, :�1..� � �y a�.'y '
4? Y: FM1}��� ,&, -�«� 1'i. . �'� A Q � (', i�� � �r y� ��s% .
�' 1. � � �� G c 'r� }•w.�<
�} � .j•.�.,�.�,,.,.. /, �7� '},,� , 'd
� ri. � �:�: '
t� , � a l�,r�; � :� �r •'�, a„ ,. � ,�r,� � i I �.
E �� �,, � �4� � . a�* ��„� i���� �, _.,r
� �.� .,� � , � � '�„,:°�, � 7 �� � � . �' .'
�,�t °�� } t> .. '• s!„��. ,� a . , .+��,r`�. 4�. W'�y�'�..v�� �R.
� �: ,�• �i, " :� p �t�r { . �s � �" 4�. " . s v:t � ,� �5���* ' .`,
�w k�r i� f� c ,.�1a y+ 8��� j� �% .: yi - x.�� ♦
r a � s'� ; r ~ �"L�, fc1� >� �F�a. �� ,. � .. ft � �,"�
� -'�� v n� ..
f� �,>o . . F.�'�' � . t ,.+. . r!�� ��� r ��v+� ' a..; r;e �� f' s�;"
� � �p �,' a it.- ✓' . a'�- .a�L�y, �` h ' �r. r �":
�� ♦ 'J 'c *�j���kr( �..$> �'���,' ar�� '��'�y �� �. �,`�a." t v�
;�' � t � r�"� �'' ` � ��j �"��
��� '"'`� �'� t r � �a! �. ��� i,,�w��`E
�' x . �"��f . r�,
��-F �t .1� f .� a`„ . �:^�y� � 7
i�R ''' ,�,
,,/�,. ; � '� :?� .� l a�
�A�y� .'v ?
?� ��' Y ��, '�W � 'v :.+m �x: � �.,�
Z / ,, �J z.` F'., .k;7P�� ��,• '1'i'�,��s t� "�,
� . .: � .
, . � • < . � � � �i
� � ��: ..c- ,� �'�r �s F r ��_
t � �_:.,. i J � ,� 5� .. , 4 ry k yr�
•' "....�...�:'�✓ k .s¢ :.^a ���'1`7 r � � � ii;.
� ^+� � � •..
C }. � . ', js �. yi ;n+. ��:'
� '� ,�,�.€' � �`" ,r' ,, ,. ,r„�?;:' �*"� ;�'. +- ...� _*.r�.
Z' ,� t� � .. "�' i. f. �;T' y, -�
� , :? / t' : Y �`r�,'.. $ � t��' �' ��. �:•�`ss
�.�
�'' � F!� ��j �.�t �"-^+ ���(� �"��
� zo. � � ��, U ,a� �„ ; w j°��B 2 t�,�"k.� ` `„
: �. ' :� ..+ ` �
� � ��� .a� . ; "•� �,
�-. a4;�.1,� . ..r '' � �" .. t ',.• ��s" :s '�
r�h �H '1. z :R:: • �i�i i:.
1 1� 'a����:f' ,�
,,�� 'r�n'� � r ' �� ��� n 'e �A� 4,.� d �, . l/ _;c�
� � ` y ��Q d' �1�
: .r t .
d, ,.i, . �. ' Y . :i•� y _ �G ! �k
� _ ��ia 5; A � y., f
� > ;�� � � ..
'� r ,14 k�i�� E '.w. �� .
� � n ��'�" �.. �� �� 1� �a: � u,
�� y ,. ij 'F. Y N
� .� �� 's". r� �u.. �r. �`�'�.�t
��� � e^�� � ' •r +f��� ��I�� t,�� +Y
��� � ..r�: s� {� s `}��:k. �>vr..,'.,t k e-.
�� ; . ; ,� v��,. ,, :'-� k
� p .a' �,#� � !�
�� m s" + � ' ^� � � ;�� � .�:,
M^ y� ��� *� p. Y ♦�,`�`~"'�w
��. ��� a ��� . -;,,'+� �":�
+� R�
•� �.,
f•
1 q�
! P t
' � i.
% � /
� r •
� �� � '� �..�_. _� � �,�� �`�� � _.�'� � �� ��:', � � —,,-- —� � �
� P
e � �� �; f,_
__�
, _
�.._.:� '�.___.,�� � d �`��` _A�� . � £'. �.___ _ �_ ' —�
���.��_���§��, �z���� �p������� � �����:��-�
�
� ;N ��:
m �,,.,::.a.� ,,,v.-..a�� ,��, �
� q, i
9 M,..�„ �,.
,. . .�., ,,,.,
t ro,
. ,5 i�. ... � . . .
. . . � a , . . . .
� � �� �
. . . � .. i ��k�� ��� '� %�'a�. .. .
�, �?.,� �.,"�, ;a.�� ��� � � .
� �� � � .��� �� � �,, � � a�r;.
� � � ��. � � ���� a�
,��, �: � � �� �� ��, � �� n��� �
� � � � ��,,�,�
. �. � �; �' i`r ' E '
� =3: � � �. � � t ��a� ��7�
'K#7 t . °��" � fi'�,� r `" ?'� " I k"!R�` �
, � �
,y�` ,4 �56.. .; , �: � '�'� v .-. `°- ' z t '�' .��.. '�� ����.��`�M��i`��.. ";
� P� r � E � ��� E ��r
� t
,;¢�� �.. '�#^� i�' :3 .,'���^`�"' .d-•- � "ss�t:,� ^ ^z,�.
� �,
� R� :Y.rc.�, ,:' ' ., . �.
'�.: �� ,.. .�. ..- ��s
xa
at
BpI'
,l', vN+u.,
,
, �.
� ,� .
� � .,� .,. � �: �;� �..
�
�
J �
''v' �a.q;�=" 'b k °� ( t s.�. �' t� i' .ry �i i r �-:^e + 1sa'�� p �s�pq� v�.:
� E 'p'ak.'P�i'�*"1;� � �,r� `° ��. � s IM t
� �, �;i�� « �ti � �r°��` 't a ���`�,�� JMrq e r
°, � ,� � " �r � � �'�"�,�z� � ��''� �� �'� �� '��
�u a a�'� � 7�,-:"�a s� ",����'��r . �'�r,-'�'� rr �3
,w.� � � dw'�� � � c s ``�,� �}��w ,r�i .a4�. �a ,� . „�*'��. �"�','�'A,t� r.:...�:s. s rt� �,a�
�. enY Y 4't""r., � k&t S �J�`ll . �. i .
tl }1 k iy
1 i,d �`9. 4't �t ft � �y � � ��' � � �N� +�y�',� �1�`�4 °`°sR k"0.-�a�" ',� ` � � �` � �`
.,�!�� ,i_.r,. �a„.�b "� " j ,�����as�`ry ,y ��. �, ����`�;,+7ms�e ,� �, "?`.tr^zk ``'°��' �„ �, „, '"�• ,x ' 'P .„ rt .
� �4�� �O� � d' W ; � �:.`. .�,�'"'' »�'i a.�t u
y
,.
,.
'�� , ff"�.-r � � ., �"�ii �'""�'' „.�,, � �'aa� � i'¢r°'°s
, a �
n
.
� ���
,E���Eac�*.�a,. � � �?.,�. �. . ��,. �`, , ,.-� " 4«�+�i; .. ,� � ��.� s
� .ti . ..., . ` ." f
j +
.az=
t@na��a�,.: � ,. .... . . .. � c'� d �.. ��;z ' �'�� ti.
. .:�. r�`...
�. , r a . �4,. ,..�.,q0.�,p . � 1' q� *d . �',Y .1
�� 2.
�A "� '�s ,� '` ro-'`,L a�"� .�'.
� " . �j& M:�,?+M�� J� �`� �i pkt,
'i�vr �Y , S 9s
. .{r ��p ',� `� �:: .„
v4��"T Mma ,.� b�4 �,bh:a �.
�7 � y p Si
�6 ,s„ � � "` �° �� t#��t�`�;
wh i��',{F ;��� ti ti r`
'`
' ' , t„ � � �b`�� `�s;.. ���.+�r^ ,,g.z � �,y,� 4,vb ..a
���� + � �
� ,"' �
�� re : � �`" . ., ;,irte �
i a: },��; r a;,. ;' '�. '� � �'' '� �i���� ������ ����r�..� � � �
�4„3 . .�' C+ ,:jqt7t 'P 3' � ,tF�'`' �y ��°y ' I I� ra� � �»`
� � �a �a � ll, 4���i �� i i�� �:<i , "�
,�" ��_ ��s, �° s �c�°� ��i ,=�M� �� ,
�ai � ;t . y ��
�
`r ' s.�f,� ro.��t �
� *:#^ � _a�',"
�
� �I ,�3 p .�.� �;�� � �
:t" I�.,,,„,� . �+ ��,1�E,���qp �
�
_ � '�ti"� .a ' E �F w
, . 1fo- �_$'�' .q,
�n. +�d � ,�h , h � �.
� a ���'�b",�� ` , ����.'�,�3+�1��"��"C ��"�k�rp?" � �?�
� �, E 1 6 Y W�� �y .�� �
, v'yqr�, v�",4p.
? '�,..$ ^ryk" «h�*9r"a .
� ��
„\�w . .. t�." �'$�9 � ` � N�,�:�'M
'."��:��� � � �i'��, .. �e Js i4. �1�` °6
... �� k ��� � :;
..,,�' �` � . � .
t 3
,..,.wu.� � �' 'as ��` '�;��{ru���(a''t i�,�3 dra:' A: '�j r 9,
'��,s ` ,,,^ � a'� "`�yr �`,#"$��' r�ii'�W �'��` yy�s
r
�$� q. "�°`�2 �9.s��°i^�+�"� ' '� �,'�t',`��;r4��e�, �x�`��`���°�. �� � ;#;
� �� •
''�. q°�' � � � �4�'�, ty�,��,
x 'v.3+ k'1 µ o
:.�¢� ��1�.. „1 p ....��- �i �I�t��,"' . d.Y,- :
. .,�+.'' , .
��r�.µ_. , �' $A �-. � �$ � a�'4 .� ; '�
�� r f � ;. � . °'
, � � �tk�i �� �� � �� . � �� � ��T� �� �
:�' @ 9 �r�O� °i� W i. � a . �
p;� ��'� �r �".y� �; s �''�.. '�',�r; �.z',� ��;�
- �� �.°��" `� f. -j ,=^3
.:�,fks'.�n _ . . .. . .. -
TRB
September 7, 2007
� c�
Honorable Mayor & Distinguished Members of the City Council `� v -+
City of Palm Desert r-; r���
73-510 Fred Waring Drive �° �r;..-,.`;
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 —� ^'=�►�-�
�,;..._
� ���,;"'`.,
Re: Stone Eagle's Disturbing Environmental Impact on Palm Desert � -+o�'
.. ,-�T,
Dear Council Members: v ''�
Stone Eagle's developers are requesting yet another concession from you for increased
fractional ownership. While I do not have a major problem essentially turning the
development into a hotel for a few more super wealthy folk, I do vehemently object to
granting another concession before they satisfy the original conditions of approval.
As you know, Stone Eagle's golf course irrigation has turned downstream portions of two
normally dry desert canyons, Bruce & Ramon, into wetlands complete with harmful
algae, non-native vegetation and of most concern, ideal disease carrying mosquito
breeding habitat. The stagnate and low flow algae covered surface water in both
canyons combined, e�ctends over a mile in length and provides ideal habitat for breeding
mosquito's. Vector Control has identified several mosquito sites and confirmed their
presence in both canyons. The high nitrate, human waste contaminated water, Stone
Eagle uses for irrigation, nearly insures that some mosquitoes will carry E. coli bacteria
and the West Nile Virus. As you may know, these conditions can be life threatening,
especially to very young and mature individuals, with just one bite from a contaminated
mosquito. Mosquito's typically fly in a three mile radius from their birth site, with a
potential range of fifteen miles, so no one in Palm Desert is safe. I would not be
surprised to learn that some of you, living in the vicinity of Stone Eagle, have
experienced increased mosquito encounters.
I have been a resident of Palm Desert for the past nineteen years and during most of
that time I have worked, saved and planned for retirement and building my dream home
in Cahuilla Hills. Unfortunately, I have been unable to enjoy my property for the past
three and half years. Every time I visit the property, with my fourteen year old
companion, my dog Cahuilla, she becomes violently ill. The only other dog that I am
aware of who has been in the canyon has experienced the same reaction, in fact spent a
weekend at the veterinarian hospital. In addition, we have found two dead coyotes,
which I have been told is a very unusual occurrence, and based on their droppings, the
remaining population appears to be suffering from a digestion related disorder. This is
not a good indication of a healthy environment. As so eloquently stated by our City
Manager in this years calendar: "The importance of the outdoors in our daily lives is part
of the attraction of living in Palm Desert...The beautiful weather and breathtaking
scenery beckons you to be outside...Palm Desert befieves in the value of these open
Email: bartlettc@aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: 760.773.3035
Cell: 760.534.7007
TRB
spaces and they are a source of civic pride for those who appreciate and use them."
This problem is not just my problem but affects us all.
You were aware of this condition when Stone Eagle gained approval of their residential
tract map, the subject of your next meeting. In fact, at the City Counci! Meeting of
September 22, 2005, see pages 17 through 19, you prudently addressed the problem
and diligently gained the developers assurance that the problem would be solved. The
developer did make an attempt to recapture the water flowing down each canyon by
constructing catch basins. Unfortunately this attempt was unsuccessful and the
developers proposed solution is to clean out the non-native vegetation on a quarterly
basis. Excuse me, but offering to clean up the weeds once every four months, after
creating a continuous stream of human waste contaminated water across my property, is
preposterous.
I am aware that you have a long favorable history with the developer. One of you shared
the rather humorous story of his footprints in the wet concrete during an evening
inspection of the work at Shadow Mountain Country Club in the eighties. I also have
known the developer for quite some time and I am aware of his environmental sensitivity.
Unfortunately, I believe his attention is directed to his new venture in La Quinta. I also
believe he is accustomed to receiving your support. In fact, when staff attempted to
insure compliance, upper management removed the incentive, but that was pail in
comparison to other concessions granted in his favor. He was allowed to commence
grading five months before he was granted a grading permit and received certificates of
occupancy without gaining a "final" grading permit still unresolved. He was allowed to
turn an approved open air pavilion into a fully conditioned and equipped "bar and grille",
and in addition, construct finro more open air pavilions, currently not shown on any plans.
He was allowed to use an open septic system when a closed system was conditioned.
He was allowed to use 100% contaminated water for irrigation when a substantial dilution
of potable water was conditioned. He was allowed to use chain link fencing, prohibited in
Palm Desert, when wrought iron was conditioned. He was allowed to develop hundreds
of acres without a landscape plan, still none exist for the golf course. He was allowed to
terrace or staircase the residential site where terracing is prohibited. He was granted
fractional ownership in a development agreement, when the zoning prohibits it. He was
allowed to construct improvements on ridge lines, when none is permitted and metal
buildings in a zone where they are prohibited, just to name a few.
You may also recall that at an earlier council meeting you forgave a $1,000,000 drainage
fee because you were led to believe that they would be making $1,300,000 worth of
improvements to Bruce and Ramon Creeks to control drainage. In fact, the funds were
used to construct scenic water features for the aesthetic benefit of future residents of
Stone Eagle. Furthermore in the actual drainage fee waiver request they declared, "The
Stone Eagle development wili not dump or direct any flow which may occur on any
of the city's property, nor on any other property adjacent to the Stone Eagle site.
Also we will not be increasing or contributing to the flow to the CVWD White Water
Channel." If the effluent is not entering the Palm Valley Storm Channel leading to the
Email: bartlettc@aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: 760,773.3035
Cell: 760.534.7007
TRB
"White Water Channel" as staff and the developer claim, then it is contaminating our
drinking water! This is a serious matter that requires your attention.
I have failed to negotiate an acceptable solution with the developer since my initial
contact in May of 2004. Until now, I have not considered utilizing either the power of the
media nor the residents of Palm Desert, trusting in staff's ability to prevail. Unfortunately,
staff has also failed in reaching an acceptable solution as we approach the forth season.
They are currently waiting for water testing results, however, it is not the quality of the
water that concerns me most, we already know it is contaminated, it is the mere
presence of the water.
We need your help. Please use your influence to motivate the developer to "do the right
thing," allowing him to preserve his reputation as an environmentally sensitive developer,
and resolving this potentially life threatening problem in the interest of public health, and
for the safety and welfare of all Palm Desert residents.
Sincerely,
Timothy R. Bartlett,
Palm Desert Resident
Email: bartlettc@aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: 760.773.3035
Cell: 760.534.7007