Agenda packet, regular meeting — Palm Desert City Council, August 22, 2024 (part 4 of 5)

CITY OF PALM DESERT

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2024
PREPARED BY: Ivan Tenorio, Homeless and Supportive Services Manager SUBJECT: REVISE FY 2024-25 ALLOCATION OF PERMANMENT LOCAL HOUSING

ALLOCATION PROGRAM FUNDS PURSUANT TO CONDITIONAL
AWARD LETTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $439,873
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Authorize Director of Finance to reduce FY 2024-25 PLHA Grant Revenue Account No. 2250000-3340000 in the amount of $521,016, to reflect revised award in the amount of $439,873.

2. Authorize Director of Finance to reduce PLHA Transfer Out Account No. 2254199-4501000 to General Fund Account No. 1100000-3910000 in the amount of $165,000 for a restated Transfer Out from PLHA of $100,000 in accordance with revised award from PLHA.

3. Authorize Director of Finance to increase PLHA Transfer Out Account No. 2254199-4501000 to General Fund Account No. 1100000-391000 in the amount of $141,873 to reimburse costs associated with prior year FY 2023-24 expenditures.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

On May 28, 2020, the City Council adopted the City's Five-Year Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Plan, which is overseen by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). At that time, it was projected that the City would receive approximately $1,028,000 over the five-year period to support programs addressing homelessness. The PLHA program is financed through a $75 recording fee on real estate documents, aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing. As such, this funding is subject to annual fluctuations in fee revenue. Currently, PLHA funds are used to support the following homelessness related costs:

Current
Contracts
Purpose Annual
Amount
City Net (City’s outreach provider) Pays for two full time outreach workers (Monday – Friday) that provide the following services:

Street outreach, case management, housing
navigation, and referrals to local shelters.
$150,000
Coachella Valley Rescue Mission
(shelter access)
Reserves Five Shelter Beds per month for
homeless individuals only from the City of Palm
Desert.
$45,000
Coachella Valley Association of
Government’s (CVAG) Coachella Valley
Housing First Program (housing
access)
Provides Two primary methods to housing
solutions: Rapid resolution, crisis stabilization
units, and street outreach.
$100,000
613
City of Palm Desert
Revise Permanent Local Housing Allocation

Page 2 of 2 ends

The Formula Allocation distributed by HCD on December 29, 2023 indicated that Palm Desert would receive $960,889 allocation as of July 2, 2024. However, staff received notice that an error in the allocation had occurred and on July 1, 2024 by HCD, HCD provided their Conditional Award and Commitment letter for PLHA in the much-reduced amount of $439,873.

This change requires an adjustment to the FY 2024-25 affected budget line items to reflect the revised grant amounts and prior year reimbursements. The following adjustments are needed:
1) Revenue reduction to Account No. 2250000-3340000 in the amount of $521,016. 2) Reduction to Transfer Out Account No. 2254199-4501000 in the amount of $165,000. 3) Increase to Transfer Out Account No. 2254199-4501000 in the amount of $141,873.

FISCAL ANALYSIS:

The changes to the FY 2024-25 budget remain within the contracted amounts for current homelessness services, therefore there is no additional impact to the General Fund with this action.

Additionally, in FY 2023-24 funds available were less than expended. Pursuant to the PLHA advancement program instructions, costs incurred within one year prior to commitment may be included as part of allowable expenses. Therefore, a portion of the FY 2024-25 will reimburse the General Fund for amounts paid in excess of the PLHA Revenue.

Fiscal Year 2024-25 PLHA Budget Reconciliation
Original PLHA Revenue Estimate $960,889
Necessary Adjustment to Revised Award ($521,016)
Revised PLHA Revenue Estimate $439,873
Less: Approved Contracts/Expenditures
Professional Other (City Net/CVRM) ($195,000)
Transfer Out to General Fund (CV Hsg/Bus Pass) ($100,000) FY 2023-24 Allowable Expenses (Reimb GF) ($141,873)
Remaining PLHA Grant Balance $3,000
ATTACHMENT:

1. December 29, 2023 PLHA Formula Allocation Round 4 Awardee List

2. July 1, 2024 NOFA Conditional Award Letter Round 4
614
615
616
617
618
619
620

Page 1 of 3 ends

CITY OF PALM DESERT

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2024
PREPARED BY: Carlos Flores, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 38434-1 AND

AGREEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 38431-1.”

2. Authorize the City Attorney to make necessary nonmonetary changes to the agreements.

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements.

4. Authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement for the construction and maintenance of a portion of public right-of-way.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

On November 17, 2022, the City Council approved the Refuge Specific Plan (SP22-0001), a request by Refuge Palm Desert, LLC (Applicant), 17755 Sky Park Cir, Ste 101, Irvine, CA 92614 to establish five planning areas, up to 969 residential dwelling units, and related improvements on a 106.4-acre site located at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway. Concurrently, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 38434 (TTM 38434) by Resolution No. 2022-93, to subdivide a 93.56-acre portion of the proposed site into one condominium lot (14.29 acres) and 339 single-family residential lots and its associated clubhouse, open space, retention basins, and infrastructure (approximately 78 acres).

On September 5, 2023, the Planning Commission approved, by Resolution No. 2841, a request to modify the layout to reduce the previously approved TTM 38434 to 332 single-family residential lots and modify pad elevations. On March 5, 2024, the Planning Commission approved, by Resolution No. 2859, an additional request by the Applicant to modify pad elevations.

TTM 38434 identified Lot A as a private open space lot totaling 1.16 acres. However, a portion of Lot A of TTM 38434, approximately 0.13 acres or 5,821 square feet, is public right-of-way (Explorer Drive), which is owned by the City of Palm Desert (City) and is now considered excess right-of-way. The Refuge Specific Plan included a vehicular circulation plan that designed a curvature of the proposed future extension of Explorer Drive, which created an excess portion of right-of-way. At a future date, the City intends to convey the 0.13-acre excess right-of-way to the Applicant.

Resolution No. 2022-93 and subsequent approvals did not include conditions of approval for Lot A. Final Tract Map 38434-1 omits the 0.13-acre excess right-of-way within Lot A for the approval and recordation of the map. Upon approval, the City will enter into an agreement with the 621
City of Palm Desert
Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 38431-1

Page 2 of 3 ends

Applicant for maintenance and infrastructure obligations of the excess right-of-way, which will remain in effect until the City conveys the 0.13 acres to the Applicant.

In addition, the City processed and approved an application for a Parcel Map Waiver (PMW23- 0006) for a lot line adjustment creating the boundaries of the condominium lot (14.29 acres) identified in TTM 38434. The Certificate of Compliance and perfecting deeds have been recorded in the official records of Riverside County.

The Final Tract Map No. 38434-1 (FTM 38434-1) is a phased portion of the map that includes 135 single-family residential lots, 10 public street and infrastructure lots, 11 lots of open space including retention basins, and one lot for the clubhouse (approximately 38.23 acres). The phasing of TTM 38434 was permitted through Condition of Approval No. 21 of Resolution No. 2022-93, with approval of the City Engineer and financial securities for all public improvements associated with the phase.

The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) document the maintenance obligations for the proposed site, which include maintaining all lots reserved for open space, landscaping and storm drain purposes, and all landscaping located in the public right-of-way adjacent to private property and within medians and roundabouts within the community.

The Subdivision Improvement Agreements (SIA) and Grading Agreement and associated bonds were subsequently submitted by the applicant to guarantee the completion of construction. The City Engineer has determined that FTM 38434-1 meets the application requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s ordinances. The Final Map has been deemed technically correct by the City Engineer, and the Conditions of Approval in the resolution have been satisfied for FTM 38434-1.

This item was considered at the July 11, 2024, City Council meeting and was continued to August 22, 2024, to allow for more time to review all the documents associated with the item.

Leading up to the July 11, 2024 meeting, the City received multiple complaints on the project with a focus on construction activity, pad elevations, and drainage. City staff had individual meetings and conversations with homeowners, created a project website on the City website to centralize project history, plans, and inspections, and conducted a community meeting at City Hall on June 25, 2024 to respond to resident questions and complaints. The following has occurred between July 11 and August 22, 2024:
 The developer finalized the “Del Webb Explore Action Plan” which included:
o Enhanced dust control measures
o Centralized e-mail and phone number to submit resident concerns o Process to request property damage claims
o Information and reasoning on drainage design
 City staff and the developer have continued to log and respond to resident concerns and inquiries which have focused on location of construction equipment, physical damage to surrounding properties, pad elevations, and drainage concerns. Both City staff and the developer have created a centralized log to input and respond to concerns in a timely 622
City of Palm Desert
Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 38431-1

Page 3 of 3 ends

manner. City staff receives updates from the developer on complaints received and responses.
 The City website has been continuously updated with information on the “Refuge Development,” including posting the “Del Webb Explore Action Plan.”  The Applicant provided updated securities estimates to include an additional bond in the amount of $1,711,957 to account for a revised engineering estimate on the street and storm drain bond.

Legal Review:

This report has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office.

Environment Review:

The proposed Final Map is a project under CEQA. The adoption of the Final Map is exempt from CEQA under Section 15268(b) of Chapter 3 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Section 15628(b) exempts ministerial approval by public agencies from CEQA. Final Maps are specifically cited as a type of ministerial permit. Therefore, this project qualifies for the identified exemption.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no direct impact to the General Fund with this action. However, once the proposed public streets are completed and accepted, their long-term maintenance will be the responsibility of the City of Palm Desert.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Conditions of Approval of Resolution Nos. 2022-93, 2841, and 2859

3. Tentative Tract Map 38434

4. Final Tract Map 38434-1

5. Grading Agreement

6. Grading Bond

7. Subdivision Improvement Agreement

8. Subdivision Improvement Bonds

9. Grant of Easement for Explorer Drive

10.Emergency Access Agreement

11.Maintenance and Easement Agreement

12.Vicinity Map

13.Public Comment

14.Explorer Action Plan
623
624
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT MAP 38434-1.

WHEREAS, Parcel Map conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Tentative Tract Map 38434 (TTM38434) was approved to subdivide 93.5 acre site into 1 condominium lot (14.29 acres) and 332 single family residential lots (approximately 70 acres): and
WHEREAS, the TTM 38434 identified Lot A as a private open space lot totaling

1.16 acres which included a portion of city right of way (5,821 square feet) of Explorer Drive. The future extension of Explorer Drive was designed to curvature the street resulting in portion of public right of way to be an excess area. The TTM 38434 identified this area as private open space; and
WHEREAS, the Final Subdivision Map of Tract Map 38434-1 has been approved by the City Engineer as a phasing map and securities posted for the associated phases.

Final Subdivision Map of Tract 38434-1 includes 135 single family residential lots, 10 lots for public streets, 11 lots for private open space, and 1 lot for the clubhouse (38.23 acres).

It has excluded the 5,821 square foot portion of right of way. City will execute a maintenance and easement agreement for that portion of right of way with Applicant to be maintained in perpetuity: and
WHEREAS, the Final Subdivision Map of Tract Map 38434-1, has met the Conditions of Approval for this project (Resolution Nos. 2022-93, 2841, and 2859).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. That the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The Final Subdivision Map of Parcel Map 38434-1, City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby approved as the official map of said tract, subject to the conditions of the Tentative Map.

SECTION 3. The Director of Development Services is directed to process the Parcl Map for recording upon receipt of the required payment of all fees.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon this adoption.
625
Resolution No. 2024-____ Page 2
ADOPTED ON ________________, 2024.

KARINA QUINTANILLA, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANTHONY J. MEJIA, CITY CLERK
626
Resolution No. 2024-____ Page 3
I, Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-__ is a full, true, and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on _______________________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Desert, California, on ______________, 2024.

ANTHONY J. MEJIA

CITY CLERK
627
628
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REVISION TO APPROVED PAD ELEVATIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38434 TO ACCOMMODATE A 332 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A 93.56-

ACRE PROJECT SITE SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE AND WEST OF PORTOLA ROAD WITHIN THE REFUGE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APNS:
694-310-009 & 694-31-011)
CASE NOS. TTM 38434 (TTM23-0002)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of November 2022, adopt Resolution No. 2022-93, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving the Refuge Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, did on the 17th day of November 2022, hold a duly noticed public hearing and adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022-94 to approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 38434 to subdivide 93.56 acres into individual parcels, including one (1) lot for condominium purposes, 339 single-family residential lots, and lots for public streets, private streets, and open space areas within the Refuge Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, Pulte Homes (“Applicant”), submitted a TTM Revision application to revise Tentative Tract Map 38434 to subdivide 93.56 acres into individual parcels, including one (1) lot for condominium purposes, 332 single-family residential lots, and lots for public streets, private streets, and open space areas (“Project”) within the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Project site has a land use designation of Town Center Neighborhood (TCN) in the General Plan adopted on November 10, 2016, and zoning designation of Refuge Specific Plan adopted on November 17, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of September 2023, hold a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2841, with conditions of approval, to approve the request by the Applicant for a revision to TTM 38434; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2841 approved pad elevations for the development based on a Preliminary Grading Plan dated August 17, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for a Rough Grading permit which proposed revisions to the aforementioned approved pad elevations, approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2841; and
WHEREAS, the Project can be found consistent with the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Report Program, adopted via Council Resolution No. 2022-93; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 629
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of March 2024, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Applicant for a revision to the approved pad elevations for TTM 38434; and

WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report exist to justify approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Findings on Tentative Tract Map. Under PDMC Section 26.20.100(C), the findings for the tentative map are the following:

1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the applicable Specific Plan requirements for lot standards, the circulation, and distribution of land uses. No changes to design or improvement are proposed as part of this action.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the mix of single-family and multi-family housing development. The site has suitable access, grading, drainage, and zoning to allow the development.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the density of development. The allowable density for the site has been evaluated by the General Plan. The Applicant has prepared the appropriate technical studies to assess that the site is physically suitable to DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 630
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
3 develop. The MND for the Specific Plan identifies required mitigation. No changes to density are proposed as part of this action.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The design of the subdivision and improvements will not cause damage or substantially injure wildlife habitat. The subject property is in an urbanized area of Palm Desert and is adjacent to major roadways, including Gerald Ford Drive. The site is vacant and surrounded by residential development to the west and commercial development to the east. A biological assessment of the site was prepared for the Specific Plan and did not identify suitable habitats for wildlife that could be damaged or affected as a result of the development of the Project.

Ground-disturbing activities for the development of the Project shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as well as preparation of a burrowing owl survey prior to ground-disturbing activities and prior to the removal of vegetation or tree removal shall ensure no habitat is damaged.

6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health problems. The Project is not located within a hazardous area that would be subject to flooding, liquefaction, landslides, fault zones, or other natural hazards. The Project does not generate adverse effects that would cause public health problems. Ground-disturbing activities are conditioned to prepare plans to control fugitive dust. The access locations to the subdivision have been evaluated in accordance with the Specific Plan and will not adversely affect public health.

SECTION 3. Project Approval. The Planning Commission approval for a revision to the approved pad elevations for Tentative Tract Map 38434, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and subject to the pad elevation matrix attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.

ADOPTED ON March 5, 2024

JOSEPH PRADETTO

CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

RICHARD D. CANNONE, AICP

SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 631
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
4 I, Richard D. Cannone, AICP, Secretary of the City of Palm Desert, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2859 is a full, true, and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: DELUNA, GREENWOOD, GREGORY, PRADETTO
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOLT
ABSTAIN: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Desert, California, on March _19_, 2024.

RICHARD D. CANNONE, AICP

SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 632
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
5 EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TTM 38434
PLANNING DIVISION:

1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Development Services Department, as modified by the following conditions.

2. The approved pad elevations for this project shall remain consistent with the pad elevations identified on Exhibit B of this resolution, as shown on the Rough Grading plan dated 2-12-2024, prepared by MSA Consulting, as part of Rough Grading permit RG23- 0005.

3. The Applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these project approvals for the Project, or the project approvals themselves, the Developer and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. Developer, at its sole expense, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to the Developer’s approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at the Developer’s sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the Developer and cooperate in the defense. The Developer, upon such notification, shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of the City Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect the information under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third-party litigation of project approvals without the Developer’s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed unless the Developer materially breaches this indemnification requirement.

4. All conditions of approval included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2841 shall be adhered to as part of this approval and project.

END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 633
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
6 Exhibit B
Approved Pad Elevations Matrix
Tentative
Tract Map Lot
Number
Tentative
Tract Map Lot
Pad
Elevations
Final Tract
Map Lot
Number
Final Tract
Map Lot Pad
Elevations
Difference
FTM-TTM Final Tract Number
1 294.4 1 294.5 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
2 294.2 2 294.2 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
3 293.9 3 294.0 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
4 293.7 4 293.7 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
5 293.4 5 293.4 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
6 294.0 6 293.4 -0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
7 293.8 7 293.7 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
8 293.6 8 294.0 0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
9 294.1 9 293.4 -0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
10 294.3 10 293.8 -0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
11 294.5 11 294.2 -0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
12 294.8 1 294.6 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
13 295.0 2 294.8 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
14 295.3 3 295.1 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
15 295.5 4 295.3 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
16 295.8 5 295.6 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
17 296.0 6 295.9 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
18 296.2 7 296.2 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
19 296.5 8 296.3 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
20 297.0 9 296.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
21 297.2 10 296.9 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
22 297.5 11 297.2 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
23 297.7 12 297.5 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
24 297.9 13 297.8 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
25 298.2 14 298.1 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
26 298.4 15 298.4 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
27 298.7 16 298.7 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
28 298.9 17 298.9 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
29 299.1 18 298.7 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
30 299.3 19 298.8 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
31 299.7 20 299.2 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
32 299.9 21 299.4 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
33 300.1 22 299.6 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
34 300.4 23 300.0 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
35 300.6 24 300.4 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 634
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
7 36 300.8 25 300.8 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
37 301.1 26 300.8 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
38 301.5 27 301.3 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
39 301.8 28 301.6 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
40 302.0 29 301.9 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
41 302.3 30 302.2 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
42 302.5 31 302.5 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
43 302.7 32 302.8 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
44 303.0 33 303.1 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
45 303.2 34 303.4 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
46 304.0 35 303.7 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
47 304.0 36 303.7 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
48 303.8 37 303.4 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
49 303.5 38 303.1 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
50 303.2 39 302.8 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
51 303.7 40 303.2 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
52 303.9 41 303.9 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
53 303.7 42 304.0 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
54 303.6 43 303.7 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
55 304.6 44 304.1 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
56 304.6 45 304.8 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
57 305.0 46 304.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
58 306.1 47 305.6 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
59 306.5 48 306.2 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
60 307.0 49 306.8 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
61 307.5 50 307.4 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
62 308.0 51 307.9 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
63 308.5 52 308.3 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
64 308.5 53 308.3 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
65 308.0 54 307.9 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
66 308.0 33 307.6 -0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
67 308.2 34 307.9 -0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
68 307.9 35 307.7 -0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
69 307.7 36 307.4 -0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
70 308.8 37 308.5 -0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
71 309.8 38 309.5 -0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
72 310.8 39 310.3 -0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
73 311.7 40 311.7 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
74 312.7 41 313.3 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
75 313.6 42 314.3 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
76 314.4 43 314.7 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 635
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
8 77 315.1 44 315.2 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
78 315.4 45 315.7 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
79 316.2 46 316.1 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
80 316.9 47 316.7 -0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
81 317.7 48 317.6 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
82 318.5 49 318.4 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
83 318.0 50 319.4 1.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
84 319.7 51 319.9 0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
85 317.2 52 317.9 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
86 316.2 53 317.0 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
87 315.0 54 315.9 0.9 38434-1 (Phase 1)
88 313.8 55 314.9 1.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
89 312.6 56 313.9 1.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
90 311.3 57 312.6 1.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
91 310.6 58 311.3 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
92 310.5 59 310.0 -0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
93 311.2 60 312.5 1.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
94 312.4 61 313.8 1.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
95 313.7 62 314.9 1.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
96 314.9 63 315.8 0.9 38434-1 (Phase 1)
97 316.1 64 316.7 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
98 317.2 65 317.5 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
99 314.2 66 315.0 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
100 313.3 67 314.0 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
101 312.2 68 313.0 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
102 311.1 69 311.9 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
103 310.0 70 311.0 1.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
104 309.0 71 310.0 1.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
105 305.8 72 307.1 1.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
106 304.8 73 306.0 1.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
107 303.8 74 304.9 1.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
108 302.7 75 303.7 1.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
109 301.6 76 302.5 0.9 38434-1 (Phase 1)
110 300.5 77 301.3 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
111 299.4 78 300.2 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
112 298.3 79 299.0 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
113 297.2 80 297.9 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
114 296.2 81 296.8 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
115 295.1 82 295.7 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
116 294.0 83 294.6 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
117 292.9 84 293.6 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 636
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
9 118 295.9 85 295.9 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
119 297.0 86 296.6 -0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
120 298.1 87 298.8 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
121 299.2 88 299.9 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
122 300.3 89 301.1 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
123 301.4 90 302.3 0.9 38434-1 (Phase 1)
124 302.4 91 303.4 1.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
125 303.5 92 304.6 1.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
126 304.6 93 305.8 1.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
127 305.7 94 307.0 1.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
128 306.8 95 308.1 1.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
129 307.9 96 309.1 1.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
130 309.0 97 310.0 1.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
131 310.0 98 311.0 1.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
132 311.1 99 311.9 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
133 312.2 100 313.0 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
134 313.3 101 314.0 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
135 314.2 102 314.8 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
136 312.4 103 311.6 -0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
137 308.8 104 309.1 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
138 308.8 105 308.2 -0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
139 306.0 106 307.3 1.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
140 304.7 107 306.1 1.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
141 303.6 108 304.8 1.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
142 302.5 109 303.6 1.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
143 301.4 110 302.3 0.9 38434-1 (Phase 1)
144 300.3 111 301.1 0.8 38434-1 (Phase 1)
145 299.3 112 299.8 0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
146 298.2 113 298.6 0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
147 297.1 114 297.4 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
148 296.0 115 296.3 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
149 295.0 116 295.2 0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
150 305.7 117 306.1 0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
151 305.9 118 305.8 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
152 306.1 119 305.6 -0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
153 306.4 120 305.9 -0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
154 306.6 121 306.1 -0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
155 306.8 122 306.3 -0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
156 307.0 123 306.7 -0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
157 307.0 124 306.8 -0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
158 306.4 125 306.3 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 637
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
10 159 305.8 126 305.9 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
160 305.3 127 305.7 0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
161 304.9 128 305.0 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
162 304.3 129 304.7 0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
163 303.8 130 304.1 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
164 303.2 131 303.5 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
165 302.7 132 302.8 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
166 302.1 133 302.3 0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
167 301.5 134 302.0 0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
168 301.0 135 301.7 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
169 303.1 23 303.8 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
170 303.6 24 304.3 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
171 304.1 25 304.7 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
172 305.5 26 305.1 -0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
173 305.5 27 305.5 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
174 305.5 28 305.8 0.3 38434-1 (Phase 1)
175 306.0 29 306.0 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
176 306.3 30 306.3 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
177 306.7 31 306.6 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
178 307.0 32 307.1 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
179 307.0 55 307.2 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
180 306.7 56 306.5 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
181 306.3 57 306.0 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
182 306.0 58 305.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
183 305.7 59 305.2 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
184 305.5 60 305.0 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
185 305.8 76 305.3 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
186 306.0 77 305.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
187 306.3 78 305.8 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
188 306.5 79 306.0 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
189 306.7 80 306.3 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
190 307.0 81 306.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
191 305.1 82 304.6 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
192 304.2 83 303.7 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
193 303.7 84 303.2 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
194 303.1 85 303.0 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
195 302.5 86 302.2 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
196 302.0 87 301.8 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
197 301.6 88 301.5 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
198 301.6 104 301.5 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
199 302.2 105 302.0 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 638
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
11 200 302.6 106 302.2 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
201 303.0 107 302.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
202 303.4 108 302.9 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
203 303.8 109 303.3 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
204 304.2 110 303.7 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
205 304.7 111 304.3 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
206 302.9 112 302.9 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
207 302.8 113 302.7 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
208 302.6 114 302.5 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
209 302.4 115 302.3 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
210 302.2 116 302.0 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
211 301.9 117 301.7 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
212 301.7 118 301.4 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
213 301.5 119 301.2 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
214 301.2 120 300.8 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
215 301.0 121 300.6 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
216 301.1 138 300.6 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
217 301.3 139 300.9 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
218 301.4 140 301.1 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
219 301.6 141 301.3 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
220 301.8 142 301.6 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
221 302.0 143 301.8 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
222 302.2 144 302.0 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
223 302.4 145 302.3 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
224 302.6 146 302.5 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
225 302.8 147 302.7 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
226 302.9 148 302.9 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
227 302.2 149 301.9 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
228 302.0 150 301.7 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
229 301.8 151 301.5 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
230 301.2 152 301.2 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
231 301.4 153 300.9 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
232 301.1 154 300.7 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
233 300.9 155 300.4 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
234 300.7 156 300.1 -0.6 38434 (Phase 2)
235 300.5 157 299.8 -0.7 38434 (Phase 2)
236 300.3 158 299.6 -0.7 38434 (Phase 2)
237 300.4 173 299.9 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
238 300.6 174 300.1 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
239 300.8 175 300.3 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
240 301.0 176 300.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 639
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
12 241 301.2 177 300.7 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
242 301.4 178 301.0 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
243 301.6 179 301.2 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
244 301.8 180 301.5 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
245 302.0 181 301.7 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
246 302.2 182 301.9 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
247 303.5 183 303.2 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
248 302.8 184 302.9 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
249 302.6 185 302.7 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
250 302.4 186 302.4 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
251 302.2 187 302.1 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
252 302.0 188 301.9 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
253 301.8 189 301.6 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
254 301.6 190 301.4 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
255 301.4 191 301.1 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
256 301.0 192 300.6 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
257 300.0 193 300.3 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
258 300.6 194 300.1 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
259 300.4 195 299.9 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
260 300.2 196 299.7 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
261 300.0 197 299.5 -0.5 38434 (Phase 2)
262 298.9 166 298.6 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
263 299.1 167 299.0 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
264 299.3 168 299.3 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
265 299.5 169 299.6 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
266 299.7 170 299.8 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
267 299.9 171 300.1 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
268 300.1 172 300.3 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
269 300.0 159 300.4 0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
270 300.0 160 300.2 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
271 299.8 161 300.0 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
272 299.5 162 299.7 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
273 299.3 163 299.3 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
274 299.1 164 299.0 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
275 298.9 165 298.6 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
276 297.9 130 297.8 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
277 298.1 131 298.0 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
278 298.3 132 298.2 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
279 298.5 133 298.5 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
280 298.7 134 298.7 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
281 298.8 135 299.0 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 640
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
13 282 299.0 136 299.2 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
283 299.2 137 299.5 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
284 299.4 122 299.7 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
285 299.3 123 299.5 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
286 299.1 124 299.3 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
287 298.8 125 299.0 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
288 298.6 126 298.6 0.0 38434 (Phase 2)
289 298.4 127 298.2 -0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
290 298.1 128 297.8 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
291 297.9 129 297.5 -0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
292 296.9 97 296.8 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
293 297.3 98 297.4 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
294 297.7 99 297.9 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
295 298.1 100 298.5 0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
296 298.7 101 299.0 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
297 299.4 102 299.6 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
298 300.1 103 300.2 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
299 300.3 89 300.4 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
300 299.8 90 300.0 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
301 299.4 91 299.6 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
302 299.0 92 299.2 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
303 298.5 93 298.9 0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
304 298.1 94 298.5 0.4 38434 (Phase 2)
305 297.6 95 297.8 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
306 296.9 96 296.8 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
307 296.0 68 295.7 -0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
308 296.2 69 296.3 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
309 296.4 70 296.6 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
310 296.7 71 296.8 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
311 296.9 72 297.1 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
312 297.2 73 297.5 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
313 297.6 74 297.9 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
314 297.8 75 298.1 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
315 297.6 61 297.9 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
316 297.3 62 297.6 0.3 38434 (Phase 2)
317 297.1 63 297.3 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
318 297.8 64 297.0 -0.8 38434 (Phase 2)
319 296.6 65 296.8 0.2 38434 (Phase 2)
320 296.4 66 296.5 0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
321 296.1 67 296.0 -0.1 38434 (Phase 2)
322 294.9 22 294.8 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 641
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859
14 323 295.1 21 295.1 0.0 38434-1 (Phase 1)
324 295.3 20 295.4 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
325 295.5 19 295.7 0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
326 295.7 18 296.1 0.4 38434-1 (Phase 1)
327 295.9 17 296.4 0.5 38434-1 (Phase 1)
328 296.1 16 296.7 0.6 38434-1 (Phase 1)
329 296.2 15 296.9 0.7 38434-1 (Phase 1)
330 295.0 12 294.9 -0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
331 295.3 13 295.4 0.1 38434-1 (Phase 1)
332 295.5 14 295.7 0.2 38434-1 (Phase 1)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3966F8E0-9900-4586-90DF-15BD97C5D423 642
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REVISION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38434 TO MODIFY THE LAYOUT TO ACCOMMODATE A 332 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A 93. 56- ACRE

PROJECT SITE SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE AND WEST OF
PORTOLA ROAD WITHIN THE REFUGE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ( APNS:
694- 310- 009 & 694- 310- 011)
CASE NOS. TTM 38434 REVISION NO. 1 ( TTM23- 0002)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 171h day of November 2022, adopt Resolution No. 2022- 93, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration MND) of Environmental Impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving the Refuge Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, did on the 17th day of November 2022, hold a duly noticed public hearing and adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022- 94 to approve Tentative Tract Map ( TTM) 38434 to subdivide 93. 56 acres into individual parcels, including one ( 1) lot for condominium purposes, 339 single-family residential lots, and lots for public streets, private streets, and open space areas within the Refuge Specific Plan (" Specific Plan"); and
WHEREAS, Pulte Homes (" Applicant"), submitted a TTM Revision application to revise Tentative Tract Map 38434 to subdivide 93.56 acres into individual parcels, including one ( 1) lot for condominium purposes, 332 single-family residential lots, and lots for public streets, private streets, and open space areas (" Project") within the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Project site has a land use designation of Town Center Neighborhood TCN) in the General Plan adopted on November 10, 2016, and zoning designation of Refuge Specific Plan adopted on November 17, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Project can be found consistent with the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Report Program, adopted via Council Resolution No. 2022- 93; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of September 2023, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Applicant for a revision to TTM 38434; and
WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report exist to justify approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
643
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Findings on Tentative Tract Map. Under PDMC Section 26. 20. 100( C), the findings for the tentative map are the following:

1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The map has been found to be consistent with the density, lot development standards, and land uses of the Specific Plan and the General Plan Land Use Designation for the Town Center Neighborhood. The TTM creates 332 single-family residential lots within Planning Areas 2 and 3. The number of lots is consistent with the minimum allowable density for the Specific Plan. All comply with the minimum requirements for lot sizes and dimensions established by the Specific Plan. The TTM provides for a circulation of public streets and private streets, which is consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan. The tract provides for a distribution of open space and private amenity areas, which is consistent with the Specific Plan.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the applicable Specific Plan requirements for lot standards, the circulation, and distribution of land uses. The dedications for public right-of-way are consistent with the applicable circulation elements of the Specific Plan.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the mix of single- family and multi- family housing development. The site has suitable access, grading, drainage, and zoning to allow the development.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the density of development. The allowable density for the site has been evaluated by the General Plan. The Applicant has prepared the appropriate technical studies to assess that the site is physically suitable to develop. The MND for the Specific Plan identifies required mitigation.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
2 644
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
The design of the subdivision and improvements will not cause damage or substantially injure wildlife habitat. The subject property is in an urbanized area of Palm Desert and is adjacent to major roadways, including Gerald Ford Drive. The site is vacant and surrounded by residential development to the west and commercial development to the east. A biological assessment of the site was prepared for the Specific Plan and did not identify suitable habitats for wildlife that could be damaged or affected as a result of the development of the Project.

Ground- disturbing activities for the development of the Project shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as well as preparation of a burrowing owl survey prior to ground-disturbing activities and prior to the removal of vegetation or tree removal shall ensure no habitat is damaged.

6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

SECTION 3. Project Approval. The Planning Commission approval for a revision to Tentative Tract Map 38434, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit A" annuls the prior map approval under Resolution No. 2022- 94.

ADOPTED ON September 5, 2023
loe adotto( Sep

JOSEPH PRADETTO

CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

RI HARD D. CANNONE, AICP

SECRETARY
3 645
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
I Richard D. Cannone AICP Secrets Secretary f o the City of Palm Desert, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2841 is a full, true, and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert on September 5, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: GREENWOOD, HOLT, and PRADETTO
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
RECUSED: DE LUNA and GREGORY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Desert, California, on September, r
023.

RICHARD D. CANNONE, AICP

SECRETARY
4 646
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TTM 38434 REVISION NO. 1
PLANNING DIVISION:

1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Development Services Department, as modified by the following conditions.

2. The Applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these project approvals for the Project, or the project approvals themselves, the Developer and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. Developer, at its sole expense, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City ( including its agents, officers, and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to the Developer' s approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at the Developer' s sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the Developer and cooperate in the defense. The Developer, upon such notification, shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of the City Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect the information under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third- party litigation of project approvals without the Developer' s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed unless the Developer materially breaches this indemnification requirement.

3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to the approved development standards listed in the PDMC, and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.

4. The TTM shall expire if recordation of the said Project is not completed within two ( 2) years from date of the original approval ( November 17, 2022) unless an extension of time is granted by the Palm Desert Planning Commission; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void, and of no effect whatsoever. Expiration date of this map is November 17, 2024.

5. The approved TTM shall only be modified with written City approval in accordance with the requirements of the Specific Plan and Chapter 26. 20 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code ( PDMC).
5 647
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

6. All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Development Services Department.

7. The Applicant shall execute a written acknowledgment to the Planning Division stating acceptance of and compliance with all the Conditions of Approval of Resolution No. 2841 for TTM 38434, and that the plans submitted are in compliance with the Conditions of Approval. No modifications shall be made to said plans without written approval from the appropriate decision- making body.

8. Prior t o h
the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall first obtain permits and or clearance from the following agencies:

Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Fire Department
Building and Safety Division
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Building & Safety Division at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith.

9. The Applicant shall establish a homeowners' association ( HOA). The HOA' s responsibility for maintenance shall include but is not limited to maintenance of private amenity areas and open space, landscaping, stormwater retention, and related infrastructure. The final maintenance plan shall include detailed text and illustrative diagrams indicating areas of responsibility for maintenance and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Development Services and City Engineer.

10. Prior to approval of the final map, the Applicant shall submit a final phasing plan, which identifies the timing of roadway improvements and open space.

A. The phasing plan shall indicate that full segments of Planning Area 5, shown as Lot " K" shall be completed and fully landscaped prior to the occupancy of any adjacent homes on Lots 1 through 46.

B. The entire amenity area shown on Lot O shall be completed prior to the occupancy of the 200th unit within Planning Area 3.

11. The pad elevations of all lots shall be consistent with the approved preliminary grading plan included in the project file. Adjustments that increase or decrease the pad elevation by six inches ( 0'- 6") or less shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services and City Engineer. Any change to a pad elevation shall require an adjustment to the grading and drainage plan for consistency.

A. Adjustments that increase the approved pad elevations on Lots 1- 46 by more than six ( 6) inches shall require approval by the Planning Commission. Exhibit B, attached to this resolution, provides the approved plan elevations for these lots, 6 648
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
per the preliminary grading and drainage exhibit drafted by MSA Consulting, dated August 17, 2023.

B. Adjustments that increase the pad elevations by more than six ( 6) inches on all other lots must be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved through the Director of Development Services. The Director of Development Services may refer the request to Planning Commission for approval.

12. The Applicant shall construct the circulation network for Street " A" and Street " B" as shown on the approved Specific Plan prior to any development within Planning Area 2 and/ or Planning Area 3.

13. All mitigation measures identified in the Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2022100013) and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP), shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the Project.

14. At recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall record an easement for a secondary Fire Department emergency access across Lot 333, which provides a connection between Street " A" and Street " B."
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:

15. The following plans, studies, and exhibits are hereby referenced: Specific Plan, prepared by MSA Consulting and dated August 2022; TTM 38434 and dated August 25, 2023; Preliminary Grading, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and dated August 17, 2022; Preliminary Utility Plan, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and dated June 2022; Preliminary Hydrology Report, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and dated August 18, 2022; and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. and dated August 19, 2022.

16. The map shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and with the City of PDMC Title 26, unless otherwise modified by the conditions listed herein.

17. It is assumed that easements shown on the preliminary grading exhibit are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. A current preliminary title report for the site will be required to be submitted during the technical plan review. The Applicant shall secure approval from all, if any, easement holders for all grading and improvements, which are proposed over the respective easement or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no effect. Should such approvals or alternate actions regarding the easements not be provided and approved by the City, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise the proposed site configuration as may be necessary.

18. It is understood that the conceptual exhibits correctly show acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Qs, and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the Applicant amend or revise the site plan as may be.
7 649
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

19. All common areas will be permitted as shown on the tentative exhibit, subject to these Conditions of Approval and the Applicant providing adequate provisions, by means of a homeowners' association ( HOA) or another equivalent responsible mechanism as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney, for the continued and perpetual maintenance of these common areas, and on- site post- construction Best Management Practices ( BMPs) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney.

20. The Applicant shall pay all, appropriate signalization fee prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the development in accordance with the City' s Resolution No. 79- 17 and 79- 55.

21. The Applicant may choose to develop the tentative map in phases with the approval of the City Engineer. Financial security shall be provided for all public improvements associated with each phase of the map. The boundaries of any multiple map increment shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require the dedication and construction of necessary utility, street, or other improvements beyond the project boundary, if the improvements are needed for circulation, parking, access, or for the welfare or safety of the public. This approval must be obtained prior to the Applicant submitting a Phasing Plan to the California Bureau of Real Estate.

22. If the developer chooses to construct the project in phases, a Construction Phasing Plan for the construction of on- site public or private improvements shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer.

23. Prior to map approval, the Applicant shall pay all, appropriate drainage fee in accordance with the City' s Municipal Code Section 26. 49 and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 653.

24. Prior to map approval, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate park fees in accordance with the City' s Municipal Code Section 26. 48. 060.

25. The Applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 843, Section 24. 20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance.

26. All utility extensions within the site shall be placed underground unless otherwise specified or allowed by the respective utility purveyor.

27. Prior to approval of any implementing development project, planning area, parcel/ tract map within the Refuge Specific Plan area, a development specific traffic letter shall be submitted to the City. The letter shall address consistency with the approved Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis assumptions. If it is determined that the proposed development is inconsistent with the approved report, the Applicant shall file an amendment to the approved traffic report describing the impacts of any proposed changes.

28. Prior to precise grading plan approval, the Applicant shall provide a Pedestrian Accessibility Route Plan that labels and indicates the path location and conceptual design of the following structures and facilities:
8 650
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
A. Sidewalks and walks ( public right of way sidewalk, walks within the development.

B. Directional curb ramps.

C. Vehicular crossings ( at driveways) shall meet state and federal requirements.

The Pedestrian Accessibility Route Plan shall clearly indicate structures that are proposed with the development and future per other phases and/or site plans. Pedestrian facilities privately or publicly owned) that are open to the public shall comply with accessibility standards in the California Building Code ( current) and Americans with Disability Act ADA) regulations.

29. Public improvements, constructed as part of the requirements for this project, that are non- compliant with the accessibility standards in effect at the time of construction or alteration, shall be brought up to current accessibility standards. This work shall be incorporated into the scope of this project and shall be completed prior to acceptance by the City. Improvements that are compliant with the accessibility standards in effect at the time of construction, shall be documented on a separate construction plan with detailed specifications ( running and cross slopes of all pedestrian walking surfaces, locations and dimensions and slopes of maneuvering spaces and landings, width of sidewalk, width, and vertical clearance from obstructions). The accessibility of existing improvements will be verified by City inspection staff upon completion of the project. Discrepancies between documented existing conditions and existing conditions as measured by City staff shall be remedied and brought up to accessibility standards as part of the Project.

30. Prior to a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a final grading plan for the site. No grading or other improvements shall be permitted until a final grading plan has been approved by the City Engineer. Grading plans and all grading shall conform to the approved Conceptual Grading Plan, the California Building Code, PDMC Title 27 Grading, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Palm Desert.

31. The grading plan shall provide for acceptance and proper disposal of all off- site drainage flowing onto or through the site. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, the Applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities and/or appropriate easements as approved by the City Engineer.

32. Pad elevations, as shown on the conceptual exhibit, are subject to review and modification per Chapter 27 of the PDMC.

33. Prior to approval of the grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed final flood hazard/ hydrology and hydraulics report for approval of the City Engineer. The report shall encompass the entire area of the subdivision and comply with all relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing the City of Palm Desert. Development specific recommendations for sizing of drainage facilities, systems, and conveyance systems shall be included for all areas within the subdivision.

34. All drainage and storm drain improvements shall be designed per PDMC Title 24, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District' s standards for the Drainage Element of the Palm Desert General Plan, and all other relevant laws, rules, and 9 651
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
regulations governing grading in the City of Palm Desert.

35. Prior to approval of the grading plans, the Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent ( NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such Evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. More detailed information regarding this General Permit, applicable fee information and the necessary forms to complete the NOI are available by calling ( 916) 341- 5537 or on the SWRCB web site at: Construction Stormwater General Permits I California State Water Resources Control Board. https:// www.waterboards. ca. gov/ water_issues/ programs/ stormwater/ constpermits. htm1

36. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a PM10 application for review and approval. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC Section

24. 12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control.

37. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) for review and approval of the Land Development department.

38. Where grading involves import or export, the Applicant shall obtain permits from the Public Works Department, including import/ export quantities and hauling route.

39. Prior to grading permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/ or permissions necessary to perform the grading shown on the grading plan exhibit. Proof shall be provided to the Land Development Division prior to issuance of grading permit.

40. It is assumed that the grading and the provisions for water quality management shown on the conceptual grading exhibit can comply with all requirements for a Final Water Quality Management Plan ( F- WQMP), without substantial change from that shown. Prior to approval of the grading plan for each Precise Plan Landowner shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a Final WQMP in conformance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ( RCFC& WCD) Whitewater River Watershed area for approval of the City Engineer.

41. All post- construction BMPs shall be designed based on the City of Palm Desert' s maximum infiltration criteria of one ( 1) inch/ hour.

42. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a signed and notarized WQMP Operations and Maintenance Agreement to the City. The agreement shall provide for the maintenance and operation of open space areas, common spaces such as parking lot and recreational facilities, trash disposal for common areas, and water quality BMP facilities, by either the property owners' association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common.

43. The Applicant' s Civil Engineer shall field verify that all BMPs are designed, constructed, and functional in accordance with the approved WQMP. BMPs shall be inspected and signed- off by the City Public Works/ CIP inspector. Coordinate inspection with staff and submit a completed verification form for review and approval. This condition will be at the 10 652
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
discretion of the City Engineer.

44. Prior to the issuance of grading permit and in compliance with the City of PDMC Chapter

27. 24, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement and post financial security guarantee for all grading work related to this Project.

45. Prior to the issuance of grading permit for each Precise Plan, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the City Engineer a final Geotechnical Report that includes project specific recommendations.

46. Prior to the start of grading activities, the Applicant shall install all erosion and dust control mechanisms for the site as approved by the City.

47. Upon completion of grading of each Precise Plan, the Project' s Geotechnical Engineer shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the approved grading plans and the recommendations of the geotechnical report approved for this Project. A licensed land surveyor shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans.

48. Prior to map recordation, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for all public streets and improvements.

A. Dedication of street on the final map shall be for public right- of- way purposes inclusive of street, drainage, and utility installation.

B. The following streets have been identified as future public streets during the review process and are identified in the referenced tentative map exhibit:

Portion/ Extension of Julie Drive, Street " A", Street " B", Street " C", Street" D", Street E", Street " F", Street " G", Street " H", Street " I", Street " J", Street " K", Street " L", Street " M", Street " N", Street " O", Street " P", Street " Q", and Street " R".

49. Final map shall show, as part of the Owner's Statement, retention of open space lots identified in the referenced tentative map exhibit. The following lots were identified as to be retained by ownership: Lot A through Lot O inclusive.

A. Any changes to the ownership of the lots will require approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Public Works.

B. Maintenance responsibilities for private common spaces and lots retained on the map shall be clearly detailed on the CC& Rs for the subdivision.

50. Final map shall show corner cutback dedication at all corner lots and public street intersections. Dedication at corner lots shall be adequate to accommodate all public infrastructure within the public street, including ADA compliant curb ramps.

51. Prior to the map recordation, the Applicant shall provide full- scale signing and striping improvement plans for all public streets as a separate set of plans from street improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. Signing and striping plans shall show existing improvements and modifications including, but not limited to, bike lanes, roundabout( s), travel lanes, pavement markings, turning arrows, etc. 11 653
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

52. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall pay a fair share contribution equivalent to

42. 9% of the design and construction cost for the signalization of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Way/ Vitalia Way intersection.

53. The final map may not be approved until the required improvements, as identified on these Conditions of Approval, have been satisfactorily constructed and approved by the City Engineer; or until an adequate security has been posted with the City, in accordance with PDMC Title 26. If construction is not completed prior to map recordation, the Applicant shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and post financial securities with the City for the required public improvements prior to map approval. The form and amount of the financial security shall be reviewed and approved by the City and be in compliance with PDMC Sections 26. 28. 030 and 26. 28. 040.

54. Prior to map recordation, unless corresponding securities are posted per Condition No. 53, the Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of improvements on Gerald Ford Drive in compliance with the Refuge Specific Plan. Improvements generally include, but not limited to:

A. If not in place or constructed by others prior to the proposed map recordation:

Street improvements, including meandering sidewalk, curb and gutter, and landscape and irrigation improvements along the Refuge Specific Plan boundary and transitioning to existing improvements to the east and west of the site.

B. A Class II bicycle lane in accordance with Coachella Valley Association of Governments Active Transportation Planning ( CVAG ATP) Design Guidelines Section 5. 3.

C. Improvements identified in these Conditions of Approval for public streets.

D. The Applicant shall show, as reference only, all existing and proposed utility connections. Utility plans shall be processed and approved by CVWD.

55. Prior to map recordation, unless securities are posted per Condition No. 53, the Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of Gerald Ford Drive/ Rembrandt Parkway intersection improvements in compliance with the traffic report prepared for Refuge Specific Plan and approved by the City. Improvements generally include, but are not limited to:

A. ADA compliant curb ramps.

B. Installation of intersection improvements to provide:
i. Northbound: one LT/TH lane, one ( 125 ft) RT lane
ii. Southbound: one shared LT/ TH/ RT lane
iii. Eastbound: one LT lane, two TH lanes, one ( 150 ft) RT lane iv. Westbound: one ( 150 ft) LT lane, three TH lanes, one RT lane v. Signalized intersection
C. Applicant to pay for full cost of intersection and roadway improvements, excluding traffic signal.

D. In addition, Applicant shall contribute a 42. 9% of the total design and construction cost for intersection signalization and improvements. The amount shall be per the City' s approved cost estimate and a form approved by the City Engineer.

E. Design for traffic signal shall consider interconnect to adjacent signals on Gerald 12 654
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N O. 2841
Ford Drive at Portola Avenue and at Gateway Drive shall be included as part of the design and construction cost estimates.

56. Prior to map recordation, unless securities are posted per Condition No. 53, the Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of improvements on Street "A" south of Gerald Ford Drive transitioning to proposed Street " A" in compliance with the Refuge Specific Plan and as identified in the traffic study. Improvements generally include but are not limited to:

A. ADA compliant curb ramps at driveway crossings.

B. Widening of Street " A" to a 44- foot roadway, north of the subdivision boundary to Gerald Ford Drive, providing landscape and sidewalk along both sides of the street. Street section shall provide for 44- foot roadway with the following geometries:
i. Northbound: one lane
ii. Southbound: one lane
C. In addition, the design shall include shared bicycle and golf cart lanes between Gerald Ford Drive and the extension of Julie Lane.

57. Prior to map recordation, unless securities are posted per Condition No. 53, the Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of Street " A"/ Julie Lane intersection improvements in compliance with the Specific Plan Traffic Report recommendations.

A. Applicant will be responsible for providing adequate right- of- way on the final map to accommodate all public infrastructure within the public right- of-way. Applicant will be the sole responsible party for any right- of-way acquisition, if any, that may be required in order to satisfy this Condition of Approval.

B. Install intersection improvements:
i. Roundabout per California Highway Design Manual ( CA HDM) and Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) guidelines, including enhanced central island and accessible pedestrian crossing.
ii. Modify existing westerly terminus of Julie Lane to join with required roundabout improvements.
iii. Sidewalk facilities shall be provided surrounding the roundabout. iv. Landscape improvements within public right- of- way will be required surrounding the roundabout.

58. Prior to map recordation, unless securities are posted per Condition No. 53 or the improvements are found by the City Engineer to no longer be required, the Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of Julie Lane/ Portola Road intersection improvements in compliance with the Specific Plan traffic report recommendations.

A. Install geometries to provide:
i. Northbound: one LT, three TH lanes, one RT lane
ii. Southbound: one LT, two TH lanes, one shared TH/ RT lane iii. Eastbound: one LT lane, one shared TH/ RT
iv. Westbound: one LT lane, one TH lane, one RT lane
13 655
PLANN ING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

59. Prior to map recordation, unless securities are posted per Condition No. 53, the Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of improvements of Street " B", the westerly extension of existing Julie Lane. Improvements shall be provided on both sides of the street and generally include, but not limited to: curb and gutter, landscape and irrigation improvements, landscape buffered sidewalks along roadways.

A. Proposed Street "B" shall extend and connect to proposed Street "F" as generally shown on the tentative map exhibit. Connection and roadway alignment shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

B. All signing and striping shall follow California MUTCD standards.

C. Proposed Street" B" and future condominium development parcel intersection shall be designed to include a mini roundabout per CA HDM and FHWA guidelines or as a three- legged intersection ( T- intersection). Final design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

60. Prior to map recordation, unless securities are posted per Condition No. 53, the Applicant is responsible for the construction and installation of improvements on proposed local streets. Improvements shall be provided on both sides of the streets unless otherwise specified on these conditions of approval and generally include, but not limited to: curb and gutter, and landscape and irrigation improvements, and landscape buffered sidewalks along roadways.

A. All signing and striping shall follow California MUTCD standards and be submitted as a separate set of plans for review and approval of the City Engineer.

B. Parking along 36- foot-wide interior streets shall be limited to one side of the street only.

C. Horizontal curves shall be designed per Highway Design Manual and shall provide adequate roadway expansion (widening) to safe vehicle circulation and movements.

D. Street design shall incorporate a roundabout per CA HDM and FHWA guidelines at the intersection of proposed Street " C" and Street " G".

E. Streets design shall incorporate mini roundabouts per CA HDM and FHWA guidelines at the intersection of proposed Street " G" and Street " J," as generally shown on the referenced tentative map exhibit. Final design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

61. Prior to issuance of encroachment permit for public improvements and/or map recordation, whichever comes first, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement and post financial security guarantee for the construction of all off- site/ public improvements in accordance with Chapter 27. 24 of the PDMC. The form and amount of the financial security shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall guarantee all improvements for a period of one ( 1) year from the date of final acceptance and the improvement guarantee shall be backed by a bond or cash deposit in the amount of ten percent of the surety posted for the improvements.

62. Prior to the map recordation, the Applicant shall submit grading and improvement plans for all private improvements and common areas for review and approval of the City Engineer.
14 656
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
A. Signing and striping shall be part of the plans and shall include stop signs and stop bars for vehicles exiting the amenities area parking lot.

B. All private improvements shall be kept within private property. Non- standard encroachments into proposed public right- of-way will not be permitted, unless clearly identified on these Conditions of Approval.

63. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the Applicant shall provide a full- scale signing and striping improvement plan for all public streets as a separate set of plans from street improvement plans for review and approval of the City Engineer. Signing and striping plans shall show existing improvements and modifications including, but not limited to, bike lanes, median break( s), travel lanes, pavement markings, turning arrows, etc.

64. Prior to a building permit for the first developed phase, proposed Street " A", Julie Lane, and Street " A"/ Julie Lane intersection improvements shall be in constructed and accessible. Recommendations of the traffic report may be phased as approved by the City Engineer, but in no case shall defer installation or payment of fair share for traffic signal at Gerald Ford beyond the first developed phase.

65. Prior to a building final inspection, the Applicant is responsible for the completion of construction of all grading and improvements for which plans are required.

66. Prior to final building permit inspection or certificate of occupancy, the Applicant is responsible for the completion of all public improvements within the corresponding development phase.

67. Prior to City acceptance of all public streets, the Applicant shall have completed all building and construction activities related to each construction phase. Street capping shall be performed after the last Certificate of Occupancy is released.

68. Prior to bond release, punch list work for improvements and capping of streets for each construction phase shall be completed and approved for acceptance by the City Engineer.

FIRE DEPARTMENT:

69. Fire Hydrants and Fire Flow: The water system shall be capable of delivering the required fire flow. Prior to PP ( plot plan) approval, information shall be provided to the Office of the Fire Marshal regarding the building' s occupancy type, construction type, building area, and whether the buildings will be protected with fire sprinklers.

70. Fire Department Access: Access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior building walls and shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet.

Fire access driveways with a dead- end exceeding 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved space to turn around the fire apparatus. The access roads shall be capable of sustaining 60, 000 lbs. over two axles and 75, 000 Ibs over three axles in all-weather conditions. Approved vehicle access, either permanent or temporary, shall be provided during construction. CFC 503. 1. 1, 3310. 1 and 503.2. 1 15 657
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

71. Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/ devices on fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted and approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. Ref. CFC 503. 4. 1.

72. Phased Construction Access: If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access for fire protection prior to any construction.

73. Fire Sprinkler System: All new commercial structures 3, 600 square feet or larger shall be protected with a fire sprinkler system. Ref CFC 903. 2 as amended by the City of Palm Desert.

74. Residential Fire Sprinklers: Residential fire sprinklers are required in all one and two-family dwellings per the California Residential Code ( CRC). Plans must be submitted to the Office of the Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to installation. Ref. CRC 313. 2.

75. Knox Box and Gate Access: Buildings shall be provided with a Knox Box installed in an accessible location approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. Manual gates shall be equipped with approved Knox equipment. Electric gates shall be provided with Knox key switches. Electric gate operators shall also be connected to a remote signal receiver compatible for use with the preemption devices on the Riverside County fire apparatus.

The gate shall automatically open upon receiving a remote signal from the fire apparatus.

Ref. CFC 506. 1.

76. Addressing: All residential dwellings and commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the premises and additional locations as required. Ref. CFC 505. 1 and County of Riverside Office of the Fire Marshal Standard # 07- 01.

77. The proposed Project may have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Department' s ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts include an increased number of emergency and public service calls due to the increased presence of structures, r u es, traffic, and population. The Protect proponents/ developers will be expected to provide for a proportional mitigation of these impacts via capital improvements and/or impact fees.
16 658
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841

EXHIBIT B
APPROVED PAD ELEVATIONS FOR LOTS 1- 46
Lot Approved Pad Elevation
Number NAVD 88)
1 294. 4
2 294. 2
3 293. 9
4 293. 7
5 293. 4
6 294. 0
7 293. 8
8 293. 6
9 294. 1
10 294. 3
11 294. 5
12 294. 8
13 295. 0
14 295. 3
15 295. 5
16 295. 8
17 296. 0
18 296. 2
19 296. 5
20 297. 0
21 297. 2
22 297. 5
23 297. 7
24 297. 9
17 659
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2841
5 298. 2
26 298. 4
27 298. 7
28 298. 9
29 299. 1
30 299. 3
31 299. 7
32 299. 9
33 300. 1
34 300. 4
35 300. 6
36 300. 8
37 301. 1
38 301. 5
39 301. 8
40 302. 0
41 302. 3
42 302. 5
43 302. 7
44 303. 0
45 303. 2
46 304. 0

END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
18 660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
LOT "E"
1,234 SF

0.03 AC.

PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

COMPACT CARCOMPACT CAR COMPACT CARCOMPACT CAR COMPACT CARCOMPACT CARCOMPACT CARCOMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR

GERALD FORD DRIVE
STREET "E"
STREET "D"
STREET "C"
STREET "B"
333
STREET "A"
1 N 89°54'53" E 274.39'
N 00°03'36" E 353.99'
N 89°56'24" W 539.40'
N 89°55'16" E 505.02'
N 00°03'39" E 1729.62'
N 00°03'36" E

81.78'
50'
2 33'
N 00°01'09" W 3332.57'
30'
20' 20' 10' 20'
12'
STREET "B"
60'
72'

CONDOMINIUM
B
E
A A
EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY
& LOT LINE
EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY
& LOT LINE
EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE
PROP. R/W (TYP.)
PROP. C/L (TYP.)
PROP. CURB (TYP.)
PROP. CONDOMINIUM

BOUNDARY & LOT LINE
PROP. RAISED MEDIAN

JULIE LANE
76'
PROP. R/W PER
TTM 37993
E
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
98 97 96 95 94 93
99 100 101 102 103 104
135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
136 137
150 168
84 167
1 2
3 4
5 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 STREET "F"
STREET "G"
4,934 SF
4,937 SF
4,940 SF
4,943 SF
4,946 SF
4,949 SF
4,952 SF
4,955 SF
5,905 SF
6,507 SF
8,696 SF
4,650 SF
4,650 SF
5,596 SF
6,652 SF
5,085 SF
5,583 SF
4,996 SF
6,789 SF
10,511 SF 8,208 SF
6,577 SF 5,759 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,698 SF 4,683 SF 4,992 SF 5,780 SF 7,612 SF 4,535 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 4,581 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 4,067 SF 4,536 SF 4,535 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 5,357 SF
4,535 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 3,901 SF 5,357 SF
4,727 SF 4,375 SF 4,375 SF 4,376 SF 4,377 SF 4,377 SF 4,378 SF 4,932 SF 10' 36' 10'
56'
622,131 SF

14.28 AC.
10' 36' 10'
56'
R
=
30 .0'
R
=
30 .0'
R = 300.0'
R = 150.0'
R = 20 .0'
R = 290.0' 10' 36' 10' 56'
10' 36' 10'
56'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
41' 21' 68'
56'
83'
55'
103'
20'
144'
106'
46' 20' 103'
95'
51' 106'
93'93'
95'
51'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
60'
101'
61' 93'
60'
121'
63' 101'
60'
156'
70' 121'
72'
20' 13' 156'
93'
99'
93'
93'
54'54'
100'
99'
73'
66'
614'
540'
536'
492'
52'
93'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
60'
61'
96'
62'
41' 46'
93'
93'
53'
94'
53'
63'
95'
63'
63'
116'
67' 63'
155'
93'
60'
93'
60'
53'
93'
53'
53'
93'
53'
53'
93'
53'
53'
93'
53'
53'
93'
53'
53'
93'
53'
53'
93'
53'
47'
93'
47'
93'
47'
93'
47'
93'
47'
93'
47'
93'
52'
78'
21' 37'
93'
56'
68'
21' 41'
83'
47'
47'
83'
47'
47'
83'
47'
47'
83'
47'
47'
83'
51' 21' 68'
83'
47'
83'
47'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
41' 21' 68'
56'
83'
52'
83'
21' 83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
56'
68'
21' 41'
83'
83'
49'
79'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
47'
83'
42'
2'
7 '
50'
68'
50' 50'
176'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 51'
66'
1'
R=48'
R=48'
LOT "C"
79,693 SF

1.83 AC.

LOT "C"
LOT "A"
47,240 SF

1.08 AC.

LOT "A"
LOT "B"
88,701 SF

2.04 AC.

LOT "A"
R
LOT "H" 2,851 SF / 0.07 AC.

D
D
D
D
10'
B
8' 44' 8'
C 80' C
10' 24' 24' 10'
12'
10'
24'
24'
C
10'
C
PROP. 24' TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT
24'
24'
LOT "D"
1,088 SF

0.02 AC.
47'
47'
93'
47'
47'
93'
47'
47'
93'
53'
53'
93'
51' 21'
66'
68'
536'
82'
646'
R = 64'

GERALD FORD DRIVE
SHEET 2
SHEET 1
NO

PARKING NOPARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR

SECTION C-C
STREET "C"
(PUBLIC ROAD)
N.T.S.

VARIES R/W
PROP.

R/W
PROP.

VARIES VARIES
10' 10'
CL
2% 2%
24' VARIES 24'
PROP. RAISED
MEDIAN
6' 6'
PROP. MOUNTABLE

BARRIER CURB
PROP. MOUNTABLE

BARRIER CURB
PROP. WEDGE

CURB & GUTTER
PROP.

SIDEWALK
A.C. PAVEMENT
OVER A.B
PROP. WEDGE

CURB & GUTTER
PROP.

SIDEWALK
NO

PARKING NOPARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR PH. 2

GERALD FORD DRIVE
PH. 1

SECTION B-B
STREET "B"
(PUBLIC ROAD)
N.T.S.
26'
72'
26'
R/W
PROP.

R/W
PROP.
36' 36'
10' 10'
CL
2% 2%
20' 12' 20'
PROP. RAISED
MEDIAN
6' 6'
PROP. BARRIER CURB PROP. BARRIER CURB PROP. CURB & GUTTER PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. SIDEWALK
A.C. PAVEMENT
OVER A.B

SECTION D-D
PORTION OF STREET "B", & STREETS "D" THRU "R"
(PUBLIC ROAD)
N.T.S.
18'
56'
18'
R/W
PROP.

R/W
PROP.
28' 28'
10' 10'
CL
2% 2%
6' 6'
A.C. PAVEMENT
OVER A.B
PROP. WEDGE

CURB & GUTTER
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. WEDGE

CURB & GUTTER
PROP. SIDEWALK

SECTION E-E

PORTION OF JULIE LANE
(PUBLIC ROAD)
N.T.S.
26'
76'
26'
TTM 37993
PROP. R/W PER
TTM 37993
PROP. R/W PER
38' 38'
12' 12'
CL
2% 2%
20' 12' 20'
PROP. RAISED
MEDIAN
6' 6'
A.C. PAVEMENT
OVER A.B
PROP. BARRIER CURB PROP. BARRIER CURB
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. CURB & GUTTER

SECTION A-A
STREET "A"
(PUBLIC ROAD)
N.T.S.
22'
60'
22'
R/W
PROP.

R/W
PROP.
30' 30'
8' 8'
2% 2%
6' 6'
CL
A.C. PAVEMENT
OVER A.B
PROP. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. SIDEWALK
MSA CONSULTING ,INC.

Civil Engineering LandSurveying Landscape Architecture
Planning Environmental Services DryUtilityCoordination GIS 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com SHEET
SHEETS
2 OF
1 EAST
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST

CENTERLINE

EASEMENT

EXISTING
(E)
(N)
(S)
(W)
C/L
ESMT.

EX.

ABBREVIATIONS

AC ACREAGE

C&G CURB AND GUTTER

APN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER

E/P EDGE OF PAVEMENT
A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE
MIN. MINIMUM
MAX. MAXIMUM EXISTING IRRIGATION

EXISTING GAS

EXISTING EASEMENT

EXISTING ELECTRIC

EXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINE

EXISTING CABLE

EXISTING CONTOURS

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS
LEGEND
X

EXISTING EASEMENT DELTA

EXISTING LOT LINE

EXISTING TELEPHONE

BNDRY BOUNDARY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
M.B. MAP BOOK
NUMBER

PROPOSED

RIGHT OF WAY

TYPICAL
NO.

PROP.

R/W
TYP.

P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

SF SQUARE FEET

R RADIUS
STD. STANDARD

P/L PROPERTY LINE
N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE

R-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL)

UG UNDERGROUND

O/H OVERHEAD

OS/PP OPEN SPACE / PARKS
PG. PAGE

EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE

EXISTING SEWER

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED CURB

PROPOSED EASEMENT

EXISTING CITY / COUNTY LIMITS

EXISTING SEWER FORCE MAIN

EXISTING WATER

PROPOSED LOT LINE

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINE

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP BOUNDARY
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38434

DATA TABLE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 694-310-002, 694-310-003 & 694-310-006 EXHIBIT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2023
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:

ADDRESS:

INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.
7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503
DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY: OCTOBER 26, 2016 TELEPHONE: (951) 687-4252 PUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

SPECTRUM

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
EXISTING GROSS & NET ACREAGE 93.56 AC.

EXISTING ZONING:

PROPOSED ZONING:

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:

PLANNED RESIDENTIAL

TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD
LAND USE DESCRIPTION: ACREAGE:

PROPOSED OPEN SPACE LOTS (LOTS "A" THRU "N") 11.91 AC.

PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM LOT (LOT 333) 14.28 AC.
1 EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES:

ZONE "X": AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD

AS SHOWN ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS, COMMUNITY PANEL MAP NUMBER 06065C1595G
FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:

EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28, 2008.

APPLICANT /
ADDRESS:

CONTACT:
1775 SKY PARK EAST, SUITE 101
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614

MARC KLEIMAN
EXHIBIT PREPARER:

ADDRESS:

MSA CONSULTING, INC.
34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270
CONTACT: PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE: (760) 320-9811

REVISIONS
NO. DATE
LIQUEFACTION: MODERATE LIQUEFACTION ZONE
NOTES: 1.

TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD

IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(760) 324-4991
(800) 427-2200
(800) 921-8101
(760) 398-2651
(877) 719-3278
(760) 398-2651
(800) 227-2600

DESCRIPTION
ELECTRIC:

GAS:

TELEPHONE:

WATER:

CABLE:

SEWER:

USA:

A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN.

LAND OWNER:

THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER.

2. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ON THIS PROPERTY.

REFUGE PALM DESERT, LLC
FOR ROADWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, PER DOCUMENT NO. 86352, REC. 10/15/1960, O.R. (PLOTTED HEREON)
AN EASEMENT UP TO 50' RESERVATION IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE LOT (LOT "O") 4.74 AC.

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOTS (LOTS 1 THRU 332) 40.93 AC.

N.T.S.

VICINITY MAP BOB HOPE DRIVE GERALD

RAMON ROAD
FRANK

MONTEREY

PORTOLA
AVENUE
AVENUE

DINAH SHORE

COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
INTERSTATE 10

CITY OF
RANCHO

COOK STREET
MIRAGE

CITY OF
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
SINATRA DR.

FORD DRIVE
SITE

INDEX MAP
SCALE: 1" = 300'
2 FOR ROADWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, PER BK. 4811, PG. 137, REC. 05/06/1959, O.R. (PLOTTED HEREON)
AN EASEMENT UP TO 33' RESERVATION IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SHEET MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET NO. 2

PHASING MAP
SCALE: 1" = 350'
PROPOSED STREETS (STREETS "A" THRU "R") 21.70 AC.

3. ALL STREETS TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND UTILITY

INSTALLATION AND ALL LETTERED LOTS (A THROUGH O) TO BE RETAINED BY OWNERSHIP FOR STORM DRAIN AND LANDSCAPE PURPOSES WITH HOA MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY.

R:\2636\Acad\Planning\Tentative Map\2636 TTM 38434.dwg, 8/25/2023 12:47:46 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc. 677
STREET "O"
STREET "G"
STREET "G"
STREET "G"
STREET "J"
STREET "P"
LOT "G"

CLUBHOUSE
LOT "O"

WOODWARD DRIVE
N 00°01'09" W 3332.57'
N 00°02'47" E 1332.86'
N 89°53'06" E 1323.12'
EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY
& LOT LINE
EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY& LOT LINE
150 168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
184
183
182
181
180
179
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
151
152
153
154
155
156
190 189
188
187
186
185
197
196
195
194
193 191 192
205 204 203
202
201
200
199
198
215
214
213
212
211
210
206 207 208 209
226 225 224 223 222 221 220 219
218 217
236 235
234
232 233 227 228 229 230 231
246 245 244 243 242 241 240 239 238 237
250 251 252 253 254 255 248 249
247
256 257 258 259 260
261
268 267 266 265 264 263 262
269
270
271 272 273 274
275
277 276
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289 290 291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299 300
301
302
303
304
305 306
307
308
309
310
311
312 313 314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
332
331
330
2 3
4 5
8 7
6 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
216
STREET "Q"
STREET "L"
STREET "M" STREET "N"
STREET "H"
4,450 SF
8,696 SF
8,690 SF
6,913 SF
6,066 SF
5,922 SF
5,926 SF
5,648 SF
5,652 SF
5,655 SF
5,941 SF
5,945 SF
5,665 SF
5,667 SF
5,954 SF
6,056 SF
6,015 SF
5,983 SF
6,101 SF
5,970 SF
5,688 SF
5,691 SF
5,979 SF
5,982 SF
5,700 SF
5,703 SF
7,263 SF
10,362 SF
13,634 SF
8,423 SF 6,373 SF 5,699 SF 5,692 SF 5,684 SF 5,677 SF 5,670 SF 6,134 SF 6,120 SF 5,642 SF 5,635 SF 5,627 SF 5,896 SF 7,789 SF 9,882 SF
9,830 SF
7,740 SF
5,851 SF
5,605 SF
5,604 SF
5,883 SF
5,882 SF
5,601 SF
5,599 SF
5,919 SF
6,265 SF
6,413 SF
5,882 SF
5,592 SF
5,591 SF
5,590 SF
5,868 SF
5,587 SF
5,586 SF
5,864 SF
6,356 SF
7,901 SF
4,369 SF
4,642 SF
4,567 SF
4,811 SF
4,650 SF
4,650 SF
5,596 SF
6,151 SF 5,497 SF
5,115 SF
6,572 SF
4,692 SF
4,650 SF
4,650 SF
4,650 SF
5,433 SF
5,607 SF
6,935 SF
7,207 SF
5,804 SF
5,580 SF
5,580 SF
5,580 SF
5,580 SF
6,045 SF
6,285 SF 6,513 SF 6,762 SF
5,614 SF
5,580 SF
5,580 SF
6,328 SF
7,054 SF
6,960 SF 7,137 SF
5,651 SF
5,254 SF
5,202 SF
5,110 SF
5,110 SF 5,622 SF
5,770 SF
5,244 SF
5,264 SF
5,123 SF
5,279 SF
5,279 SF
5,839 SF
4,306 SF 4,150 SF 4,535 SF
4,402 SF
4,669 SF
4,832 SF
4,588 SF
5,881 SF
4,316 SF
3,901 SF
3,901 SF
3,961 SF
4,172 SF 4,172 SF 4,019 SF 4,536 SF
5,468 SF
5,186 SF 4,806 SF 5,487 SF 5,632 SF
5,091 SF
5,401 SF
5,147 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 5,572 SF 9,449 SF 5,115 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF
9,449 SF
4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 5,115 SF 4,650 SF 5,229 SF 5,572 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 4,650 SF 5,467 SF 4,650 SF 4,723 SF 4,866 SF 5,055 SF 5,376 SF 5,649 SF 5,744 SF 5,082 SF 5,411 SF
3,901 SF
3,901 SF
3,901 SF 3,957 SF 4,042 SF 4,042 SF 3,901 SF 3,942 SF 4,042 SF 4,535 SF 4,203 SF 3,901 SF 3,955 SF 4,166 SF
4,290 SF
4,514 SF
4,885 SF
5,058 SF
5,313 SF
6,077 SF
5,770 SF
5,206 SF
5,110 SF
5,110 SF
5,110 SF
5,110 SF 5,268 SF 4,838 SF
5,421 SF 4,892 SF 5,244 SF
5,244 SF
4,989 SF
5,110 SF
5,622 SF
6,068 SF
5,789 SF
6,242 SF
7,363 SF
6,412 SF 6,398 SF
10,326 SF
8,571 SF
8,174 SF
7,895 SF
7,581 SF
7,253 SF
5,085 SF
5,155 SF
5,155 SF
5,155 SF
5,155 SF
5,155 SF
5,259 SF
4,650 SF
4,650 SF
5,563 SF
6,378 SF
7,025 SF
6,799 SF
7,080 SF
6,872 SF
6,584 SF
6,397 SF
6,595 SF
5,828 SF
5,771 SF
4,650 SF
4,650 SF
4,953 SF
5,062 SF
5,062 SF
5,062 SF
5,569 SF
4,996 SF
6,789 SF
10'
10'
36' 10'
56'
10' 36' 10'
56'
10' 36' 10'
56'
R = 150.0' R = 300.0' R = 150.0' R = 300.0' R = 300.0' R = 300.0' = 300.0' R = 30 .0' R = 1010.0' R = 510.0' R = 400.0' R = 400.0' R = 285.0' R = 400.0' R = 400.0' R = 300.0' R = 200.0' 0' R = 450.0' R = 20 .0' R = 290.0' 10' 36' 10'
56'
10' 36' 10'
56'
20'
13'
64'
77'
58'
52'
68' 21' 37'
60'
76'
67'
55'
21' 78'
70'
5 7' 121'
88'
21'
5 5' 93'
78'
56'
83'
41'
21' 68'
93'
76'
60'
93'
45'
21' 78'
41'
21'
83'
56'
68'
93'
55' 93'
93'
50' 93'
93'
93'
48' 93'
93'
48' 93'
55'
93'
93'
76'
49'
99'
106' 60'
100' 60'
60' 94' 65'
65' 94'
43' 118' 121'
107' 51'
97'
53' 107'
61'
93'
50' 97'
93'
50' 93'
93'
5 0' 93'
93'
55' 93'
18' 96'
6 5' 94'
72' 59' 105'
79'
58' 95'
60' 93'
60'
60'
93'
60'
60'
93'
61' 93'
41' 32'
124' 55'
99'
65'
93'
65'
93'
51'
99'
50'
93' 60'
93'
60'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93' 60'
93'
60'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93' 60'
93'
60'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
60'
93'
60'
93'
63'
96'
59'
65'
93' 50' 96' 62'
107'
21' 98'
93'
22' 78'
101'
14'
97'
60' 116'
63' 101'
60' 108'
62' 116'
58' 103'
77'
108'
58' 103'
78' 21'
68'
98'
45'
21' 88'
49' 101'
97'
93' 50'
50' 93' 50'
50' 93'
93'
50' 93' 50' 93'
93'
50' 93' 5 ' 93'
78' 21'
93'
46' 21' 125'
58'
131' 48' 93'
93' 50'
50' 93'
57' 131'
88'
113'
50' 93'
50' 93' 48' 93'
59' 113'110'
49' 93'
93'
49' 93'
106'
59' 110'
93'
49' 93'
93'
49' 93'
102'
59' 106'
93'
49' 93'
99'
59' 102'
93' 93'
93'
54'54'
100'
99'
73'
49' 93'
93'
49' 93' 64' 93'
93'
93'
93' 49' 93'
93'
48' 93'
93'
5 3' 93' 104' 45' 83'
48'
90'
46' 96' 57'
88'
46' 56'
86'
84'
53'
83'
47'
83'
47'
47'
83'
48'
4 6' 83'
46' 84'
88' 46' 93' 46' 56'
101' 46' 96'
47'
93'
41' 18' 99'
93'
53' 93'
93'
93'
50' 93'
93'
50' 93'
93'
50' 50' 93'
49'
93'
54'
93'
17'
41' 83'
49' 91'
55'
94'
44' 21' 93'
47'
83'
47' 83'
50'
110'
52' 94'
47'
83'
47' 83'
50'
116'
110'
47'
83'
47' 83'
50'
107'
52' 116'
47'
83'
48' 83'
5 0' 100'
55'
107'
4 7' 83'
83'
5 0' 96'
54'
100'
4 7' 83'
83'
5 0' 93'
54'
96'
4 7' 83'
83'
49'
93'
52'
93'
47'
83'
48'
83'
50'
93'
50'
93'
47'
83'
47'
83'
60'
78' 21'
45'
93'
41'
21' 68'
56'
83'
49'
94'
54'
93'
5 0' 99'
58'
94'
49' 108'
58'
99'
50'
107'
50'
95'
52'
55'
93' 20'
4 5' 95'
52'
83'
52'
83'
47'
47'
83'
47'
47'
83'
47'
49'
83'
47' 83'
4 7' 83'
46'
50'
83'
58'
93'
55'
105'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
46'
21' 78'
58'
93'
55'
93'
55'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
93'
50'
132' 55' 93'
55'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
50'
132'
93'
46'
21'
58'
78'
50'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
50'
50'
93'
55'
98'
55'
93'
54' 117'
143'
59' 94'
96'
117'
94'
66'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
65'
94'
65'
94'
116'
54' 142'
94'
59' 116'
96'
93'
60'
94'
65'
93'
60'
93'
60'
93'
60'
93'
60'
93'
63'
93'
63'
93'
63'
93'
63'
93'
60'
93'
60'
93'
60'
93'
60'
96'
63'
95'
63'
99'
93'
75'
63'
93'
63'
60'
93'
60'
60'
93'
60'
63'
93'
63'
60'
93'
60'
60'
93'
60'
60'
93'
60'
63'
94'
63'
101'
65' 25'
99'
64' 99'
67'
101'
49'
82'
47' 94'
48' 101'
42'
10'
78'
50' 94'
52' 86'
10'
45' 93' 50'
50' 93' 50'
50' 93'
61' 96'
41' 46'
55'
93' 55'
51' 93'
93'
21'
65'
94'
65'
94'
60'
95'
60'
94'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
98'
95'
74'
59' 110'
21'
81'
98'
53' 159'
61'
78'
145' 59' 107'
114'
159'
95'
89'
95'
60'60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
63'
95'
63'
95'
63'
95'
63'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
60'
95'
63'
95'
63'
101'
63'
95'
63'
95'
60'
101'
100'
60'
95'
63'
94'
63'63'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
63'
94'
63'
94'
63'
94'
63'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
60'
94'
63'
94'
63'
94'
63'
94'
63'
116'
63'
155'
63'
121'
63'
101'
66' 63'
94'
63' 68' 5
6' 78' 60' 59' 65' 53' 72' 7 ' 99' 63' 65' 176 17 ' 6'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50'
98'
60' 60'
60'
59' 62' 62' 63' 74' 52' 68' 45' 66' 85' 86' 87' 65' 62' 62' 62' 61' 62' 62' 51' 72' 67'91' 88' 54' 54' R=61' R=61' R=61' R=48' R=48' R=48' R=48' R=48' R=48 R ' =48' 51' 51' 51' 51' 65' 59' 59' 59' 51' 69' 77' 59' 69' 72' 71' 57' 65' 49' 59' 60' 66' 81' 64' 64' 61' 50' 62' 58' 60' 60' 60' 60' 72' 54' 54' 55' 56' 62' 71' 50' 68' 206,538 SF

4.74 AC.

LOT "L"
52,150 SF

1.20 AC.

LOT "I"
2,752 SF

0.06 AC.

LOT "J"
2,905 SF

0.07 AC.

LOT "M"
2,767 SF

0.06 AC.

LOT "O"
22,474 SF

0.52 AC.

LOT "F"
4,227 SF

0.10 AC.

LOT "K"
210,048 SF

4.82 AC.

LOT "K"
LOT "K"
R = 61' R = 48' 71' 64' 65' 5
6' 83' 46' 64' 75' 84' 75' 66' 60' 53' 57' 60' 60'50' 65' 46' 46' 70' 56' 51' 8 1' 50' 60'60' LOT "H" 2,851 SF / 0.07 AC.

LOT "N"
1,939 SF

0.04 AC. R =
61' R = 61' R = 61' D
D
D
DD
DD
10' 36' 10'
56'
DD
10' 36' 10'
56' STREET "R"
10' 36' 10' 56'
10'
36'
10'
56'
10' C
STRE T "J"
STREET "I"
STRE T "H" STREET "K"

GERALD FORD DRIVE
SHEET 2
SHEET 1
NO

PARKING NOPARKING

NO PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR COMPACT CAR MSA CONSULTING ,INC. Civil Engineering LandSurveying Landscape Architecture Planning Environmental Services DryUtilityCoordination GIS 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com SHEET
SHEETS 2
OF 2
EAST
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST

CENTERLINE

EASEMENT

EXISTING
(E)
(N)
(S)
(W)
C/L
ESMT.

EX.

ABBREVIATIONS

AC ACREAGE

C&G CURB AND GUTTER

APN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER

E/P EDGE OF PAVEMENT
A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE
MIN. MINIMUM
MAX. MAXIMUM EXISTING IRRIGATION

EXISTING GAS

EXISTING EASEMENT

EXISTING ELECTRIC

EXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINE

EXISTING CABLE

EXISTING CONTOURS

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS
LEGEND
X

EXISTING EASEMENT DELTA

EXISTING LOT LINE

EXISTING TELEPHONE

BNDRY BOUNDARY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
M.B. MAP BOOK
NUMBER

PROPOSED

RIGHT OF WAY

TYPICAL
NO.

PROP.

R/W
TYP.

P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

SF SQUARE FEET R RADIUS
STD. STANDARD

P/L PROPERTY LINE
N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE

R-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL)

UG UNDERGROUND

O/H OVERHEAD

OS/PP OPEN SPACE / PARKS
PG. PAGE

EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE

EXISTING SEWER

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED CURB

PROPOSED EASEMENT

EXISTING CITY / COUNTY LIMITS

EXISTING SEWER FORCE MAIN

EXISTING WATER

PROPOSED LOT LINE

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINE

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP BOUNDARY
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38434
EXHIBIT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2023

REVISIONS
NO. DATE

IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DESCRIPTION
N.T.S.

VICINITY MAP BOB HOPE DRIVE GERALD

RAMON ROAD
FRANK

MONTEREY

PORTOLA
AVENUE
AVENUE

DINAH SHORE
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE INTERSTATE 10

CITY OF
RANCHO

COOK STREET
MIRAGE

CITY OF
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
SINATRA DR.

FORD DRIVE
SITE

INDEX MAP
SCALE: 1" = 300'
SHEET MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET NO. 1
R:\2636\Acad\Planning\Tentative Map\2636 TTM 38434.dwg, 8/25/2023 12:48:07 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc. 678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
April 11, 2023
in the City of Palm Desert
MSA JOB #2636

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR
North of Frank Sinatra Drive
Tract Map No. 38434-1
Project Location:

Prepared for:

Pulte Home Company, LLC
27401 Los Altos, Suite 400
Mission Viejo CA 92691

DEL WEBB EXPLORE AT PALM DESERT STREET AND STORM DRAIN

IMPROVEMENTS

Page 1 of 5 ends

APPROVEDTY
04/17/2024
779

DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Street
Install 3" A.C. Pavement Over 6" Class II
Aggregate Base SF 382,333 $4.00 $1,529,332.00
Install Decorative Pavement, Color and
Type Per Landscape Architect's Plans.

See Detail on Sheet 16 SF 5,585 $15.00 $83,775.00
Construct 6" Curb and Gutter Type I Per
City of Palm Desert Standard Plan No.
102 LF 4,455 $18.00 $80,190.00
Construct 6" Curb Type II Per City of
Palm Desert Standard Plan No. 103 LF 2,490 $15.00 $37,350.00 Construct 6" Wedge Curb. See Detail A
on Sheet 16 LF 9,840 $18.00 $177,120.00
Construct 6" Mountable Curb. See
Detail B on Sheet 16 LF 460 $15.00 $6,900.00
Construct Curb Transition (Wedge Curb
to Curb and Gutter) Per Detail on Sheet
16 EA 49 $125.00 $6,125.00
Construct Cross Gutter Type II Per City
of Palm Desert Standard Plan No. 108
with Modified Slope as Shown in Detail
on Sheet No. 16 SF 6,680 $10.00 $66,800.00
Construct Sidewalk Per City of Palm
Desert Standard Plan No. 104 SF 88,920 $5.00 $444,600.00 Construct Curb Ramp Case A Per
County of Riverside Std. No. 403 EA 22 $2,500.00 $55,000.00 Construct Curb Ramp Case C Per
County of Riverside Std. No. 403 EA 4 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 Construct Curb Ramp Case D Per
County of Riverside Std. No. 403 EA 9 $2,500.00 $22,500.00 Const. Combination Curb Inlet Catch
Basin No. 1 Per County of Riverside Std.

Dwg. No. 300, See Plan For W.
(Modified; 2" Wide Per City Direction) EA 14 $5,000.00 $70,000.00

Page 2 of 5 ends

780
Construct Gutter Depression for
Combination Grate Opening Catch
Basin Per County of Riverside Std. Dwg.

No. 311 (Modified; 2' Wide Per City
Direction) EA 14 $240.00 $3,360.00
Install Stop Legend, Limit Line, Sign
Post, Stop Sign and Street Name Sign
Per Stop Sign Legend and Sign Post
Detail on Sheet No. 14 EA 13 $800.00 $10,400.00
Sawcut and Join Existing Pavement Per
Overlay Join Detail on Sheet No. 16 LF 220 $3.00 $660.00 Adjust Water Valve To Grade Per CVWD
Standard And Specifications, See
Separate Proposed Water Plans EA 37 $300.00 $11,100.00
Adjust Sewer Manhole To Grade Per
CVWD Standards And Specifications,
See Separate Proposed Sewer Plans EA 52 $600.00 $31,200.00 Install 4" A.C. Pavement Over 6" Class II
Aggregate Base (Fire Access Road) SF 20,610 $4.00 $82,440.00 Storm Drain
Furnish and Install 18" HDPE Storm
Drain. See HDPE Typical Trench Section
Sheet 20 LF 545 $40.00 $21,800.00
Furnish and Install 24" HDPE Storm
Drain. See HDPE Typical Trench Section
Sheet 20 LF 270 $50.00 $13,500.00
Furnish and Install 30" HDPE Storm
Drain. See HDPE Typical Trench Section
Sheet 20 LF 1,165 $60.00 $69,900.00
Furnish and Install 36" HDPE Storm
Drain. See Typical Trench Section Sheet
20 LF 550 $70.00 $38,500.00
Furnish and Install 18" x 11.25° HDPE
Bend EA 1 $400.00 $400.00
Furnish and Install 18" x 45° HDPE Bend EA 1 $400.00 $400.00

Page 3 of 5 ends

781
Furnish and Install 30" x 45° HDPE Bend EA 1 $600.00 $600.00 Furnish and Install 30" x 18" HDPE WYE EA 1 $600.00 $600.00 Furnish and Install 30" HDPE End Cap EA 1 $600.00 $600.00 Furnish and Install 18" HDPE End Outlet
Structure EA 2 $600.00 $1,200.00
Furnish and Install 36" HDPE Flared
End Outlet Structure EA 1 $650.00 $650.00
Furnish and Install 60" Inside Diameter
Manhole Per CVWD Dwg. Std. S-5 EA 5 $6,000.00 $30,000.00 Furnish and Install 72" Inside Diameter
Manhole Per CVWD Dwg. Std. S-5 EA 2 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 Construct Concrete Collar Per R.C.F.C.D.

Std. Dwg. No. M803 EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Construct Rip-Rap Energy Dissipater
Pad Per City of San Diego Dwg. No.

SDD-104 and Detail on Sheet No. 17 and
20 EA 3 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
Construct Storm Drain Bubbler Outlet
Per Detail on Sheet No. 20 EA 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
Install Inlet Structure Per Detail A on
Sheet 20 EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
SUBTOTAL OF STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS $2,938,502.00 15% CONTINGENCY $440,775.30
TOTAL $3,379,277.30
Assumptions:

1. 2. The above opinion does not include raw land, legal fees, agency permits, professional engineering fees, construction phasing, bonds, financing/carrying costs, construction staking, soils testing, accounting or construction management.

These quantities are based on the Del Webb Exlore at Palm Desert Street and Storm Drain Improvement Plan completed on 04/03/2024.

Page 4 of 5 ends

782

3. MSA Consulting Inc. makes no representation concerning the estimated quantities and cost figures other than that all such figures are opinions only and the Engineer shall not be responsible for any fluctuations in cost factors or the actual quantities shown.

Page 5 of 5 ends

783
784
785
786
787
788
789
April 26, 2024
in the City of Palm Desert
MSA JOB #2636

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR
North of Frank Sinatra Drive
Tract Map No. 38434-1
Project Location:

Prepared for:

Pulte Home Company, LLC
27401 Los Altos, Suite 400
Mission Viejo CA 92691

DEL WEBB EXPLORE AT PALM DESERT MONUMENTATION

Page 1 of 2 ends

790

DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Street
Monumentation LOT 135 $300.00 $40,500.00
SUBTOTAL OF MONUMENTATION $40,500.00
15% CONTINGENCY $6,075.00
TOTAL $46,575.00
Assumptions:

1. 2.

The above opinion does not include raw land, legal fees, agency permits, professional engineering fees, construction phasing, bonds, financing/carrying costs, construction staking, soils testing, accounting or construction management.

These quantities are based on the Del Webb Exlore at Palm Desert Final Tract Map 38434-1 completed on 04/25/2024.

Page 2 of 2 ends

791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR
North of Frank Sinatra Drive
Tract Map No. 38434
Project Location:

Prepared for:

Pulte Home Company, LLC
27401 Los Altos, Suite 400
Mission Viejo CA 92691

DEL WEBB EXPLORE AT PALM DESERT STREET AND STORM DRAIN

IMPROVEMENTS
June 26, 2024
in the City of Palm Desert
MSA JOB #2636

APPROVED
C.F. 07/03/2024
802

DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Street
Install 3" A.C. Pavement Over 6" Class II
Aggregate Base SF 231,173 $4.00 $924,692.00
Install Decorative Pavement, Color and
Type Per Landscape Architect's Plans. SF 4,580 $15.00 $68,700.00 Construct 6" Curb and Gutter Type I Per
City of Palm Desert Standard Plan No.
102 LF 1,260 $40.00 $50,400.00
Construct 6" Wedge Curb. LF 12,815 $40.00 $512,600.00
Construct 6" Mountable Curb. LF 314 $35.00 $10,990.00
Construct Curb Transition (Wedge Curb
to Curb and Gutter) EA 17 $150.00 $2,550.00
Construct Cross Gutter Type II Per City
of Palm Desert Standard Plan No. 108
with Modified Slope SF 2,978 $20.00 $59,560.00
Construct Sidewalk Per City of Palm
Desert Standard Plan No. 104 SF 84,410 $6.00 $506,460.00 Construct Curb Ramp Case A Per
County of Riverside Std. No. 403 EA 6 $6,000.00 $36,000.00 Construct Curb Ramp Case C Per
County of Riverside Std. No. 403 EA 18 $6,000.00 $108,000.00 Construct Curb Inlet Catch Basin Per
County of Riverside Std. Dwg. No. 300,
See Plan For W and H EA 12 $10,000.00 $120,000.00
Construct Gutter Depression for Curb
Opening Catch Basin Per County of
Riverside Std. Dwg. No. 311 EA 12 $2,000.00 $24,000.00
Install Stop Legend, Limit Line, Sign
Post, Stop Sign and Street Name Sign EA 6 $800.00 $4,800.00

Page 2 of 3 ends

803
Adjust Water Valve To Grade Per CVWD
Standards And Specifications, See
Separate Proposed Water Plans EA 51 $800.00 $40,800.00
Adjust Sewer Manhole To Grade Per
CVWD Standards And Specifications,
See Separate Proposed Sewer Plans EA 41 $800.00 $32,800.00 Construct Spillway/Access Ramp EA 4 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 Storm Drain
Furnish and Install 18" HDPE Storm
Drain. LF 1,578 $80.00 $126,240.00
Furnish and Install 30" HDPE Storm
Drain. LF 638 $180.00 $114,840.00
Furnish and Install 18" x 45° HDPE Bend EA 3 $400.00 $1,200.00 Furnish and Install 18" HDPE Flared End
Outlet Structure EA 5 $1,000.00 $5,000.00
Furnish and Install 60" Inside Diameter
Manhole Per CVWD Dwg. Std. S-5 EA 5 $4,500.00 $22,500.00 Install Rock Energy Dissipator per RCFC
& WCD Std. Dwg. No. JS333 EA 5 $500.00 $2,500.00
Install Inlet Structure EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
SUBTOTAL OF STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS $2,787,132.00 20% CONTINGENCY $557,426.40
TOTAL $3,344,558.40
Assumptions:

1. 2.

These quantities are based on the Del Webb Exlore at Palm Desert Street and Storm Drain Improvement Plan completed on 05/24/2024.

Page 3 of 3 ends

804
805
806
807
808
809
June 6, 2024
in the City of Palm Desert
MSA JOB #2636

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR
South of Gerald Ford Drive
Tract Map No. 38434
Project Location:

Prepared for:

Pulte Home Company, LLC
27401 Los Altos, Suite 400
Mission Viejo CA 92691

DEL WEBB EXPLORE AT PALM DESERT MONUMENTATION

Page 1 of 2 ends

OKAY FOR BONDING
C.F.
810

DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Street
Monumentation LOT 197 $300.00 $59,100.00
SUBTOTAL OF MONUMENTATION $59,100.00
15% CONTINGENCY $8,865.00
TOTAL $67,965.00
Assumptions:

1. 2.

These quantities are based on the Del Webb Exlore at Palm Desert Final Tract Map 38434 prepared on 06/04/2024.

Page 2 of 2 ends

811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825

OK FOR BONDING
C.F. 8/6/2024
826
827
828
TR.38434-1 Existing Bond No. 0259685: $3,379,277.30
TR.38434-1 Additional Bond Amount Required: $1,711,957.30 829 830
2023- 0150325
05/ 25/ 2023 01: 19 PM Fee: $ 0. 00

Page 1 of 6 ends

RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND Recorded in Official Records WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: County of Riverside
Peter Aldana
Assessor- County Clerk- Recorder
City Clerk' s Office
73-
Palm
510
of
Desert,
Fred
Palm
Waring
Desert
CA 92260-
Drive
2578
IIIN
Record for the Benefit of 41 I
the City of Palm Desert
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 This Space for Recorder's Use Only) APN: Portion of 694- 310- 007 and Portion of 694- 310- 010 Documentary transfer tax is $ 0. 00
Exempt from Documentary Transfer Taxes Pursuant to R & T Code Section 11922

GRANT OF EASEMENT
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, The City of Palm Desert, a municipal corporation, (" Grantor") hereby grants public use, to the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation (" Grantee"), an easement for Public Street purposes, hereby named Explorer Drive, and an easement for Public Utility purposes over, under and along the real property in the City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California, as described in Exhibit " A" and depicted on Exhibit " B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

The City of Palm Desert,
a municipal corpor n
L. T H LEMAN
Its: CITY MANAGER
Dated: 5/.9‘T/ 01- 6) 9-3
831
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of Riverside
On 5 94/ 2023, before me, in• Q. Sand-ez a
Notary Public, personally appeared /,.. T lb/OM/ 1 who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(,$') whose name( ) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ sf/ e/ tbfey executed the same in his/ h' r/ tVVieir authorized capacity(ie ), and that by his/ har/their signature( s) on the instrument the person( 4 or the entity upon behalf of which the person() acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
fry
A
NC11
Notary Public• California
1,, Riverside County
Signature qps* Commission M 2419214
L. + My Comm. Expires Oct 29, 2026
832

EXHIBIT ' A'

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

PUBLIC STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

BEING A STRIP OF LAND, VARIABLE IN WIDTH, LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN CORRECTIVE GRANT DEED, RECORDED APRIL 4, 2023 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2023- 0095443, AND A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED JULY 21, 2014 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2014- 0268859, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY. ALSO BEING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL " A" OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ( WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP PMW- 21- 0009), RECORDED APRIL 07, 2022 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2022- 0167200 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GERALD FORD DRIVE PER DOCUMENT NO. 247410, RECORDED NOVEMBER 01, 1985 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;

THENCE, LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL " A", ALSO BEING THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2023- 0095443, SOUTH 47° 23' 23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 34. 01 FEET;

THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 00° 03' 36" WEST A DISTANCE OF 942. 64 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL" A", AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2023-0095443;

THENCE, LEAVING SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2023- 0095443, SOUTH 89° 56' 24" EAST A DISTANCE OF 60. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2023- 0095443;

THENCE, LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2023- 0095443, AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION ACROSS PARCEL' A' OF SAID QUITCLAIM DEED, NORTH 00° 03' 36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 721. 56 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 06° 03' 39" EAST A DISTANCE OF 76. 52 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00° 03' 36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 145. 26 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 47° 22' 56" EAST A DISTANCE OF 33. 93 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID DOCUMENT NO. 247410;
THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 89° 55' 15" WEST A DISTANCE OF 118. 00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING AN AREA OF AREA OF 60, 171. 08 SQUARE FEET/ 1. 381 ACRES MORE OR LESS.

ATTACHED HERETO IS EXHIBIT' B' AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR SRO
LAND
SCR UNDER MY DIRECTION ON: 05/ 19/ 2023 ARNOLD

WHITAKER
N0. 7883
AR OLD HITAKER EXP. 03- 31- 25 of 6\0°`
PLS 78
SHEET 1 OF 1
833

EXHIBIT ' B'

PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR

PUBLIC STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
55' RIGHT OF WAY PER DOC, NO. 50 do SITE
247410, RECORDED 11/ 01/ 19/ 85, O. R. GERALD FORD Lo
CENTERLINE & N' LY LINE OF T. 4S., R. 6E. o0
N14 COR.

SECTION 32 T, 4S., R. 6E., S. B. M. SHEPHARD
LN
SEC. 32 BASIS OF BEARINGS 5'\ 1, 4D43
N 89° 55' 15' E 2635. 71' _
c_

FRANK SINATRA DR
GERALD FORD DR T. 5S., R. 6E.
cc L8
PUBLIC) NE COR. o w ` o
a
SEC. 32 COUNTRY z
CLUB ° DR
R/ W LINE & / h
o
N' LY BOUNDARY 1 VICINITY MAP
R/ W LINE LEGEND N. T.S.

LINE OF PAR. " A"
f
TP.O.B. PARCEL BOUNDARY/ STREET R/ W
NE' LY COR. CENTERLINE
PAR. " A" I AREAM601 g1008SFR1 381 AC
TP.OR TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
o 68/ /
L • INDICATES RECORD DATA PER
o
co . o
co O ^ DOC. NO. 2023- 0095443
N o
0 Q oto o
o BASIS OF BEARINGS
3 N o 1 1 J w O THE N' LY LINE OF THE NE 1/ 4 OF SEC. 32, T. 4 S., R. 6 E., S. B. M. o c O o ,— AS SHOWN ON RECORD SURVEY, ON FILE IN BOOK 128, AT a
N^
M 6c]' Q v
N
M PAGE 93 OF RECORD OF SURVEY. TAKEN AS N89° 55' 15" E. 0- • 4- - 4-
1- r-..
ago
0)
co Caw to Sip
LAND
S6
O
w Q
ARNOLD J. F,,
w 71

WHITAKER
EL
J J
O.' 7 83 LINE DATA
r
z
4 L# BEARING DISTANCE
4 R/ W LINE & / P
RIGHT OF WAY F CAL, L1 ( S47° 23' 23" E) ( 34. 01')

ELY BOUNDARY DEDICATED PER
DOC # 2023- 0095443, L2 ( S00' 03' 36" W) ( 942. 64') LINE OF PAR. " A" RECORDED 4/ 04/ 23, O. R.

L3 ( S89' 56' 24" E) ( 60. 00')
SOUTH LINE OF DOC. L4 N00°03' 36" E 721. 56' 4 -s-e.
3 NO. 2014- 0268859
j
w O
a oo
L5 N06° 03' 39" E 76. 52'
0 o
Z
o (Nio L6 N00' 03' 36" E 145. 26'
M
60 i; o I o L7 N47°22' 56" E 33. 93'
a
o N °` O
L8 S89° 55' 15" W 118. 00'
SE' LY COR.

N
PAR. " A" GRAPHIC SCALE
L3 100 0 100 200
SE' LY COR.

DOC. NO.
2023- 0095443 IN FEET )
1" = 100' SHEET 1 OF 1
834
t.......... CITY Of PALM DESERT
K- 73 5- I0 FRED WARING DRIVE
7 b `, PAI4b PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260- 2578
l
ti' TEL: 760 346- 0611
93tt:' info@cityofpalmdesert. org
Vitalia Project
Public Street and Public Utility Easement
Portion of APN 694- 310- 007 and
Portion of 694- 310- 010

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES dated May 24, 2023, from the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal corporation, to the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted pursuant to its Resolution No. 77- 48, adopted May 12, 1977.
r
W
HONY J. M IA, MMC, CIT CLERK

CITY OF PALM D ' , - A LIFORNIA
May 24, 2023

Page 1 of 2 ends

PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER
835
RESOLUTION NO. 77- 48

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PLAN DESERT, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO ACCEPT OFFERS OF

RIGHT- OF- WAY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY UPON THE

RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY

ENGINEER
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby resolve that the City Clerk is authorized to accept and record on behalf of the City all offers of dedication, easements, and other grants of right- of- way offered to the City for public purposes when such acceptance is recommended by both the City Attorney and the City Engineer.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 12th day of May, 1977, by the following vote:

AYES: Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, Wilson A Mullins
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RD .ViVivL1 va MAYOR
ATTEST:

EACH DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE I5

ATTACHED IS CERTIFIED TO BE A FULL, TRUE AND

CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE AND ON
SHEILA GIL I . C ty ler A" • INMYOFFICE•
City of Palm Desert, Cal forma D 2 4 2o23
NY City perk
City er Noma

Page 2 of 2 ends

836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1 OF 2

IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION (FEE), RECORDED APRIL 4, 2023, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2023-0095443, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 6

EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION; THENCE NORTH 00°03'36" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 226.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 89°56'24" WEST;

THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°05'48", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 202.14 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 54°57'48" WEST TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION;

THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00°03'36" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 36.26 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF

SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION,

THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION NORTH 89°56'24" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
SUBJECT TO EXISTING EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, RIGHTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD.

CONTAINING 5,821 SQUARE FEET OR 0.134 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 859
860
1 OF 2
PARCEL “B” Per PMW 23-0006

IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PORTION OF PARCEL “B” OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 21-0009, RECORDED APRIL 7, 2022, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2022-0167200 AND PARCEL 3 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 88-1, RECORDED JUNE 1, 1988, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 146461, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL “B”;
THENCE SOUTH 00°03'36" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL “B”, A DISTANCE OF 539.76 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°58'51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 535.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 82.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 19.25 FEET TO THE BEGINNING

OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF

30.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°43'23", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 22.89 FEET TO THE

BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 89.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 43°44'32" EAST;

THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 87°26'46", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 135.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 43°42'14" EAST;

THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°43'23", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 22.89 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 445.25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°01'09" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 491.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43°30'23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.77 FEET;
861
2 OF 2
THENCE NORTH 89°56'24" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 14.63 FEET TO THE EASTERLY

RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AS SHOWN IN GRANT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED DECEMBER 13, 2022, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2022-0500103, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE NORTH 00°03'36" EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 354.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL “A” AS DESCRIBED IN QUITCLAIM DEED, RECORDED JULY 21, 2014, AS DOCUMENT NO. 2014-0268859, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE NORTH 89°55'15" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 214.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL “B” OF SAID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 21-0009;
THENCE SOUTH 00°01'14" EAST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 3 OF SAID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 88-1, A DISTANCE OF 3332.57 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 3;
THENCE SOUTH 89°53'06" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, A DISTANCE OF 1323.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 3;
THENCE NORTH 00°02'47" EAST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, A DISTANCE OF 1332.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B;
THENCE NORTH 00°03'36" EAST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B, A DISTANCE OF 1189.86 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SUBJECT TO EXISTING EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, RIGHTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD.

CONTAINING 78.797 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
862
Dinah Shore Dr
A St
Portola Ave Portola Ave
Gerald Ford Dr
College Dr
Varner Rd
Gateway Dr
Toni Dr
Shepherd Ln
Henri Dr
Rem
brandt Pkwy
Cortesia
Way
Raphael Dr
Raphael Dr
Dolce Ave
Dick Kelly Dr
Renoir Pl
Cezanne Dr
Xander Ct
Monterey Ave
Marriott's
Shadow Ridge
Portola
Ave
Drexell Dr
Hollister Dr
Rose Ridge Dr
Emerson Dr
Shadow
Ridge Rd
Shepherd Ln
Desert Greens Dr N
Oak Flats Dr
Frank Sinatra Dr
Santa Rosa
Country Club
10 Jack Ivey
Dr
Gerald Ford Dr
Technology Dr
College Dr
Pacific Ave
Ivey Ranch
Country Club
College
Dr
University Park
Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
Palm Desert Parcels
7/3/2024
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km
1:18,056
VICINITY MAP 863
864
From: CouncilMeeting Comments
To: Michelle Nance
Subject: FW: COMMENTS TO PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL - JULY 11, 2024 Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 11:24:19 AM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg REFUGE CNCL MTG JUL 11.docx
REFUGE TIMELINE ...docx
From: Jana Bennehoof Koroczynsky
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 6:30 PM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <[email protected]> Subject: COMMENTS TO PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL - JULY 11, 2024 Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ Please see the attached letter to council and attached timeline of impacts on Kaufman Broad and Shepherd Lane neighborhoods that goes along with the letter.

Thank you,
Jana Koroczynsky
Representing more than 60 households in Kaufman Broad and Shepherd Lane neighborhoods
865
Jana Koroczynsky city council comments July 11, 2024
(1) Flooding hazard
(2) Devaluation of property
(3) Privacy and safety loss
(4) Statutory non-compliance
(5) Negligence
(6) Loss of views
On Friday last week Richard Cannone informed me that the city code of ordinance § 28.02.040 dealing with methods of reducing flood losses refers to existing designated flood zones only. Okay. Why on earth would it not refer to any construction in this current climate? He also said that both the contract City Engineer and an independent Engineering firm thoroughly reviewed the drainage plans for Refuge and concluded that the drainage design is effective and meets requirements. We insist that there be a certification of the grading, in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans, by a licensed land surveyor before Palm Desert city council approves the final tract map.

We have never experienced flooding in past 28 years, but we have never had a man-made 11-foot-high mountain or a flood channel behind our back wall. We have a water drainage specialist who says we will be flooded with a 3” per hour rainfall.

The city, the developer of Refuge Palm Desert/Explore, and the PulteGroup have violated tort law according to the state of California civil codes 3479¹ and 3480², by creating a public nuisance behind both neighboring Kaufman and Broad and Shepherd Lane community walls.

Elevating the landscape to the south of Pulte’s property by eleven feet was supposedly to solve a drainage problem on their property. But actually it was to save the cost of soil export and one storm lift station. Pulte has created flooding, safety, privacy issues, as well as loss of views and devaluation of property for the neighboring communities, not to mention emotional distress.

City officials, MSA and the developer, either by incompetence, negligence or intention, kept key information pertinent to the raised elevation hidden from the people who could interpret that information. When the danger to the communities was revealed, they showed little interest in addressing concerns. Who will take financial responsibility for future damages?
Instead of taking the opportunity to correct its errors, despite the consequences being potentially far-reaching and severe, until very recently the city has done nothing but obfuscate for the past two years. The integrity of the city in which the citizens of KB and SL chose to live is seriously in question.

City governments exist to create order, fairness, and accountability. Non-compliance leads to the instability of our community. I respectfully ask city council to reconsider their mantra of: “It has all been approved, there is nothing that can be done.”
¹Civil code 3479 is a section of the California Civil Code that defines nuisance as anything that harms health, offends the senses, obstructs the free use of property or public spaces, or involves the illegal sale of controlled substances. It is not related to the Louisiana Civil Code section 3479, which deals with the particular successor of a precarious possessor. The California Civil Code section 3479 has not changed since 2012. ²California Civ. Code 3480 “A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” Taken from the city website on July 4, 2024
City code of ordinance § 28.02.040 Methods of reducing flood losses.

In order to accomplish its purposes, this title includes methods and provisions to:

A. Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities; B. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities, which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
D. Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which, may increase flood damage; and E. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. (Ord. 985 § 1, 2001)
866
According to the Refuge Specific Plan, these policies (among others) have been violated:

6.4 Applicable Environmental Resources Policy Consistency

1. 2.1 View corridor preservation. Protect and preserve existing, signature views of the hills and mountains from the city.

6.6 Applicable Safety Policy Consistency

1. 3.1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains.

6.7 Applicable Public Utilities and Services Policy Consistency

2. 1.2 On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated onsite in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system.

3. 1.3 Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving.

4. 7.2 Review of new development. Work with the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department and the Riverside County Fire Department to review and modify development proposals to incorporate defensible space, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other public safety design concepts into new development.

Please see our indented comments in staff report below:

CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2024
PREPARED BY: Rosie Lua, Deputy Director of Development Services REQUEST: ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 38434-1 AND

AGREEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM

DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 38434-1.”

2. Authorize the Mayor to execute Agreement for the construction and maintenance of a portion of public right of way

3. Authorize the City Attorney to make necessary, non-monetary changes to the Agreements and City Manager to execute any changes to said Agreements. *
Note: This item may be pulled from the agenda if the final attachments are not provided by Wednesday, July 10, 2024.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

On November 17, 2022, the City Council approved the Refuge Specific Plan (SP22-0001), a request by Refuge Palm Desert, LLC (Applicant), 17755 Sky Park Cir, Ste 101, Irvine, CA 92614 to establish five (5) planning areas, up to 969 residential dwelling units and related improvements on a 106.4-acre site located at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway. Concurrently, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 38434 (TTM 38434) by Resolution No. 2022-93, to subdivide a 93.56-acre portion of the proposed site into 1 condominium lot (14.29 acres) and 339 single family residential lots and its associated club house, open space, retention basins, and infrastructure (approximately 78 acres).

August 23, 2022 Letter from MSA
Letter inviting neighboring communities to review project that was submitted for approval to the city.

Refuge project Concerns discussed: dust, traffic, views and drainage (flooding).

Eglert spoke at first meeting primarily about safety, privacy loss with their view right into our homes. 867
(Many people in neighborhood throw away “junk mail” without even opening it. Many thought the mail in MSA envelope was junk mail. The Refuge plan was reviewed and planned without many in the neighboring communities even knowing about it. Why was mail not sent by the city?) October 2022 Planning commissioners told concerns were: dust, traffic, views. No mention of drainage concerns.

November 17, 2022 City Council approves Refuge Specific Plan based on planning commissioners recommendation. Neighboring communities were not notified and unaware.

On September 5, 2023, the Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2841, a request to modify the layout to reduce the previously approved TTM 38434 to 332 single family residential lots and modify pad elevations. On March 5, 2024, the Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2859, an additional request by the Applicant to modify pad elevations. On March 5, 2024, the Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2859, an additional request by the Applicant to modify pad elevations.

Sept 5, 2023 Letter from city to KB and SL neighborhoods. Public hearing before the Planning Commission at council chambers about Pulte Homes to revise tract map to “modify the layout to accommodate a 332 single-family home residential development on a 93.56 acre project site south of Gerald Ford Drive and west of Portola Road within existing Refuge Specific Plan area.”
Many went to website “Refuge” where they saw the following and did not bother attending the meeting:

TTM 38434 identified Lot A as a
private open space lot totaling 1.16
acres. However, a portion of Lot A of
TTM 38434, approximately 0.13 acres
or 5,821 square feet is public right of
way (Explorer Drive) which is owned
by the City of Palm Desert (City); now
considered as excess right of way. The
Refuge Specific Plan included a vehicular circulation plan that designed a curvature of the proposed future extension of Explorer Drive, which created an excess portion of right of way. At a future date the city intends to convey the 0.13-acre excess right of way to the Applicant.

Resolution No. 2022-93 and subsequent approvals did not include conditions of approval for Lot A. Final Tract Map 38434-1 omits the 0.13-acre excess right of way within Lot A for the approval and recordation of the map. Upon approval, the City will enter into an agreement with the Applicant for maintenance and infrastructure obligations of the excess right of way, which will remain in effect until the City conveys the

0.13 acres to the Applicant.

The Certificate of Compliance and perfecting deeds have been recorded in the official records of Riverside County.

The Final Tract Map No. 38434-1 (FTM 38434-1) is a phased portion of the map that includes 135 single family residential lots, 10 public street and infrastructure lots, 11 lots of open space including retention basins, and 1 lot to include the club house (approximately 38.23 acres). The phasing of the TTM 38434 was permissive through Condition of Approval No. 21 of Resolution No. 2022-93 with approval of the City Engineer and financial securities for all public improvements associated with the phase.

The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) documents the maintenance obligations for the proposed site which includes maintaining all lots reserved for open space, landscaping and storm drain purposes, and all landscaping located in the public right of way adjacent to private property and within medians and roundabouts within the community.

The Subdivision Improvement Agreements (SIA) and Grading Agreement and associated bonds subsequently were submitted by the applicant to guarantee the completion of construction. The City 868
Engineer has determined that FTM 38434-1 meets the application requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s ordinances. The Final Map has been deemed technically correct by the City Engineer and the Conditions of Approval in Resolution have been satisfied for FTM 38434-1.

Violates tort law according to the state of California civil codes 3479 and 3480, by creating a public nuisance behind both neighboring Kaufman and Broad and Shepherd Lane community walls. We insist that the certification of the grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans by the licensed land surveyor before Palm Desert city council approves the final tract map.

Legal Review: This report has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct impact to the General Fund with this action. However, once the proposed public streets are completed and accepted, their long-term maintenance will be the responsibility of the City of Palm Desert.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2024-____ 2. Conditions of Approval of Resolution Nos. 2022-93, 2841, and 2859 3. Tentative Tract Map 38434 4. Final Tract Map 38434-1 City of Palm Desert Adopt Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 38434-1 Page 3 of 3
869
Approval Process and Confusion
The approval process for this project has been confusing at best. Letters came from MSA, the city and, eventually, Pulte. Pulte mentioned Del Webb and Explore (see letter dated May 3), names we did not hear before.

The city planning manager insists that the project name is still Refuge, but the city public works inspector insists it is Explore. The “if you see dust” sign on the property on Gerald Ford Drive says Explore.

Plans signed off by Mainero Smith & Associates (MSA), were submitted by Pulte to the city for final approval on March 7, 2024, and approved by the city on April 24, 2024. As mentioned earlier, many of our residents say they have no recollection of receiving the letter about a public meeting on March 5, 2024 regarding elevation changes.

TIMELINE REFUGE PROJECT
August 23, 2022 Letter from MSA
Letter inviting neighboring communities to review project that was submitted for approval to the city.

Refuge project Concerns discussed: dust, traffic, views and drainage (flooding).

Eglert spoke at first meeting primarily about safety, privacy loss with their view right into our homes. (Many people in neighborhood throw away “junk mail” without even opening it. Many thought the mail in MSA envelope was junk mail. The Refuge plan was reviewed and planned without many in the neighboring communities even knowing about it. Why was mail not sent by the city?)
October 2022 Planning commissioners told concerns were dust, traffic, views. No mention of drainage concerns.

November 2022 City Council approves Refuge Specific Plan based on planning commissioners’ recommendation.

Neighboring communities were not notified and unaware.

August 2, 2023 Letter from MSA
Neighboring communities invited to view video conference at 5:30-9:30 about Refuge wanting to “revise the existing Tentative Tract Map 38434 under the approved Refuge Palm Desert Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Map 38434 is comprised of 93.56+/- acres of property, located on the … , as shown on the enclosed map. (There was no enclosed map.) Pulte Group was introduced as a partner to build homes.

The meeting was supposed to begin at 5:30 PM but did not begin until after 6:30 PM. (see email chain below) “Walkway will be publicly accessible,” Marc Kleiman who also said, “You may also find preliminary information related to the project at Refuge.com”
Maria Torres email July 3, 2024 “We also tried to participate in the Aug 2, 2023, meeting regarding small changes which Nicole wouldn’t tell us about prior to meeting, but though they said 6pm we stayed online till 6:30pm and nothing and later we requested video. I’ll send you the email with the link.” See email chain below.

From: Vann, Nicole <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:55 AM
To: Eglert Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Refuge PD [2636-MSA1.KJrl]
Good morning Mr. Gutierrez,
Per your request, please find a link to the recorded meeting here: Refuge Palm Desert Community Meeting Link (080223) You may want to forward the recording to the 6:30 mark since that is when the meeting really starts.

Best,
Nicole Vann
Planner / Project Manager
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
34200 Bob Hope Drive | Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
office 760.320.9811
From: Eglert Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 6:32 PM
To: Vann, Nicole <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Refuge PD [2636-MSA1.KJrl]
Hello Nicole,
I could not access the meeting on zoom, couldn’t hear anything, yet the screen said it was recording. Please send me access to your recorded meeting.

Thank you,
Eglert Gutierrez
(760) 851-7314
From: Vann, Nicole <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:28 AM
870
To: Eglert Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Refuge PD [2636-MSA1.KJrl]
Good morning Mr. Gutierrez,
There are no exhibits in advance of the 8/2 meeting. The purpose of the community meeting is to present the plan to members of the community in a forum where the minor changes can be properly explained and discussed. It would be counterproductive to that goal to send the site plan out prior to the meeting. We hope you understand, and we look forward to discussing it with you then. If for some reason you would like to discuss this, or anything else, in advance of the meeting, please feel free to reach out to Marc Kleiman at 949.400.6652.

Here is the link to the zoom meeting.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/98123377836?pwd=TFAvVUdtTTVsaXRvMGhrMTFCTnV4QT09 Meeting ID: 981 2337 7836
Passcode: 152658
When
Wednesday Aug 2, 2023 ⋅ 5:30pm – 9:30pm (Pacific Time - Los Angeles) Kind regards,
Nicole Vann
Planner / Project Manager
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
34200 Bob Hope Drive | Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
office 760.320.9811
From: Eglert Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 2:40 PM
To: Vann, Nicole <[email protected]>
Subject: Refuge PD
Hello Nicole,
Please let me know how we can access the August 2 meeting and also how to see exhibits.

Thank you,
Eglert Gutierrez
(760) 851-7314
Sept 5, 2023 Letter from city
Public hearing before the Planning Commission about Pulte Homes to revise tract map to “modify the layout to accommodate a 332 single-family home residential development on a 93.56 acre project site south of Gerald Ford Drive and west of Portola Road within existing Refuge Specific Plan area.” Many in neighborhoods went to website “Refuge” where they saw the following and did not bother attending the meeting:

Taken from City Council agenda for July 11, 2024 meeting:

September 5, 2023, the Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2841, a request to modify the layout to reduce the previously approved TTM 38434 to 332 single family residential lots and modify pad elevations. On March 5, 2024, the Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2859, an additional request by the Applicant to modify pad elevations.

March 5, 2024 Letter from city (This is the meeting that most in community do not remember receiving a letter.) Public hearing before Planning Commission to consider approved pad elevations for tentative tract map 38434 to accommodate a 332 single-family home residential development on a 93.56 acre project site south of … “ Meeting was to “consider a request by Pulte Home Company to revise the approved pad elevations. 871
Email from Linda Candler to Carlos Flores regarding the March 5, 2024 meeting:

June 28, 2024
Carlos Flores, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Flores:

I am requesting a review and inspection of the Refuge rough grading as it is inconsistent with the approved plans. I also request that you reopen the Planning Commission hearings for the March 5, 2024 Rough Grading Plan and May 21, 2024 Revised Landscape Plan because these plans are inconsistent with each other. My concerns are set out below.

At the meeting on the Landscape Plan on May 21, 2024, I objected to the Revised Landscape Plan proposing to change the landscape buffer from 50’ to 45’ as this would bring the slope closer to our property, impacting our views and creating more dust. As shown on Exhibit EE to the November 17, 2022 Specific Plan (p. 902), there is a 7’ elevation gain behind our Lot.

When asked by the Planning Commission if the 7’ elevation gain was correct, the answer was no. I understand this may have been a misunderstanding, but can you please correct the record.

As it is now graded, the slope starts 22’ from our back wall. This is inconsistent with a Site Line Analysis submitted for Lot 25 (our Lot) which shows the distance from our back wall to the home on Lot 18 is 71.7”. Assuming a 15’ setback and a 14’ slope at a 2:1 grade, the slope should not commence until 57.7’ from our back wall. If the rear yard of Lot 18 is greater than 15’, assuming a 50’ buffer the slope should not start until 36’ from our back wall to conform with Cross-Section EE showing the slope ends at the retaining wall of the Refuge property.

Cross Section EE also shows that the retaining wall is to be built at the same level as the pad elevation of the new lots. (Lots 18 and 19, pad elevations of 298.7 and 298.8). The rough grading appears to change that and raise the top of the slope 1-2’ above the new pad elevations. This is inconsistent with the landscape plan showing the retaining wall is to be level with the pad elevations.

The Rough Grading Plan does not show any cross-section of the grading behind our property.

Section I-I relates to Lot 24, not our Lot, and to the corner of Lots 24 and 99 and specifically states it relates to the South border. Section J relates to the streets to the North of Chinook Circle. What is the precise grading plan for the area behind Lot 25 and why was the slope moved closer to our back wall than what was approved?
-1-
The Public Notice to the March 5, 2024 hearing regarding the Rough Grading Plan stated it only related to a change in pad elevations, not to a change in the slope or the placement of the slope closer to our property line. Also, there is no Cross-Section for the area behind our house so we had no way to object to a change in the slope. We believe it is too high, too close to our lot, and inconsistent with what was approved.

In summary, we want the pad height elevations of the Lots 18 and 19 verified as the grading appears too high; we want the slope to start as shown on the Site Line analysis and Exhibit EE, not the 22’ as currently graded, and we want our pad height verified now to ensure that the elevation gain from our pad to the new Lot 18 is no greater than 7’.

I presented these concerns to City Council on June 27, 2024, along with photographs and copies of Cross-Section EE and the Site Line Analysis. I have attached copies for your reference.

Sincerely,
Linda Candler
74040 Chinook Circle
Palm Desert, CA. 92211
March 7, 2024 MSA Submits Explore rough grading plan for approval.

April 5, 2024
Pulte bought Refuge portions according to Mr. Dewegeli, Pulte Manager of Land Planning & Entitlements, Southern California Division.

April 24, 2024 Department of Development Services approves rough grading plan.

May 13, 2024 Letter from Pulte
“Explore Palm Desert” meeting about architecture, front yard landscape, common areas, clubhouse, amenities.

Kina Kato talked about drainage concerns for KB neighborhood. Ms. Kato asked Mr. Dewegeli for an answer. He was confused and said to email Nicole Vann, MSA.

Eglert spoke at the May 13, 2024 meeting erosion hazard behind our wall and requested grading plans which Dewegeli told Nicole to send him which she didn’t, so we asked her for them on May 21 to which she responded: The City Planning Department should have all available public plans online for your viewing. All other plans are proprietary information.

Many neighboring community residents assume letter is talking about Sun City expansion and has nothing to do with them. No one knows who Pulte is.
872
May 14, 2024 Grading begins behind KB and SL communities.

May 21, 2024 Letter from city Planning commission
Neighborhood Recognizes there is a problem with grading and the 11-foot-high escarpment may cause flooding hazard to both KB and SL neighborhoods.

Kina Kato made a note that she was unable to log on for the meeting. She selected #669 and recording said, “meeting not started” (at 6:08 PM). She selected #213 and that also failed. She was unable to join this meeting.

The meeting was about approving architecture and landscaping within Refuge.

May 21, 2024
Eglert spoke at the May 13, 2024 meeting erosion hazard behind our wall and requested grading plans which Dewegeli told Nicole to send him which she didn’t.

Eglert and Maria again asked Nicole from MSA for grading plans, to which she responded: The City Planning Department should have all available public plans online for your viewing. All other plans are proprietary information.

May 22, 2024
10AM meeting with Carlos Flores (no show).

Eddie, Eglert and Luis went to meeting that Eddie had scheduled with Flores for 10am May 22 at the Planning counter but Flores never showed up so Melonni answered their questions and Eglert pressured Melloni for grading plans which he received from on May 23.

Eglert and Maria could not find the plans requested online.

May 23, 2024 City Council Mtg.

Maria Torres speaks on Zoom.

Liz Bower and Jana Koroczynsky speak (allowed 3 minutes each) and were removed from council chambers to meet with Carlos Flores outside in the heat. Koroczynsky suggests going into air conditioning. Flores insists that it is Refuge, not Explore. After arguing about all the confusion around this project, someone came in and said to give them two weeks and there would be a neighborhood meeting.

May 27, 2024
Mr. Gutierrez sends Nick Melloni and Julian De La Torre an email outlining drainage concerns:

From: Eglert Gutierrez
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:29 PM
To: Nick Melloni <[email protected]>; De La Torre, Julian <[email protected]>; Carlos Flores <[email protected]>
Cc: City of Palm Desert <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Refuge Del Webb
Mr. Melloni on your Oct 18, 2022, email re: Refuge, you stated that “The proposed grading and height is done to accommodate drainage for the site and roughly follows exiting topography of the site”.

Mr. De La Torre, you stated at the townhall meeting of Tuesday, June 25, that the parcel drains by gravity from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. You are correct, and therefore, it was not necessary to raise the southern portion of the parcel and have houses towering over our homes in order to accommodate drainage, but soil would then need to be removed in the center and that’s what Pulte was trying to avoid thus creating a giant mound in order to get an unobstructed view by sacrificing OUR views, our property value, our privacy, our safety, and risking property damage.

Mr. Flores you put renderings up on the screen at the townhall meeting of Tuesday, June 25, (attached cross section Pulte) demonstrating a cross section where there would not be a direct line of sight into our homes, but the image fails to line up the sightline along the two block walls and is deceiving.

I have created a second REAL cross section true to scale (section II in Precise Grading Plan) which shows the actual line of sight (the image with red). This shows that anyone that looks over the Refuge’s wall can see straight into most of the private areas of our home, not just our back yards! Underneath my cross section is their image from the approved grading plan of the same cross section (not to scale black and white) that gives the false impression that the difference in heights between the two walls is less than 3 feet. They wrote NTS (not to scale) really tiny underneath but very misleading.

The 3rd image (Section in Precise Grading Plan) is my cross section super-imposed over the grading plan demonstrating that it is to scale and shows the 5-foot pathway is just 9 ft from our wall not the 15 ft demonstrated on (Cross Section sent by Marc Kleiman and N. Melloni).

The photo taken today from my kitchen (06272024 WORKERS PASSING) demonstrates that anyone can simply look into our homes and yards. And the last image shows the grading I propose that would accommodate preserving our privacy, security and views while still addressing water drainage.

The Refuge specific plan is a binding agreement. Pulte claims in it that their purpose was to not export soil, which was great for them, but by this action the city failed us.
873
And since the refuge parcel could drain by gravity, they only raised it to meet their sand shifting goals and violated the agreement of protecting us from onlookers and created a water drainage channel subject to erosion, disguised as a public pedestrian path from Gerald Ford directly to our back walls. They have raised the pad and homes to a height way beyond what is necessary when they could have built at basically the level of our homes. They have intentionally and maliciously removed our views, which violates agreement to preserve our views. They must also protect ALL structures, meaning our walls and back yards from dangers of excessive rainfall and putting a drainage canal just 2 feet from our block wall is doing the contrary. They also must retain all surface water on their property not up against our block walls.

The city council and staff have to do their jobs and protects us, the citizens and city from those that assume to take advantage with all their deceitful double talk, false advertising which has been used to harm us by reducing the value of our homes, eliminating the views, creating water damage hazard, a security and safety concern with canal & bike path and direct view into our private lives. If they win, we will suffer forever the consequences of this abuse. PDCC cannot allow them to harm us in this manner. They have to be held accountable for not fulfilling their requirements as to the specific plan. They have violated the agreement and cannot continue with their intentions. This is a breach of contract because they have failed to perform their promised obligations and violation of this agreement is also illegal.

According to the Refuge Specific Plan, these policies (among others) have been violated:

6.4 Applicable Environmental Resources Policy Consistency

1. 2.1 View corridor preservation. Protect and preserve existing, signature views of the hills and mountains from the city.

6.6 Applicable Safety Policy Consistency

6.7 Applicable Public Utilities and Services Policy Consistency

3. 1.3 Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving.

We, the current citizens of the City of Palm Desert, await a solution from city staff and council that will benefit everyone involved.

Thank you
Eglert Gutierrez & Maria Torres
Response from city staff: crickets.

May 28, 2024 Email from Nicole Vann, MSA
Link to information that was screen shot and printed out by on May 28, 2024. Walkway elevations show Woodward cross-sections as: AA, BB, CC, and DD.

Shown on “Refuge” website from November 2022 through May 2024

874
Renderings shown on city website, not sure when they were posted. Neighborhoods were never told to reference city website, just “Refuge” website.
875
May 30, 2024 6:50 AM
Eric Lomeli sends grading plans for the south end of the Pulte development. He said the Cross-Section I-I was the buffer section representation behind Woodward drive. That happened to be wrong and corrected later but added to confusion. (He is no longer shown on website city staff page.)
June 13, 2024 City Council Mtg.

Jana Koroczynsky speaks and Maria Torres speaks on Zoom (3 min each) June 25, 2024
Town Hall Meeting with KB, SL neighborhoods, Pulte, MSA and the city.

Very contentious. The only thing that was determined was Pulte saying they would pay for damages out of a fund they set up. Residents not sure they can believe them.

The biggest concern was the elevation and the flooding it would create for the neighborhoods during a downpour when there was no flooding problem in the past 28 years in which they existed. Also the safety, privacy and general public nuisance conditions created by the man-made 11-foot-high elevation behind their walls.

June 27, 2024 City Council Mtg.

Jana Koroczynsky (KB) and Linda Candler (SL) spoke. Maria was going to speak but was unable to be there on time.

The Refuge specific plan is a binding agreement. Pulte claims in it that their purpose was to not export soil, which was great for them, but by this action the city failed us.

And since the refuge parcel could drain by gravity, they only raised it to meet their sand shifting goals and violated the agreement of protecting us from onlookers and created a water drainage channel subject to erosion, disguised as a public pedestrian path from Gerald Ford directly to our back walls. They have raised the pad and homes to a height way beyond what is necessary when they could have built at basically the level of our homes. They have intentionally and maliciously removed our views, which violates agreement to preserve our views. They must also protect ALL structures, meaning our walls and back yards from dangers of excessive rainfall and putting a drainage canal just 2 feet from our block wall is doing the contrary. They also must retain all surface water on their property not up against our block walls.

The city council and staff have to do their jobs and protects us, the citizens and city from those that assume to take advantage with all their deceitful double talk, false advertising which has been used to harm us by reducing the value of our homes, eliminating the views, creating water damage hazard, a security and safety concern with canal & bike path and direct view into our private lives. If they win, we will suffer forever the consequences of this abuse. PDCC cannot allow them to harm us in this manner. They have to be held accountable for not fulfilling their requirements as to the 876
specific plan. They have violated the agreement and cannot continue with their intentions. This is a breach of contract because they have failed to perform their promised obligations and violation of this agreement is also illegal.

According to the Refuge Specific Plan, these policies (among others) have been violated:

6.4 Applicable Environmental Resources Policy Consistency

1. 2.1 View corridor preservation. Protect and preserve existing, signature views of the hills and mountains from the city.

6.6 Applicable Safety Policy Consistency

6.7 Applicable Public Utilities and Services Policy Consistency

3. 1.3 Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving.

We, the current citizens of the City of Palm Desert, await a solution from city staff and council that will benefit everyone involved.

Thank you
Eglert Gutierrez & Maria Torres
Response from city staff: Crickets.

June 28, 2024 Letter Linda Candler to Carlos Flores:

June 28, 2024
Carlos Flores, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Flores:

When asked by the Planning Commission if the 7’ elevation gain was correct, the answer was no. I understand this may have been a misunderstanding but can you please correct the record.

The Rough Grading Plan does not show any cross-section of the grading behind our property.

Section I-I relates to Lot 24, not our Lot, and to the corner of Lots 24 and 99 and specifically states it relates to the South border. Section J relates to the streets to the North of Chinook Circle. What is the precise grading plan for the area behind Lot 25 and why was the slope moved closer to our back wall than what was approved?
-1-
The Public Notice to the March 5, 2024 hearing regarding the Rough Grading Plan stated it only related to a change in pad elevations, not to a change in the slope or the placement of the slope closer to our property line. Also, there is no Cross-Section for the area behind our house 877
so we had no way to object to a change in the slope. We believe it is too high, too close to our lot, and inconsistent with what was approved.

I presented these concerns to City Council on June 27, 2024, along with photographs and copies of Cross-Section EE and the Site Line Analysis. I have attached copies for your reference.

Sincerely,
Linda Candler
74040 Chinook Circle
Palm Desert, CA. 92211
Response from city staff: Crickets.

June 29, 2024
Marc Kleiman attached Refuge/Explore plans, dated May 10, 2024, showing “view fencing” and “view lots”. We believe this is evidence that Refuge PD and Pulte did not elevate the landscape for drainage, but for expensive “view lots”.

July 1, 2024 email from Todd Hileman that the city assumed the property was sold to Pulte.

July 3, 2024 email from Maria Torres to Jana Koroczynsky “Eglert just measured pad with a laser and level at 10 foot height. The approved plans state that the difference between our pad and the one behind us should be 9.9 (or 9’11”) BUT the mound is about a foot higher than 10 ft laser mark. It appears around 11 feet high. See photo attached. Behind your house it should be 9’ 5” according to their plans so the pad is probably about a foot and a half higher behind your house. This explains why they don’t want a private surveyor checking their work out.”
878
From: CouncilMeeting Comments
To: Michelle Nance
Subject: FW: Refuge
Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 11:23:53 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Rogers
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 8:45 PM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Refuge
To Whom It May Concern:

Due to the extreme heat, I will be unable to attend in person; but am hopeful something will be done to alleviate the issue of possible flooding caused by the planned change in terrain next to the block wall fence between the open land and the established communities of K&B residential homes as well as those on Shepherd Lane.

We want to avoid the damages suffered by the citizens of Cathedral City and other areas from the recent flooding from Hilary. We trust the leaders of our city will be mindful in making decisions for our future and our homes.

Thanking you in advance for your attention and concern. 879
From: CouncilMeeting Comments
To: Michelle Nance
Subject: FW: Refuge/Pulte abomination
Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 11:23:44 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Fasana
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 5:42 PM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Refuge/Pulte abomination
I am not clear about what it might take to command the attention of the council, but laws, protocols, and common sense are not being adhered to or followed.

Pulte has taken advantage and continues to take advantage of the Kaufman and Broad community and imperils the residents of the Kaufman and Broad community as well as our homes and personal belongings.

Please revisit this shocking abrogation of our rights.

Louise Fasana
Palm Desert
Kaufman and Broad community.
880
From: CouncilMeeting Comments
To: Michelle Nance
Subject: FW: The Refuge mountain
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2024 9:25:23 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: >
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 7:34 AM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <[email protected]> Subject: The Refuge mountain
I just want to add this to my neighbors‘ well researched complaints and that is this: Would you like to look at that eyesore of a mountain every time you look out your window or drive into your community? How do you think this man made mountain will impact the resale of our homes? I hope that the city of Palm Desert will look out for all its residents.

Virginia Jefferson
Sent from my iPhone
881
From: CouncilMeeting Comments
To: Michelle Nance
Subject: FW: Refuge Development
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2024 9:25:23 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Kimberly Steinberg < >
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 3:59 PM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Refuge Development
Hello,
My name is Kimberly Steinberg and I live with my husband and three children on Hollister Drive in Palm Desert.

We have lived here for the past 14 years and we love our neighborhood and the community of neighbors that we have. Since the development of the land for the Refuge development began several weeks ago I have become very concerned by what I have seen. At first I thought we would only have to suffer through the initial grading of the land but then I began to see the height at which they were grading and the amount of sand that was being moved to the back of our neighborhood along Woodward Drive. I immediately thought of the flooding that recently took place at the Spanish Walk Community just a mile down the road from us. My mother in law lives in that community and we received a phone call in the early morning hours as she was panicking over the water coming under her front and garage doors. I was on scene before emergency personnel and had to wade through knee high water trying to reach her. I saw firsthand the catastrophic failure of the many drains adjacent to and in her neighborhood. My husband and I have held her hand as she mourned the destruction of her home. Recently I listened to a city council meeting where our Mayor said how proud she was of her community and city over all the new housing that was being built in Palm Desert as she herself was affected by housing instability. I wonder if she has considered that she is risking this very thing for my family. A flooding potential like the one being allowed to continue with the elevation and grading of the Refuge development would be a catastrophic loss for me and my family. We can not even obtain insurance to protect us from the flooding potential. I am at a loss as to why the city would allow this to take place. I have been to the community and city council meetings, I have heard the reasons that have been listed, and the engineers say there is no potential of flooding, however I am not convinced. The grading is too high, the elevation change is too steep and there is a potential for flooding.

My other concern is the walking path that is open to the public that goes around the community. With the continued influx of homeless people entering our community I am certain they will soon discover this path. It is unable to be monitored in a timely matter by law enforcement and will be an easy spot to hide away and sleep or just be. This walking path will be incredibly expensive to build and maintain and the isolation makes it dangerous to use.

I would like to close by saying that I am not against the development of this land for homes. I think you will find that the majority of neighbors surrounding this development are not against it. We are against the way the city and the builders are ignoring our concerns and continue to build with no regard.

Thank you.
882
From: CouncilMeeting Comments
To: Michelle Nance
Subject: FW: Del Webb Explore
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:24:49 AM
Attachments: Real Section Drawing at Lot 33 vs Lot 86 7-10-2024.pdf From: Maria Torres < >
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 9:59 AM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Del Webb Explore
Your attachments have been security checked by Mimecast Attachment Protection. Files where no threat or malware was detected are attached.

Hello, my name is Maria Torres
I’m sorry to say that we are very disappointed with the actions of our city towards US, the current citizens, that pay your salaries and put you there.

We have pointed out many violations created by the Del Webb Explore development.

Many people of these two communities have written and spoken multiple times. We’ve even given you the benefit of the doubt, but mistakes have obviously been made. The plans may have been reviewed and accepted, but that does not make them right! The parcel drains by gravity the only purpose in raising the southern portion so high was to give the seller more valuable view lots with a steel bar fence, as shown and listed on the landscaping plans – it was their intentions all along and (NOT a block wall with no security and privacy concerns, as they falsely demonstrated on the renderings). Also, behind our house, based on a precise laser measurement, the pad is at least a foot above what the approved plans say! There has been one deceptive demonstration after another to mislead everyone. Including staff.

But, even if they needed to create that mountain to drain, that DOES NOT nullify our RIGHTS! If they cannot develop what they want, without harming the existing citizens, then do something else! Make it a park! Leave it a natural preserve! But they CANNOT be allowed to take advantage of us!
The issues are:
erosion and damage to existing properties
our safety and privacy will be put in jeopardy
our properties will be devalued, and we should not pay taxes to a city that destroys our property value
and our sacred signature views – have been illegally given away Why are you all permitting this discrimination?
Are you sure you cannot do anything to enforce our rights? Are you sure that you cannot protect us?
Or, is it that you don’t want to?
This is a gross injustice that even a child can understand. 883
If this plan is approved with this bias against us, there will be repercussions. You will ALL suffer the consequences.

We ask that you please reconsider your position and your loyalties.

Thank you very much.

Maria Torres
884
885
From: CouncilMeeting Comments
To: Michelle Nance
Subject: FW: Comments for Today"s City Council Meeting
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:25:19 AM
Attachments: REFUGE PROJECT COMMENTS.docx
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Candler >
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:13 AM
To: CouncilMeeting Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Comments for Today's City Council Meeting
Your attachments have been security checked by Mimecast Attachment Protection. Files where no threat or malware was detected are attached.

Please see attached. I also plan to attend by Zoom and speak in person but this highlights the points I wish to address.

Thank you.

Linda Candler
886
REFUGE PROJECT COMMENTS. July 11, 2024
I oppose approval of the Final Tract Map 38434-1, which is Agenda Item 14(e).

My challenges relate to a change to the 50’ Landscape Buffer, and a change to the grading plan that moved the slope closer to existing homes. Tract Map 38434-1 shows the buffer zone is now 45’. (Sheet 6). This is not what was approved with the Specific Plan. I have asked the Planning Department when the change to 45’ was approved – It is not in the Specific Plan, or the subsequent Tract Map revision of 9/5/23.

I challenged the change in the buffer zone at the May 21, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing.

My opposition relates to height increases in the pad heights behind existing lots. A reduction of the 50’ landscape buffer moves the slope closer to our homes and creates a steeper slope.

The Specific Plan Paragraph 2.4 says there is 50’ buffer on East and Southern borders.

The Staff Report dated November 17, 2022 prepared by Mr. Melloni states “Planning Area 5: An Open space amenity area to establish up to 7.9 acres of open space, including a 50’-0” wide passive, landscaped walking trail along the southern and eastern perimeters of the RSP and on-site stormwater retention basins.” P. 2. Page 7 of Staff Report also states that for Planning Area 5 there is a 50’ landscape buffer to be maintained by the HOA.

The Environmental Impact Statement at p. 15 also says there is a 50’ landscape buffer.

The Environmental Checklist at p. 2 says there is a 50’ Landscape buffer.

The TTM says Planning Area 5 provides a 50’ buffer between homes to the East and South (p. 114 of submittal, p. 61 of TTM). According to p. 464 of the Preliminary Site Plan we are PA5.

The 50’ setback is what was promised as part of the proposed pad elevation gains. We want this enforced.

I also have concerns about the Rough Grading Plan as it does not match the Landscape Plan submitted with the Specific Plan and it does not match the Preliminary Grading Plan. I request reopening of the Rough Grading approval hearing on 3/5/24 and the Landscape Plan hearing on 5/21/24 because they are inconsistent with what was approved with the Specific Plan.

I oppose approval of any Final Tract Map at this stage because the pad height elevations have not been verified. Planning Commission Resolution 2841, par. 47 states that a licensed land surveyor shall certify the grading to confirm the grading conforms with the lines and grades shown on the approved plans. HAS THIS OCCURRED?
I made a public records request for our Lot and the Tract Map 30216 shows our Lot 25 is at 289.5, not 291.7 as stated on the Refuge Rough Grading Plan. The Exhibit EE shows the total 887
elevation gain is 7’ so our pad height needs to be verified and confirmed that the top of the slope is not greater than 7’.

The Preliminary GradIng Plan dated August 17, 2022 shows the grading starts at the back wall of the new lots. This is not how it is graded. It starts 22’ from our back wall. At a 7’ pad height gain, at a 2:1 slope, it should be 14’ depth and start at 36’ from our back wall, not 22’.

The Rough Grading Plan of 3/5/24 does not show a cross-section for the lots behind our home.

The Preliminary Grading Plan states that if no cross-section, follow the Landscape Plan.

The Landscape Plan attached to the Specific Plan of November 2022 shows cross sections for grading behind existing property walls. Exhibit EE references our Lot (PAGE 902 OF SPECIFIC PLAN PERIMETER BUFFER FOR EAST SECTION).

Exhibit EE shows the grading begins level with the base of our existing wall and that the grade ends level with the new lot property wall. Refuge confirmed to me in writing as the grading behind us commenced that the grading would start at the base of our back wall. It is instead graded down to create a retention basin. THIS CHANGES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE. ANY CHANGE IN HEIGHT REQUIRES A NEW HEARING, IT CANNOT BE CHANGED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

We were told in writing by Refuge that the hearing on the Rough Grading Plan in March of 2024 was only in respect to pad elevations and that the only change for our property was that the lots behind us were lowered by 6”. There was no notice the grading of the slope would be changed from the Preliminary Grading Plan or Exhibit EE.

The Public Notice in the Desert Sun also only advised that the hearing on the Rough Grading Plan was for consideration of Pad Elevations. NO REFERENCE WAS MADE TO A CHANGE IN THE GRADING PLAN TO MOVE THE SLOPE CLOSER TO OUR EXISTING HOMES OR TO CREATE A 5-10’

LEVEL PAD AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE
For these reasons, I oppose the approval of the Final Tract Map submitted today.

Linda Candler
888
Del Webb Explore Palm Desert
(Refuge Specific Plan)
New Action Plan
7/10/2024
889
Immediate Measures Taken to Reduce
Neighborhood Impacts and Address Concerns
• Stepped Up PM10/Dust Control Measures
• New Communication Plan with Neighbors
• Plan to address Damage Complaints
• Strict Enforcement of Construction Hours
• Revised Construction Access Plan
• Revised Construction Staging Area
• Addressing of Neighbor Questions
• Details Provided Below
890
Daily dust control measures per PM10 Requirements:
• Daily watering all active areas being graded and disturbed. This includes cut/fill areas and access routes.
• PM10 spray inactive areas that have been completed or remain inactive for more than 72 hours
• Maintenance of construction entrances. Clean as needed. • Daily City inspections
• Weekly MSA Consulting inspections
891
Daily PM10 Measures & Additional Measures (Water Trucks, Water Spray, Water Towers):
892
Additional Dust Mitigation Steps Added Above and
Beyond Standard Requirements
• More frequent spray and respray with 6 month green colored polymer Envirotec.
• Added two 4,000 gallon water trucks that are working after hours and weekends. Monday – Friday 5:30am-8pm and Saturday & Sunday 6am-8pm.
• Temporary fencing with wind screen installed on south and southeasterly pads to help trap PM10 debris.
• Street sweep as needed on Julie Drive and Gerald Ford Drive • Pulte will commence all permanent perimeter walls upon approval of plans and certification of pads.
893
Daily PM10 Measures & Additional Measures – Continued
(Polymer Spray, Street Cleaning, & Additional Fencing):
894
New Communication Plan with Neighbors
Pulte will established two forms of communication for neighboring residents:
• For non-emergency concerns, residents may send an email to [email protected] for any inquiries or concerns. A resident’s inquiry via email should expect a response within 2 business days
• For emergency or urgent matters, Pulte has provided residents with a 24-hour call center at 1-877-724-6593. The call center will accept calls 24 hours a day allowing resident to share their concern as well as establish record of an issue or incident. The call center will make immediate contact with Pulte personnel who will then respond to each call as quickly as possible. Emergency calls will be prioritized and addressed immediately. Non-emergency calls should expect a return call by end of the next business day. 895
New Plan to Help with any Damage to Neighbors’
Properties (pools, walls, drainage, etc.)?
Upon receiving call from a neighboring resident, Pulte will investigate claims of property damage directly with the resident and address any necessary reparations resulting from Pulte’s construction operations.

For example, Pulte has already met with Monique Bond and retained a pool cleaning company to complete cleanup at Pulte’s cost. Pulte will coordinate with each call on a case by case basis. This effort is intended to address damage resulting from Pulte’s operations and not typical Coachella Valley conditions.
896
Steps to Better Enforce Construction Hours
City of Palm Desert approved hours are posted as such:

October 1 through April 30th – Monday through Friday 7:00am to 5:30pm
May 1 through September 30th – Monday through Friday 5:30am to 7:00pm & Saturday 8am-5pm
Pulte Homes has communicated the City’s permitted work hours schedule to all subcontractors and is insisting on strict compliance.

Pulte will continue to monitor to insure all workers comply with the City’s approved work schedules.

Please report any violations to 1-877-724-6593
897
Revised Construction Access Plan
All routine construction traffic in and out of the project will ingress/egress off Gerald Ford. Due to both efficiencies and safety concerns, we would like to keep the export trucking to access the site via Julie Lane and exit onto Gerald Ford as originally agreed upon with the City via the approved addendum to the PM10 plan (see attached PM 10 plan). The remaining export operation (trucking) is currently scheduled to resume on July 8 and anticipated to be complete by July

19. Once the trucking operation for export is complete, this access would be closed to construction traffic and opened upon completion of the design improvements. To insure no early arrival, we commit to have a monitor staged at Julie Lane and Portola in early morning hours to prohibit trucks to enter Julie Lane until city approved work hours. 898
Revised Construction Staging Area
Construction staging for equipment, water tanks, material and parking will be established to try and keep a reasonable separation from neighboring homes. As construction progresses, staging location will vary but in the near term (by 7/5/24), Construction staging will be located in the general vicinity shown on image below.

As construction progresses and staging requires relocation Pulte will coordinate with City inspector to establish an acceptable location 899
Perimeter Wall Heights and Stability
Pulte is currently evaluating the condition of the existing perimeter wall along the southern and eastern boundaries and will repair any damage caused by project operations. At the request of a few residents, Pulte will consider supplemental measures to stabilize and potentially increase the height of certain wall segments in coordination with the adjacent homeowners if circumstances warrant.
900
Grading Benches for Walls:

1. The primary reasons to grade a bench for a wall is to cover the concrete footing and provide stability for the wall.

2. A secondary reason to provide a bench at the base of a wall is for maintenance reasons. In situations where you have 2-to-1 slopes (steep slopes), a bench (or a flat surface) at the top can be beneficial depending on the type of ground surface or planting
901
Del Webb Explore – Project Timeline
Currently, Del Webb Explore is in rough grading phase of development which is anticipated to reach completion the end of July 2024.

Based upon timing of remaining approvals & construction cycle times Pulte forecasts Land Development operations to be substantially complete in spring of 2025.

And, with real estate market predictions, Pulte forecasts sales and construction of Explore’s 332 homes to start as early as December 2024 and continue into spring of 2027.
902
Drainage and Flood Control Improvements
• As explained by the City’s engineering consultant Tim Jonasson, approximately 2/3 of the project site drained to the south and east in the natural, pre-development condition (see Slide 18).
• Mr. Jonasson also explained that the approved grading and hydrology plans require storm water and drainage from all developed lots and streets drain to the north to the retention basin adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive.
• The only water that will reach the open space buffer along the southern and eastern boundaries is rainfall landing directly on that limited area, which is a small fraction of pre-development flows. 903
Drainage and Flood Control Improvements Continued:
• In the existing condition (pre-development), approximately 38.9 acres drain to the southeast corner.
• Per the City Drainage Ordinance, the Engineer is to review the impacts of the 100-year, 24-hour storm. When reviewing those impacts, it’s clear that Retention Basin A and Retention Basin B generate little to no ponding depth (red boxed and highlighted on the attached). However, as a conservative measure, MSA reviews all storms, i.e., the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 24-hour storms. In the proposed condition (post-development), approximately 2.4 acres drain to the south and southeast retention basins. These 2.4 acres represent approximately 0.14 acre-feet of runoff in the 100-year storm, 1-hour storm. Additionally, these retention basins don’t receive any runoff from residential lots or streets. As discussed in the neighborhood meeting, this project sits on the top of the blow sand ridgeline. There are several hundred feet of blow sand below the surface and percolation tests performed, prior to development, recorded percolation rates around 50 inches per hour. A 100-year storm will drop 4 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. The existing soil has the capacity to infiltrate storms much larger than the 100-year storm. When reviewing the maximum capacity of these retention basins (maximum capacity defined as, ‘depth equal to the lowest adjacent pad elevation’), we find both Basin A and B have the equivalent capacity to hold a 500 year storm. A 500-year storm is roughly 1.6 times the rainfall in a 100-year storm.
904
Drainage and Flood Control Improvements Continued:
• Using a straight comparison, the proposed drainage condition reduces the tributary area to the south and southeast corner by 36.5 acres or 94 percent. These calculations are not typically required by the City and are not included in the hydrology report, but are provided to further clarify our drainage approach.
• The method used to grade and drain the project protects the existing and proposed residents, and reduces the flood risk of existing residences along the south and east sides by redirecting the runoff to north.
905
906
907
Elevation of Finished Pads Along Southern and Eastern
Perimeter of Project.
• The pad elevations were approved with the Specific Plan in 2022, and the lot elevations along the southern or eastern perimeter have never been raised since.
• All final pad elevations were confirmed in the grading plans recently approved by the City in Spring 2024.
• The lots along the southern and southeastern perimeter have been certified by the project engineer to conform to the approved pad elevations, and those pad certifications have been delivered to the City and are available for public review.
908
Elevation of Finished Pads Along Southern and Eastern
Perimeter of Project - Continued:

1. The key tie-in elevation for this project is Julie Lane.

2. With the Julie Lane elevation established (approximately 288.0), MSA designed streets at minimum slope (0.5%) to keep the streets and pad elevation as low as practical. 0.5% slope is the minimum allowable street slope in the City of Palm Desert.

3. There is approximately 2,500 linear feet from the Julie Lane intersection to the southeast corner of the project.

4. Pad elevations are set a little more than a foot above the top of curb adjacent to the lot. Pad elevations are set as low as practical while still providing flood protection and positive slope to the streets. 909
Resident concern checklist:

Monique Bond
• Concern: Sand in pool. Action: Pulte met with resident on 7/1/24 and has hired a pool company to clean pool and filters.

Linda Candler and Charles Cronenweth
• Concern: Pad Elevation and Slope. Action: Pulte Engineer (MSA) provided approved pad elevation and approved 2:1 slope. Along with line of sight exhibit.

Jana and Peter Koroczynsky
• Concern: Pad Elevation. Action: Pulte Engineer - MSA Consulting provided approved pad elevation information to resident. MSA is also verifying resident pad elevation. Certified pads have been provided to City to post on website for residents to verify our pads. • Concern: Slope. Action: Pulte Engineer provided plan information regarding approved 2:1 slope. • Concern: Drainage. Action: Pulte Engineer has provided approved drainage information to resident. • Concern: Pulte not allowing private surveyors to check pads. Action: Pulte has granted access for private surveyors to access for pad verification.

Eglert Gutierrez and Maria Torres
• Concern: Line of Sight. Action: Pulte and Engineer currently discussing response. We will respond by 7/4.

Liz Bower
• Concern: Pad Elevation. Action: Pulte Engineer providing approved pad elevation information. Offered to confirm their pad elevation.
910
Questions Regarding Sight-line and Privacy:

1. MSA Provided a Site Line Analysis along the southern boundary where pads are roughly 10’ above neighbor lots.

2. Study indicates that a 6’ individual cannot view the rear yard of neighbors

3. Neighbor provided image indicating 6’ individual could see over and down to neighbors yard.

4. Pulte refutes the assertion. The average eye-line is 4”-5” below the top of head. An individual 6’ or shorter would be looking directly into the wall.

5. Pulte asserts that, in general, individuals 6’4” and shorter would be restricted from viewing Neighbor’s lots.

6. See Section on the following slide
911
Questions Regarding Sight-line and Privacy:
912
Additional Steps to Address Neighbor Concerns
• Certain homeowners have requested confirmation of their pad elevations and the adjacent project pad elevations. Pulte’s surveyors and engineers at MSA are conducting the requested verifications and communicating directly with the homeowners.
• Pulte will allow homeowners to hire their own surveyor/engineer to confirm this information, who will be given permission to access the project site and verify pad elevations (subject to appropriate safety and insurance arrangements).
913
Why can’t Pulte and City explore lowering those
elevations?
Pulte did explore lowering the pad elevations with our Civil Engineer and the existing graded condition would not allow this to happen without significant impacts to the existing residents and the Pulte project.

These impacts include:
• Directing potential storm flows toward the neighboring properties; and
• Substantial extension of the timeline to complete the grading and land development improvements. 914
Addition Landscaping Along Open Space Buffer
Pulte will work with the City and the project landscape architect to provide additional landscaping in the buffer areas to soften views toward the new homes.

Pulte will also provide a community meeting with the residents along the southern and eastern boundaries to review the enhanced buffer landscape plan.
915
916

Page 1 of 5 ends

CITY OF PALM DESERT

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2024
PREPARED BY: Thomas Soule, Public Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR A FARMERS’ MARKET ON EL PASEO
RECOMMENDATION:

Reject the proposal to hold a Farmers’ Market on El Paseo every Saturday from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. from October through May.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

In May 2024, the City received a request from the Palm Desert Certified Farmers’ Market (Applicant) to establish a Farmers’ Market (Market) on El Paseo beginning in October 2024. The proposal is attached to this staff report. The Applicant currently operates the Market on Wednesday mornings in the parking lot at Entrada del Paseo. For the upcoming Fiscal Year 2024-25, the applicant proposes to relocate the Market to the block on El Paseo between Sage Lane and Lupine Lane on Saturday mornings from October through May from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Holding the Market on El Paseo will require closing the street to through traffic from 6 a.m. to approximately 2 p.m. for up to 35 Saturdays during the high season. In addition, as with other street closures, parked vehicles along the street would also need to be removed. Recognizing the potential impacts of this request on El Paseo businesses, staff requested that the Applicant present this proposal to the El Paseo Parking and Business Improvement District (EPPBID) Board of Directors for feedback.

EPPBID Feedback
The applicant made an initial presentation to the Board during public comment at its meeting on May 14, 2024. The proposal was added to the agenda for the following meeting on June 19, 2024, giving the Board the opportunity to hear directly from the Applicant, ask questions, and deliberate on a recommendation to the City Council.

The Board spent 30 minutes discussing the potential of having a Farmers’ Market on El Paseo.

The Board raised concerns about the proposed location, logistics, market wares, duration, and day of the proposed event. The Board pointed out that Saturday mornings are peak shopping hours during the high season, and foot traffic is at its heaviest, leading to potential parking congestion and business disruption. When asked about the possibility of moving the Market to an alternative day, such as Sunday or Wednesday, the Applicant indicated the only other available day would be Wednesday, which they indicated wouldn’t attract enough foot traffic for the Applicant to achieve the results they desired. In the end, the Board expressed support for the concept of an El Paseo Farmers’ Market but unanimously opposed closing the street on Saturdays, agreeing that if having it on Saturday is non-negotiable, the key would be to hold the Market adjacent to the street rather than on it.
917
City of Palm Desert
Farmers’ Market on El Paseo

Page 2 of 5 ends

Similarly, staff and the Board have presented alternative locations to the Applicant, such as other nearby streets, Lupine Lane, the parking lot behind the Melissa Morgan Sculpture Garden, the parking structure at The Gardens on El Paseo, and Ocotillo Drive; however, the Applicant is not favorable to any alternative location.

Outreach
In response to the Board's request, the City also conducted a survey of EPPBID member businesses to ascertain their support for this proposal. The survey requested input on having an El Paseo Farmers’ Market in general and about closing the street to through traffic on Saturday mornings from October through May.

A link to this survey was included in the merchant newsletter and posted on the EPPBID private Facebook page. In addition, City staff went door to door in the district to personally invite merchants to take the survey. The survey was designed to ensure a representative sample of the member businesses, and efforts were made to reach out to businesses throughout the district.

With 146 surveys completed, the overall reactions echoed the thoughts of the Board:
 There is general support for the idea of a market in the area.  Merchants also expressed significant opposition to closing the street on Saturday mornings.

Summary of Survey Results
The complete results of the survey may be read in the attachment. Here are some key findings:

1. The majority of respondents are in favor of having a weekly Farmers Market on El Paseo. Out of 146 respondents to this question:
 82 (56%) said Yes.
 64 (44%) said No.

2. Based on their comments, those who answered “yes” to this question coupled their enthusiasm for the concept with caution about its execution, location, and impact on existing businesses. Supporters are keen on finding solutions that would integrate the Market into the community without disrupting the existing business landscape.  Traffic and Business Impact: Many supporters are optimistic about the potential benefits of the Market, believing it would increase foot traffic and potentially boost business for the entire district. Suggestions include adjusting Market hours or days to minimize disruption, such as operating early in the morning or on Sundays when fewer businesses are open.
 Location Considerations: Some suggest relocating the Market to areas with fewer high-end boutiques to avoid clashing with the clientele of those stores.

Alternatives such as parking lots, other streets, or less congested parts of El Paseo were proposed to accommodate the Market without significant disruption. 918
City of Palm Desert
Farmers’ Market on El Paseo

Page 3 of 5 ends

 Operational Concerns: Many respondents are concerned about logistical issues such as parking and traffic flow. Some propose using parking lots to ease these concerns. The aesthetic and practical setup of the Market is also essential to many, with calls for maintaining El Paseo's upscale look and managing waste and layout effectively.
 Community and Social Media Engagement: Enthusiasts for the idea are willing to promote the Market through social media and believe it could foster a greater sense of community.
 Regulations and Vendor Considerations: Concerns were raised about not allowing food trucks or certain types of vendors that could directly compete with existing businesses. The need for amenities like public restrooms was highlighted to accommodate increased visitors.
 Economic and Strategic Benefits: Some see the Market as a strategic move to differentiate El Paseo and draw in different demographics, potentially during off-peak hours, to spread the benefits throughout the week.

3. Those who answered "no" to this question cite significant operational, economic, and demographic reasons, suggesting that alternative locations or times could better serve the needs of all parties involved.
 Demographics: Opponents argue that the typical farmers' Market shopper does not align with El Paseo's clientele. They suggest relocating the Market to areas that cater more to its demographic or to less central locations on El Paseo.  Impact on Traffic and Accessibility: Concerns about traffic disruptions and accessibility issues are prevalent. Opponents highlight that the closure of El Paseo, especially on Saturdays, would severely impact businesses that rely on vehicular access and parking for their customers.
 Business Disruption: Many fear that the Market would detract from regular business, arguing that events such as farmers' markets are better suited for locations that need increased foot traffic rather than bustling commercial areas.  Economic Concerns: There is significant worry about the financial implications of reducing access to high-rent retail spaces. Business owners mention the potential for decreased sales and adverse effects on their profitability, especially during their peak business months.
 Legal and Operational Concerns: Some respondents express concerns about potential legal actions due to the loss of business and accessibility. They also mention the physical inconveniences that could arise from Market setups, such as litter and disruption from food trucks.
 Suggested Alternatives include hosting the Market on less busy days, like Sundays, or in designated parking lots to minimize disruption. There is also a call for hosting the Market in different locations that could benefit from additional traffic without disrupting the main shopping areas.
919
City of Palm Desert
Farmers’ Market on El Paseo

Page 4 of 5 ends

 Community and Aesthetic Concerns: The aesthetic of El Paseo is cited as a reason against having a farmers' market that could alter the area's visual and experiential quality. Additionally, the impact on community dynamics, with potential conflicts between different business types, is a concern.

4. When asked whether they were in favor of closing El Paseo between Lupine Lane and Sage Lane every Saturday from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., most respondents answered “no.” Out of 144 respondents:
 83 (57%) said No
 63 (43%) said Yes
Exploration of Alternatives
The City Manager, staff members, and the Mayor, Pro Tem, met with the applicant on June 17, 2024, to explore potential changes to the Market. The meeting was an opportunity to discuss moving the Market to another day or location, with potential locations including San Pablo Avenue, Civic Center Park, the parking lot at the Shops at Palm Desert (formerly Westfield Mall), and various locations adjacent to El Paseo. Nonetheless, the applicant remains committed to the vision of a thriving Market occupying a block of El Paseo on Saturday morning. Unfortunately, no suitable compromise was reached regarding the day or location of the proposed Market.

Financial Request
Another element of the proposal for the City Council to consider is the applicant's verbal request that the City assume financial responsibility for closing the street each Saturday. A formal sponsorship request has not been submitted. Because the Market is a for-profit entity, staff requested that the applicant work with Tops N Barricades to prepare a traffic control plan for consideration. The City is committed to ensuring the safety and smooth operation of the Market, and this closure would require a detailed Traffic Control plan showing limits of street closures, on-street parking restrictions on the days of the event, and detour/alternative routes for all types of road users, including pedestrians and bicyclists. The City has not yet received this traffic control plan, but the applicant did include a general estimate of the cost from Tops N Barricades of $1,843.90 per event. Based on the proposed schedule of 34 market days, the total cost for closing the streets would be $62,693 for the entire season. Although there are 35 Saturdays from October 6, 2024, through May 31, 2025, the Market would go dark on October 19, because of the previously scheduled Paint El Paseo Pink event.

The applicant has suggested that the City could use its in-house resources to execute the road closures as an in-kind donation in lieu of paying Top N Barricades. Without a detailed traffic control plan, it’s difficult to assess the actual cost to the City this option would entail. Because the proposed Market is on a weekend, it would require overtime staff hours, so the cost would likely exceed that of using Tops N Barricades.

Legal Review:

This report has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. 920
City of Palm Desert
Farmers’ Market on El Paseo

Page 5 of 5 ends

Recommendation:

Based on the concerns raised by the EPPBID Board and a significant number of EPPBID member businesses, staff recommends rejecting the proposal as presented for this specific location and day.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Depending on the action taken by the City Council, approving the proposed Farmers’ Market on El Paseo would require an appropriation of at least $62,693. More information from the applicant is required to provide a more accurate assessment of the financial impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Farmers’ Market Proposal

2. Farmers’ Market Survey Results

3. Farmers' Market - Tops N Barricades Estimate
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
ObjectID
Would you be in favor of
having a weekly Farmers
Market on El Paseo?
Where on El Paseo is your business
located? Do you have any general concerns?
Are you in favor of closing El
Paseo between Lupine Lane and
Sage Lane every Saturday from
6:00 am to 2:00 pm? x y
1 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp
I do NOT believe a Saturday am farmer”s market buyer is in the same demographic as your El Paseo/weekend or tourist shopper/diners. Move it to the far east side of El Paseo! A farmers market is not our luxury buyer! Move it down by Portola by the post office! No 0 0
2 Yes Between San Luis Rey Ave. & Por
If my business was located in the proposed area on El Paseo, I think I might be panic stricken. It's difficult enough to get customers to our businesses, never mind temporarily closing the street on a busy weekend day.

Another serious problem is total lack of public rest rooms. The need for them doesn't go away. No 0 0 3 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
Parking for my business will be non existent
Access limited for my clients
I am opposed to the location No 0 0
4 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes 0 0
5 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
Are you kidding me, closing El Paseo on Saturday during our season?? Farmer market people are not our qualified buyers. Through tennis and all the events.??! Whose crazy idea is this ??!! Noooo. HURTS THE MERCHANTS ON EL PASEO. Even the special 5k walks know to reopen the streets by 8am !! No 0 0 6 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Yes 0 0
7 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Wednesday is a better day No 0 0 8 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp It would be best to have it 6am-12pm No 0 0 9 Yes Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Yes 0 0
10 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ We think it would be great traffic for buisness Yes 0 0 11 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Highly supportive of a Farmers Market on El Paseo in concept, but not at the City's cost and accommodation of a closure of portions of El Paseo to vehicular traffic on a recurring basis. No 0 0 12 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes 0 0
13 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ No I think this is a great idea and will bring more people to El Paseo which will ultimately benefit everyone. Yes 0 0 14 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes 0 0
15 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Yes 0 0
16 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Why doesn't the city try it on Lupine between Hwy 111 and El Paseo since they don't think it a needed entry to the shopping district and want it to be flex space. No 0 0 17 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Yes 0 0
18 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ I feel this is a great idea and will spread the word on my social media channels it you decide to move forward with it. Yes 0 0 19 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes our guest won’t appreciate the lack of accessibility No 0 0 20 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Limiting access to stores past Lupine, and being less convenient for our customers. No 0 0 21 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
That effectively kills half of our Saturday business. We are open 10 AM TO 5 AM. Saturday is our most important day. Why not have the market on a Sunday when a lot of businesses are closed.

Better to locate the market in a large parking area. Possibly the large malls in the area or the parking lot at the Gardens. No 0 0 22 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No 0 0
23 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Prefer they not sell skincare due to how many businesses are doing so already and don't need extra competition. Yes 0 0 24 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Yes 0 0
25 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Yes 0 0
26 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Yes 0 0
27 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. There are plenty of places to have a farmer’s market besides El Paseo. The merchants psy A LOT of rent. The market would kill our business on Saturday. Please have it someplace ekse No 0 0 28 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes 0 0
29 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
Although this is a great idea, and we would love to see a farmers market on El Paseo, this would deter our typical ‘country club customer’ of coming in and shopping with us, as my shop is located between Sage and Lupine. If we could shift the farmers market to the east side of El Paseo, where there are fewer high end boutiques/businesses, that would be ideal. No 0 0 30 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Excellent idea to drive traffic and awareness of the entire shopping district! Yes 0 0 31 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. We absolutely can not shut down traffic on El Paseo on a Saturday during the day every week! No 0 0 32 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Closing street will hurt business on El Paseo. People like to drive and park on the street. When the street is closed for events and parades we make $0. No 0 0 33 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Street trash and limited parking for customers. Yes 0 0 34 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp My only concern is them bringing in food trucks every weekend. I know that is the model at other venues and we don't want it to detract from our rent paying restaurants. Yes 0 0 35 Yes Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Yes 0 0
36 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No 0 0
37 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. I think it is a great way to get more business and foot traffic to the street! Couldn’t be any more excited to hopefully get this going! Yes 0 0 38 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ I think it is a great idea!!! Yes 0 0 39 Yes Between San Luis Rey Ave. & Por I would like the farmers market closer.tp shops at our end of the street to help.drive.buainess. Every time there is an event it never drives people our direction. No 0 0 40 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ None Yes 0 0
41 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp i think it is a great idea Yes 0 0 42 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ No concerns this is an amazing idea since it no one rarely parks here and takes up all the parking over by San Luis Rey near Melissa Morgan Yes 0 0 43 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln.

As a business concern my experience with farmer's markets is that they are excellent for the vendors but bad for the businesses surrounding them. The IDEA of a farmers market is different from the REALITY of a farmer's market. We barely have enough parking on a Saturday as it is. No 0 0 44 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ JC’s Cafe is located just West of Sage Ln. Our hours are 8am - 3pm. Keeping Sage Ln “OPEN” to thru traffic is critical to our guests and vendors being able to access our parking lot during these hours. Thx! Yes 0 0 45 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. I believe it would be great for everyone! Yes 0 0 46 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Would be lovely to have ! Yes 0 0 951
47 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln.

While interested in the additional foot traffic this could bring to the El Paseo Shopping District, there is a concern that the normal steady flow of business on a Saturday morning/afternoon would be negatively impacted by the closure of a portion of the street. I also have concerns about the overall aesthetic of the farmers market, how it will look from both street and sidewalk sides, and I would want to hold the event operators accountable for upholding the elevated aesthetic of El Paseo. No 0 0 48 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln.

NO, NO, NO!! This is another BUSINESS KILLER! We’re tired of EVENTS TAKING OVER EL PASEO, FOR BUSINESSES THAT HAVE NO INVESTMENT IN EL PASEO: HOPS AND HOOPS, PAINT EL PASEO PINK, OLD CARS(Choking customers with noxious gas fumes)FRIDAYS, and now you want to block it off for farmers, hawking their products NO, NO, NO!! You should focus on PROMOTING OUR BUSINESSES, NOT PROMOTING BUSINESSES WHO PAY NOTHING!! No 0 0 49 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
This is extremely concerning - blocking all traffic that runs directly in front of so many businesses. To close down the street will have tremendous negative effects on our businesses and livelihoods. A Farmer's Market should bring INCREMENTAL business to the community (aka off site of already busy area). It should not hinder existing businesses. Put it on a street that needs walk in business or is not a major street for current operations. We pay extra fees/taxes to be on El Paseo, not to support other businesses to block us. Shutting down our traffic seems like it would result in lots of lawsuits. I know i would seek out an attorney about my taxes & fees that I pay to be on the street if a Farmer's Market closed off our valuable street. No 0 0 50 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ No 0 0
51 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. No 0 0
52 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ It would absolutely hurt our business!! No 0 0 53 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. I think this is a ridiculous idea. We pay a premium to be on this street, can only do business in 8 months and you want to block OUR customers from getting to us? No 0 0 54 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
55 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. No 0 0
56 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ I fell as well dastardly impact my customers and they will not come in on Saturdays. No 0 0 57 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Will kill our business. Ridiculous to do during season. We only have those months to make our sales goals. What are you thinking No 0 0 58 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
59 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ No 0 0
60 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
61 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
62 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln.

YES, don’t think a street closure on the most popular shopping street in Palm Desert is even remotely the place for a Farmers Market!!! It belongs in an unused parking lot, NOT prohibiting traffic on the street!!! NO, NO, NO!!! No 0 0
63 Yes Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Think it would be great for bringing traffic to the area Yes 0 0 64 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Anything to generate business. No 0 0 65 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
66 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No it’s goog Yes 0 0 67 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. I am for anything that drives traffic to El Paseo Yes 0 0 68 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Foot traffic would do us good, but what about the traffic? Maybe have it in a parking lot. No 0 0 69 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo No Yes 0 0
70 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. It’s hard when you close off the streets during the weekend would definitely be OK with it if it were in a different area, maybe on top of parking lot of saks No 0 0 71 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo This is a high end street and there should be no closure on this street during working hours No 0 0 72 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Our regular customer parking in front of the store to come in shop. No 0 0 73 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo El Paseo Merchants pay higher taxes to be on El Paseo. The Farmer's Market should find another location. No 0 0 74 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
75 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. If foot traffic would be impacted negatively No 0 0 76 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Hey 74 and ocotillo. Luxury areas don’t need markets No 0 0 77 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ We believe that the farmers market will bring a much needed boost in foot traffic to el paseo. We are 100 percent for the market! Yes 0 0 78 No Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Kitchen 86 No 0 0 79 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ People will come for vegetables then actual shopping. Who will come for shopping. No 0 0 80 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Between hwy 74 and ocotillo. The street is really crowded anyway, and we don’t have a rear entrance. Sunday ,at be a better day. No 0 0 81 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ None at all ….we are 100% all in favor of it , Yes 0 0 82 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Any day after five No 0 0 83 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Parking is a major concern No 0 0 84 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ This would disrupt business on our busiest days. This would cost us too much money. Please do not do this. No 0 0 85 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Take business away during our busy time of year! No 0 0 86 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ It will keep our customers away and we will loose business and money. No 0 0 87 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo
Closing El Paseo every Saturday during season would be Horrible for El Paseo businesses. Closing the street between Lupine and Sage would block all through traffic on El Paseo! The Farmers Market belongs on San Pablo or in a City Park. No 0 0
88 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
89 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ I think if actual market is in parking lots behind stores and not on El Paseo would be a consideration. It would disrupt street too much or have down other end near Portola No 0 0 90 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Closed saturdays so it is ok with us Yes 0 0 91 Yes Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Yes 0 0
92 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo
This would disrupt businesses and hurt sales. Please do something more classy like a car show, Please look at the events on Rodeo drive. Most of our buying customers drive and stop. The older customers will not be able to walk and this will cause a problem with accessibility to the store! No 0 0 93 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Yes 0 0
94 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo San Pablo, south of Highway 111, or Civic Center Park -- great idea for a farmers' market, but a location on El Paseo is a lousy idea. No 0 0 95 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Acuity Yes 0 0
96 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Think it will help with foot traffic. Think all farm-style products would be good, but not clothing or items Yes 0 0 97 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln. Yes 0 0
952
98 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln.

Neither for nor against.

Busiest commercial time. No 0 0
99 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Losing business during the season due to our patrons' inability to access the affected streets. No 0 0 100 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Good idea but if El Paseo wants to be the Rodeo Drive of Palm Desert, I do not believe Beverly Hills has a farmers market on Rodeo Drive. They do have a farmers market nearby. Yes 0 0 101 Yes Between Ocotillo Dr. & Sage Ln.

During the week would be easier and less chaotic.

Prefer no businesses that compete—specifically skin care products. No 0 0 102 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo
Doesn’t help merchants and doesn’t build community. It should be done when business closes and families can attend after work. That helps build community. If you want to help merchants events like tennis show, horse show and fashion week help buisness. Day concerts on Lupine is an idea No 0 0 103 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Yes 0 0
104 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Yes 0 0
105 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Would love a farmers market on El Paseo but during season we have clients who will only shop if they can park in front of the store , and of course Saturday is our busiest day - so unfortunately not good for business No 0 0 106 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Would there be port-a-potties supplied for the market? Yes 0 0 107 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No 0 0
108 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No 0 0
109 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No 0 0
110 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No 0 0
111 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Guests finding alternate streets to get to parking. We offer carry out service to our guests and this would not be possible with the streets closed. No 0 0 112 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes 0 0
113 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo
Yes people are paying premium rent to be on this street with a business and a premium tax to the city to have there business on El paseo to have that area of el Paseo closed every Saturday for a farmers market. So as a resident of the city and a former business owner on El Paseo I would say NO!!! There is six farmers markets within 15 minutes of each other at different times between Rancho Mirage and the corner of Washington and Fred Waring on different times! No 0 0
114 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
This would ruin our business on Saturday our busiest day. Most our customers drive and stop by our store. They would not shop if the section is closed off. Also there is a huge farmers market at COD which is minutes away. Please do no ruin our street and business by putting a farmers market. No 0 0 115 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
These markets bring Rats and bugs not to mention this will severely hurt the businesses on the busiest day a Saturday during season. If passed I’m sure the businesses will seek legal action. Very inappropriate measure to bring to El Paseo. The businesses pay a lot of money to be there why hurt them on their busiest day? No 0 0 116 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
This will kill business on El Paseo on Saturdays. It will bring rodents and bugs compromising the merchandise and health of owners and employees. This is a conflict of merchandise on El Paseo, If the City moves this to El Paseo litigation will be imminent. Move the market to the city park. You obviously don’t want it there either. No 0 0 117 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._
Early morning hours are ok, but midday afternoon is prime time, and that would be disruptive toward businesses. Maybe using an adjacent parking lot would be better. Shutting down El Paseo would be detrimental, though. No 0 0
118 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Parking is a concern, like the idea of the foot traffic. Some concern about booth placement, hiding the stores from view. Sundays would be better. Saturdays are the busiest days. No 0 0 119 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ No, we would welcome the additional foot traffic it would bring to our business. Yes 0 0 120 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp I think it would be disastrous to business functionality and consumer satisfaction. The street should absolutely not be closed No 0 0 121 No Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis No parking. Poor choice for location but maybe San Pablo for the market. No 0 0 122 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Yes 0 0
123 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp Yes 0 0
124 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp
Just that no one else will like this idea. I LOVE the markets we have and they are never close enough to home. I don't drive anymore and walk everywhere. Hope this does happen even if I would only get to shop first hour or so before I go into work. Yes 0 0
125 Yes Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp If this is to take place, we would like to be open for business earlier to capitalize on the foot traffic this may bring to the center. It would be beneficial to our store if the Farmers Market ran all the way to Larkspur Ln. Yes 0 0 126 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ That is some of our best hours. We would lose too much business. No 0 0 127 Yes Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes 0 0
128 Yes Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ No Yes 0 0
129 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo No 0 0
130 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo No 0 0
131 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp
it disrupts the flow of traffic so the shoppers will get frustrated ttrying to get to the store they want.... No 0 0
132 No Between Lupine Ln. & San Pablo Yes. Restricted access to the street for cars to park. That will cause some people to shop elsewhere or just leave. Perhaps this could be done at a local park. No 0 0 133 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ Do it somewhere else No 0 0 134 No Between Sage Ln. & Lupine Ln._ No 0 0
135 No Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Anything that stops traffic on El Paseo during the season would be a detriment to shopping, to the safety of the pedestrians and to the safety of the people shopping in the stores. I am a definite, no on this. No 0 0 136 Yes Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Yes 0 0
137 Yes Between San Luis Rey Ave. & Por Fabulous idea! Yes 0 0 138 No Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis No 0 0
139 No Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Only if there is food to go as it takes away from restaurants No 0 0 140 No Between San Luis Rey Ave. & Por
Interfering with the flow of traffic down El Paseo during our winter season will be disruptive to the businesses that have struggled to survive the summer heat. There needs to be a continuous flow of traffic from one end to the other. We are in strong opposition to a closing, temporary or not, to any part of El Paseo which will diminish the ease of shopping on El Paseo.

No 0 0
141 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp No 0 0
953
142 No Between San Luis Rey Ave. & Por
Would not appreciate the disruption of easy access to our business at the other end of El Paseo from our clientele coming in from Big Horn, Reserve, etc. The current location of the Palm Desert Farmers Market is perfect.

Why mess up a good thing?! No 0 0
143 No Between San Luis Rey Ave. & Por Could we have the farmers market closer to us so our business can benefit? 0 0 144 Yes Between San Luis Rey Ave. & Por
Removing myself and our store location out of the equation, I think a Farmer's Market would be better down on this side between Bank of America and Portola. It's less congested and would not negatively impact the many stores in the selected area.

Yes 0 0
145 Yes Between Larkspur Ln. & San Luis Yes 0 0
146 No Between San Pablo Ave. & Larksp
There are other spots that would better support this type of event, however closing down a vibrant shopping area every Saturday morning during the busiest months does a disservice to the merchants that populate this world class avenue year-round. It's not a fit for the brand. Plus parking would be a nightmare and access to the businesses would be impeded, which from other closures we know to be problematic. No 0 0 954

Page 1 of 2 ends

CITY OF PALM DESERT

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2024
PREPARED BY: Carlos Flores, AICP, Principal Planner
REQUEST: ADOPT THE UPDATED MILLS ACT PROGRAM APPLICATION MANUAL RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the updated Mills Act Program Application Manual.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

The Mills Act (Act), enacted in 1972, is a state law that provides incentives for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners. According to Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 29.70.030, “The application process, review procedures, and required contract provisions for Mills Act agreements shall be established by a separate resolution of the City Council and shall be implemented by the administrator or designee”. On January 13, 2011, the City of Palm Desert City Council (Council) adopted Resolution No. 2011-01 which established the Act’s application process, review procedures, and required contract provisions for implementing the Act. On October 26, 2023, the Council adopted an updated resolution that removed the limitation on eligible applications beginning in 2024.

Staff is seeking an update to the Mills Act Program Application Manual (Manual) to:
 Update Appendix A of the Manual to establish clearer eligibility criteria for Act applications.
 Update language to reflect the change of administration from the Department of Building and Safety to the Planning Division.
 Remove outdated references, including the limitation on the number of Act applications.  Update the draft Mills Act agreement.

Per the current Manual, applicants must complete a 10-year Property Improvement Plan (Improvement Plan) which details proposed projects by year and cost. The Manual references Appendix A as a guide for qualifying projects. Currently, eligible work for participation in the Act includes any necessary repair, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of a Historic Property.

The Improvement Plans require review and approval from City staff and the Council and must meet all requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Approved Improvements Plans are attached as exhibits to approved Act Agreements. According to the Manual, staff is responsible for conducting inspections of the property and the approved scopes of work to ensure compliance with Act Agreements.

The proposed updated Exhibit A would serve as guidance to determine if the proposed projects outlined in the submitted Improvement Plans are eligible for repair, restoration, and/or rehabilitation improvements under the Mills Act Application. All scopes of work would have to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Appendix A categorizes 955
City of Palm Desert
Mills Act Application Manual Update

Page 2 of 2 ends

proposed improvements as contributing to either “structure integrity,” “architectural/historical integrity,” or being ineligible. “Structure integrity” includes the structural elements of a building (foundation, beams, framing, etc.) and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. “Architectural/Historical Integrity” includes architectural and historical components (windows, doors, roofing, decorative elements, trims, etc.) that are integral to the justification for the property’s historical designation.

At its regular meeting on January 24, 2024, the Cultural Resources Preservation Committee (CRPC) recommended approval of draft Guidelines revisions, with the condition that staff amend the guidelines to include the repair or new construction of walls or fences eligible under Architectural and/or Historical Integrity. This change was incorporated into Appendix A. At the March 27, 2024, CRPC meeting, additional input was received from an existing property owner/Mills Contract owner who suggested that there should be no changes to eligible scopes of work.

On April 11, 2024, City staff presented the updated Appendix A to City Council at a study session. The Council directed staff to conduct additional outreach to existing Mills Act contract owners and provided guidance on modifications to the eligible scopes of work. City staff contacted twenty (20) existing Mills Act contract applicants to receive feedback on the updated Appendix A, met with the owner who commented at the March 27, 2024, CRPC meeting, and met with a representative of the Sandpiper Homeowner’s Association (HOA) who had comments on the updates. City staff received feedback from two (2) applicants on eligibility of HOA fees and added the following sentence to Appendix A: “If HOA Fees submitted are for a scope of work that is eligible in another section of Appendix A, the fees may be eligible.” City staff updated Appendix A incorporating feedback received from residents, the CRPC, and the City Council.

City staff presented the updated Appendix A to the CRPC on June 26, 2024, and the CRPC recommended approval with the following revisions:
 New water heaters were revised to be an eligible cost.  Contributing landscaping and hardscape were revised to be eligible.  Repair of swimming pools was revised to be eligible.

The updated Manual incorporates all the revisions previously described. The updated Manual will be used for Act applications submitted in 2024.

Legal Review:

This report has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact associated with this action.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Updated Mills Act Application Program Manual
956
1 CITY OF PALM DESERT

MILLS ACT PROGRAM

APPLICATION MANUAL
Planning Division
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760)346-0611
957
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPLICATION INFORMATION
Introduction and Purpose 3
Property Qualifications 3
Terms of a Contract 3
Administration 4
Application and Selection Process 5
FORMS
Application Checklist 6
Application 7
10-Year Property Improvement Plan 8

APPENDICES
A. Sample Projects Qualified Under the Mills Act 10
B. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 11 C. Sample Mills Act Contract 12
D. Sample Site Plan 25
E. Site Inspection Form 26
F. State Mills Act Legislation 27
958
3 MILLS ACT PROGRAM

APPLICATION MANUAL

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City of Palm Desert Mills Act Program was established by Resolution No. 2011-1 in 2011. The Mills Act is state legislation, enacted in 1972, that grants participating local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who receive a reduction in local property taxes to help offset the costs to restore, rehabilitate, repair and maintain their properties. Although it is applicable to historic income producing properties, it is the single most important economic incentive program available in California for owner occupied historic residential buildings, particularly single-family homes. A Mills Act program is developed in accordance with California Government Code, Article 12, Sections 50280-50290 and California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.0, Sections 439-439.4
This manual is designed to assist you in completing the Mills Act application and provides a summary of the program requirements.

QUALIFYING HISTORIC PROPERTIES
To qualify for the Palm Desert Mills Act program a property must be one of the following:
 Designated City Landmark
 Contributing feature of a designated City historic district  Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places  Contributing feature of historic district listed in the National Register of Historic Places
 National Historic Landmark
A property must be designated at the time an application is submitted. Questions regarding the designation status of a property of the City’s designation program can be addressed to the Cultural Resources Administrator in the Planning Division.

TERMS OF A MILLS ACT CONTRACT
Duration: A Mills Act contract is for a minimum term of ten years. It is automatically renewed each year on its anniversary date and a new ten year term becomes effective.

Contracts are transferred to new owners when the property is sold. 959
4 Termination: The property owner may terminate the contract by notifying the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date. The City may terminate the contract by notifying the owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the renewal date. The owner may make a written protest about termination by the City. The contract remains in effect for the balance of the term of the contract beyond the year of termination.

Alterations or Additions to a Property: Work performed on the property (interior, exterior, and grounds) must meet all City requirements and comply with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation”. A 10-Year Property Improvement Plan is required as part of the application and will be re-evaluated by the City every five years or as needed.

Annual Reports: Property owners are required to submit an annual report to the City indicating work completed per the 10-Year Property Improvement Plan. The report is due by December 31 of each year and should include copies of receipts and/or building permits where applicable.

Inspection for Compliance: City staff conducts a pre-contract inspection of the property to ensure compliance with the terms of the contract. Conditions not conforming to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation may be required to be brought into compliance before a contract is executed. City staff will conduct annual property inspections following submittal of the annual report to ensure that proposed work has been completed and meets all applicable City standards. Inspections may also be required by the County Assessor, State office Historic Preservation and/or State Board of Equalization.

All inspections are by appointment with the property owner.

Breach of Contract: If the City determines that the property owner is in breach of contract, the City may cancel the contract and the owner is liable for a cancellation fee of 12.5% of the current value of the property as determined by the County Assessor.

ADMINISTRATION
City of Palm Desert: Mills Act applications and contracts are administered by the Cultural Resources Administrator in the Planning Division. Upon selection for the program, contracts are reviewed by the Cultural Resources Preservation Committee and City Council for approval.

Riverside County: The County records executed Mills Act contract documents with the County Recorder before December 31 of the applicable calendar year. After recordation, the City transmits contract documents to the Riverside County Assessor where the calculation for the exact property tax under the Mills Act is completed. 960
5 The County Assessor calculates the tax saving using a stated-mandated reassessment formula based on “capitalization of income” rather than simple “market value.” Mills Act participants may realize a property tax savings averaging about 50% each year depending on property value, net operating income, and other variables. Recently purchased historic properties are most likely to receive the highest reduction. The Mills Act Program does not guarantee a reduction amount for any property.

Contracts that are recorded by December 31 are reassessed by June 30 of the following year and the reduced tax will appear on the tax bill of October of that year.

State of California: Within six months of entering into a Mills Act contract, the property owner must submit written notice to the State Office of Historic Preservation. This notification states that the property owner has entered into a Mills Act contract. A copy of the letter must be submitted to the City Cultural Resources Administrator.

APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
The City accepts an unlimited number of Mills Act contracts per year. Applications are accepted year-round, but to be considered for the next fiscal year applications must be submitted by July 30th.

Fees: A non-refundable application fee is due with your application. If your application is accepted, a contract initiation fee deposit of $1000.00 will be due.

Submittal Requirements: The application should include the following:

1. Application Checklist

2. Application Form

3. Copy of the grant deed, including a complete legal description

4. 10-Year Property Improvement Plan

5. Photographs – Photographs shall be black and white 35mm film including negatives or compact disc (CD) of the building interior (all rooms) and exterior (front, sides, rear as well as assessor buildings, and hardscape and landscape features). Include as many views of architectural details as necessary to document the character defining features of the building and site. Include one 8 x 10 printed image that best captures the property, (e.g. front façade). Images shall be printed onto archival paper in 3 x 5, 4 x 6 or multiple image letter sized sheet format.

6. Site plan – The plan shall be drawn to scale and showing the location of all buildings, structures and major site features on the property, street names, north arrow, and dimensions.

7. Non-refundable application fee
The complete application should be submitted to the Planning division’s online portal here: Digital Plan Submittals | CITY OF PALM DESERT (cpdftp.org) or:

Cultural Resources Administrator
Planning Division
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
961
6 City of Palm Desert Mills Act
Application Checklist
The following should be completed and submitted with your application packet. See the Palm Desert Mills Act Application Manual for details on the submittal requirements. † Application Form
† Copy of the grant deed, including complete legal description † 10-Year Property Improvement Plan
† Photographs
† Site Plan
† Non-Refundable Application Fee
962
7 73-510 Fred Waring Drive · Palm Desert · California · 92260 · (760) 776-6420 · Fax (760) 776-6392 Property Owner Information:

Name: Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone: (HM) (WK) Email:

Property Information:

Address of Property: Assessor’s
Parcel No(s): Legal
Description (attach additional sheets if necessary):

Date of Purchase by Current owner:

Use of Property:

Eligibility for the Mills Act Program:

A property must be designated and recorded with the Riverside County Recorder at the time an application is submitted. Please check the designation(s) that apply to the property:

City Historic Landmark
Contributor to a City Historic District
National Register of Historic Places (individually listed) National Register of Historic Places (contributor to a historic district) National Historic Landmark
Name of Historic District (if applicable):

Date of Designation:

Property Owner Consent: I am (we are) the present owner(s) of the property described above and hereby apply for consideration for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract Signature of Property Owner Date
Signature of Property Owner Date
City of Palm Desert
Planning Division

MILLS ACT HISTORIC PROPERTY CONTRACT APPLICATION
For Office Use:
963
8 10-Year Property Improvement Plan
For sample projects qualifying under the Mills Act see Appendix “A”. Attach additional sheets if necessary.

Year Proposed Project Estimated Cost
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
This schedule will be attached as an exhibit to the Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract). It may be revised or updated by mutual consent of the property owner(s) and the Cultural Resources Administrator in the Planning Division.

All projects that affect the exterior of the property are subject to review and approval by the Cultural Resources Administrator and/or the Cultural Resources Preservation Committee before work begins. Work must meet all City requirements and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Appendix B). 964

APPENDICES
A. Eligible Scopes of Work Under the Mills Act
B. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation C. Sample Mills Act Contract Agreement
D. Sample Site Plan
E. Site Inspection Form
F. State Mills Act Legislation
965

APPENDIX A
Eligible Scope of Work
The table below serves as guidance to determine if the proposed project(s) outlined in the 10-year Property Improvement Plan are eligible repair, restoration, and/or rehabilitation improvements under the Mills Act Application. The table categorizes each improvement as either contributing to “structure integrity”, “architectural/historical integrity”, or ineligible. “Structure integrity” includes the structural elements of a building (foundation, beams, framing, etc.) and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. “Architectural/Historical Integrity” includes architectural and historical components (windows, doors, roofing, decorative elements, trims, etc) that are integral to the justification for the property having a historical designation.

Any work proposed that is not identified within the table below is subject to eligibility determination by City Staff, the Cultural Resources Preservation Committee (CRPC), and/or City Council.

SCOPE OF WORK ELIGIBLE INELIGIBLE
Structure
Integrity
Architectural and/or
Historical Integrity
Interior

1. New/repair appliances X

2. New/repair carpet X

3. New/repair countertops X

4. New/repair flooring X

5. Interior painting X

6. Changes to interior walls X

7. Carpentry restoration work (example:

Windows, molding, framing) X
Roofing

8. Patch/Repair Roof X

9. New Roof (different material) X

10. New roof (original material) X

11. Altering Building Roof (ridge, dormers,
gables, etc.) X

12. Repair roof framing X

13. Repair of eaves/overhangs X

14. Flashing/waterproofing X

15. Install rooftop photovoltaic system (Solar
panels) X
Windows/Doors/Awning/Shutters

16. Replace exterior doors and/or windows X

17. Alteration/creation of window or door
opening X

18. Replacement/repair of shutters or
awnings X

19. Install or remove shutters or awnings X
Exterior Walls
966

APPENDIX A

20. Whole house exterior paintingX

21. Touch up paintX

22. Re-stucco (like for like)X

23. Stucco repair (like for like)X

24. Repair, restore, or repaint masonry X

25. Cleaning of wallsX

26. New/replacement wall claddingX
Architectural Elements

27. Repair, remove, or alter existing patios,
balconies, and/or chimneys X

28. Construct new patio, balcony, and/or
chimney X

29. Construct new attached wallX

30. Repair or replace gutters and downspoutsX

31. Repair existing architectural elementX

32. Add new architectural elementX
Mechanical

33. New HVAC system(s)X

34. New venting or duct workX

35. New water heaterX

36. New fansX

37. HVAC system maintenance/repairX
Electrical

38. New electrical outlets, circuits, panelsX

39. Whole house rewiringX

40. Electrical panel upgradeX

41. New service lines to detached structureX

42. Electric vehicle chargerX

43. Battery storage or generatorX

44. Security lighting and/or alarm systemX

45. Exterior lighting fixturesX

46. Interior lighting fixturesX
Plumbing

47. Whole house repipingX

48. New plumbing fixtures (sink, tub, shower,
faucets) X

49. Plumbing repairsX

50. New service or supply linesX
Fire Protection

51. Install fire sprinkler systemX

52. Install smoke/CO2 alarmsX
Structural/Foundation

53. Foundation bolting, wall bracing, and
related seismic work
X 54. New/repair foundation

55. Seismic retrofitting
967

APPENDIX A

56. Repair or reinforce wall/ceiling framing or
bracing
Drainage/Water Protection

57. Flashing
X

58. New/repair Exterior Drains

59. Water damage repair (interior/exterior)

60. Re-grading of property for drainage
purposes
Accessory Structures

61. New/repair of walls or fences X

62. Contributing landscaping and hardscape X

63. ADU or JADU construction X

64. Install/remove swimming pool X

65. Repair contributing swimming pool X

66. Construct/repair/removal of original
accessory structure
X

67. Construct/repair/removal of non-original
accessory structure
X
General Maintenance

68. HOA Fees for Ineligible Items X

69. HOA Fees for Eligible Items* X

70. Regular common area or landscaping fees X

71. Termite Treatment
X

72. Mold remediation

73. Abestos remediation

74. Radon gas prevention/remediation

75. Lead-based paint removal
*If HOA Fees submitted are for a scope of work that is eligible in another section of Appendix A, the fees may be eligible. 968

APPENDIX B
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
969

APPENDIX C
Recording Requested by: )
When Recorded Mail to: )
)

CITY OF PALM DESERT )
73-510 Fred Waring Drive )
Palm Desert, CA 92260 )
)
Attention: Cultural Resources )
Administrator )
)
)
)
(Space above for Recorder’s Office)

HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
(“MILLS ACT CONTRACT”)
between

THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
a California municipal corporation
and
Owner(s) of the property located at

APN -----------------------------
970

APPENDIX C
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT (“MILLS
ACT CONTRACT”)
This agreement (“Agreement”) is made this _____ day of _________ 20__, by and between the City of Palm Desert, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and (“Owner”).

RECITALS

1. California Government Code section 50280, et. seq. allow cities the discretion to enter into contracts with the owners of qualified historic properties, as defined in Government Code section 50280.1, for the purpose of providing for the use, maintenance, protection, and restoration of such historic property, so as to retain its characteristics as property of historic significance; and

2. Owner holds fee title to that certain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, generally located at
within the City of Palm Desert, California (“Historic Property”). A legal description of the Historic Property is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated herein by this reference; and

3. On _____________ ____ 20__, the Cultural Resources Preservation Committee and/or the City Council designated the Historic Property as a historic resource, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Title 29 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code; and

4. City and Owner desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of protecting and preserving the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property that help provide the community with its own unique civic identity and character; and

5. Owner, in consideration for abiding by the terms of this Agreement, shall be entitled to qualify for a reassessment of valuation of the Historic Property, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Part 2, of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, and any corresponding adjustment in property taxes resulting therefrom.

TERMS
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Owner, in consideration of mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, do hereby agree as follows:
971

APPENDIX C

1. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective and commence on , 20 (“Effective Date”), and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years thereafter.

2. Yearly Renewal. Each year upon the anniversary of the Effective Date (“Renewal Date”), an additional one (1) year shall automatically be added to the remaining term of the Agreement, unless a notice of nonrenewal is delivered as provided in Section 3 of this Agreement.

3. Nonrenewal. If either the Owner or City desires at any point not to renew this Agreement, Owner or City shall serve a written notice of nonrenewal upon the party in advance of the Renewal Date (“Notice of Nonrenewal”). The Notice of Nonrenewal shall be effective, only if served by Owner upon City at least ninety (90) days prior to the Renewal Date, or if served by City upon Owner, the Notice of Nonrenewal shall be effective, only if served upon Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the Renewal Date. If either City or Owner serves a Notice of Nonrenewal in any year, this Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the remaining Agreement term.

4. Owner Protest of City Nonrenewal. Within fifteen (15) days of Owner’s receipt of the Notice of Nonrenewal from the City, Owner may file with the City a written protest of the Notice of Nonrenewal. Upon receipt of the written protest, the City Council shall set a hearing prior to the expiration of the Renewal Date of this Agreement. Owner may furnish to the City Council any information that Owner deems relevant, and shall furnish that which is requested or required by the City Council. The City Council may, at any time prior to the annual Renewal Date, withdraw its Notice of Nonrenewal.

5. Standards for Historical Property. During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements, and restrictions:

A. Owner shall preserve and maintain the characteristics of the cultural and historical significance of the Historic Property. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference, is a list of the minimum standards and conditions for the maintenance, use, protection, and preservation of the Historic Property, which shall be complied with by Owner at all times throughout the term of this Agreement. In addition, Owner shall comply with the terms of the City’s Cultural Resources Ordinance 1168 (Title 29 of the Palm 972

APPENDIX C
Desert Municipal Code), and shall obtain any and all applicable permits necessary to protect, preserve, restore, and rehabilitate the Historic Property, so as to maintain its historical and cultural significance.

B. Owner shall, where necessary, repair, maintain, restore, and rehabilitate the Historic Property according to the rules and regulations of both the Office of Historic Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the City of Palm Desert. The condition of the Historic Property’s exterior on the Effective Date of this Agreement is documented in the photographs attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. At a minimum, Owner shall continually maintain the exterior of the Historic Property in the same condition as documented and depicted in Exhibit “C.” C. Owner shall carry out specific restoration, repair, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation projects on the Historic Property, as outlined in Exhibit “D,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All such projects shall be undertaken and completed in accordance with both the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, in addition to the City of Palm Desert’s design guidelines.

D. Owner shall not be permitted to block the view corridor with any new structure such as walls, fences or shrubbery, so as to prevent the view of the Historic Property from the public right-of-way.

6. Periodic Examinations. Upon reasonable advance notice, Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examinations of the exterior of the Historic Property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization and/or the City, as may be necessary to determine Owner’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

7. Provision of Information of Compliance. Owner hereby agrees to furnish City with any and all information requested by the City, which the City deems necessary or advisable to determine eligibility of the Historic Property and compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

8. Breach of Agreement; Remedies.

A. Notice of Breach; Opportunity to Cure. If Owner breaches any provision of this Agreement, City may give written notice to Owner by registered or certified 973

APPENDIX C
mail, detailing Owner’s violations. If such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within thirty (30) days after the date of notice of violation, or within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the violation (provided the acts to cure the violation are commenced within thirty (30) days and thereafter diligently pursued to completion), the City may, without further notice, declare Owner to be in breach of this Agreement. Upon City’s declaration of Owner’s breach of this Agreement, City may pursue any and all remedies available pursuant to local, state, or federal law, including those specifically provided for in this section.

B. Remedy - Termination. City may terminate this Agreement, if the City determines, following a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Government Code section 50286, that: 1.) Owner breached any of the conditions of this Agreement; 2.) Owner allowed the Historic Property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property or; 3.) Owner failed to maintain and preserve the Historic Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the Office of the Auditor for the County of Riverside, as required by Government Code section 50286.

C. Alternative Remedies. As an alternative to termination of this Agreement for Owner’s breach of any condition, City may bring an action in court necessary to enforce this Agreement including, but not limited to, an action to enforce this Agreement by specific performance, injunction, or receivership.

9. Destruction of Property; Eminent Domain; Termination. If the Historic Property is destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood, or other natural disaster such that in the opinion of the City Building Official more than sixty percent (60%) of the original fabric of the structure must be replaced, this Agreement shall be terminated, because the historic value of the structure will have been deemed destroyed. If the Historic Property is acquired in whole or in part by eminent domain or other acquisition by any entity authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, and the acquisition is determined by the City Council to frustrate the purpose of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated. No cancellation fee pursuant to Government Code section 50286 shall be imposed if the Agreement is terminated, pursuant to this Section.

10. Waiver. City does not waive any claim of default by Owner, if City does not enforce 974

APPENDIX C
or terminate this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City’s regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder.

11. Binding Effect of Agreement. Owner hereby subjects the Historic Property to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in this Agreement. City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall inure to and be binding upon Owner’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument herein after executed, covering or conveying the Historic Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth in this Agreement, deed, or other instrument.

12. Covenants Run with the Land. City and Owner hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that it restricts development of the Historic Property. City and Owner hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and maintaining the cultural and historical characteristics and significance of the Historic Property for the benefit of the public and the Owner.

13. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto:

City: City of Palm Desert
Department of Building and Safety
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Owner:

14. Effect of Agreement. None of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto or any of their heirs, 975

APPENDIX C
successors or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions or conditions cause the parties to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise.

15. Indemnity of City. Owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees from any actual or alleged claims, demands, causes of action, liability, loss, damage, or injury to property or persons, including wrongful death, whether imposed by a court of law or by administrative action of any federal, state or local governmental agency, arising out of or incident to (i) the direct or indirect use operation, or maintenance of the Historic Property by Owner or any contractor, subcontractor, employee, agent, lessee, licensee, invitee, or any other person; (ii) Owner’s activities in connection with the Historic Property; and (iii) any restrictions on the use or development of the Historic Property, from application or enforcement of Title 29 of the City’s Municipal Code, or from the enforcement of this Agreement. This indemnification includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys’ fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of City, its elected officials, employees, and/or agents for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. Owner’s obligation to indemnify shall survive the termination, cancellation, or expiration of this Agreement and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by City, its elected officials, employees, or agents.

16. Binding Upon Successors. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever.

17. Legal Costs. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, conditions or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorneys’ fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.

18. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby.
976

APPENDIX C

19. Recordation. No later than twenty (20) days after the Effective Date, City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside. Owner shall provide written notice of the contract to the State Office of Historic Preservation within six (6) months of entering into the contract.

20. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.

21. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action at law or in equity brought by either of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this Agreement shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California, and the parties hereby waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county.
977

APPENDIX C
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written.

Dated: CITY OF PALM DESERT
By
ATTESTED TO:

By
Dated: Owner
Owner

APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
978

APPENDIX C

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On , before me, , the undersigned, a
notary public in and for said State, 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 Signature
979

APPENDIX C

EXHIBIT A

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
980

APPENDIX C

EXHIBIT B

MINIMUM STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR

MAINTENANCE, USE, PROTECTION, AND PRESERVATION

OF HISTORIC PROPERTY
981

APPENDIX C

EXHIBIT C

EXTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF HISTORIC PROPERTY
982

APPENDIX C

EXHIBIT D

PENDING AND REQUIRED PROJECTS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTY
983
11 APPENDIX D
984
12 APPENDIX E

MILLS ACT PROGRAM

CITY STAFF ANNUAL INSPECTION REPORT
Date of inspection: Drive-by Site Visit
Staff Name:

Was work completed in accordance with all City requirements? Yes No Comments:

Signature:
985
13 APPENDIX F
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 50280-50290
50280. Upon the application of an owner or the agent of an owner of any qualified historical property, as defined in Section 50280.1, the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county may contract with the owner or agent to restrict the use of the property in a manner which the legislative body deems reasonable to carry out the purposes of this article and of Article 1.9 (commencing with Section 439) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The contract shall meet the requirements of Sections 50281 and 50282.
50280.1. "Qualified historical property" for purposes of this article, means privately owned property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district, as defined in Section 1.191-2(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (b) Listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.
50281. Any contract entered into under this article shall contain the following provisions:
(a)The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years. (b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code. (2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization as may be necessary to determine the owner's compliance with the contract.
(3) For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all successors in interest of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and obligations under the contract as the original owner who entered into the contract.
(c) The owner or agent of an owner shall provide written notice of the contract to the Office of Historic Preservation within six months of entering into the contract. 50281.1. The legislative body entering into a contract described in this article may require that the property owner, as a condition to entering into the contract, pay a fee not to exceed the reasonable cost of administering this program.
50282. (a) Each contract shall provide that on the anniversary date of the contract or such other annual date as is specified in the contract, a year shall be added automatically to the initial term of the contract unless notice of nonrenewal is given as provided in this section. If the property owner or the legislative body desires in any year not to renew the contract, that party shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the contract on the other party in advance of the annual renewal date of the contract. Unless the notice is served by the owner at least 90 days prior to the renewal date or by the legislative body at least 60 days prior to the renewal date, one year shall automatically be added to the term of the contract. (b) Upon receipt by the owner of a notice from the legislative body of nonrenewal, the owner may make a written protest of the notice of nonrenewal. The legislative body may, at any time prior to the renewal date, withdraw the notice of nonrenewal.
(c) If the legislative body or the owner serves notice of intent in any year not to renew the contract, the existing contract shall remain in effect for the balance of the period remaining since the original execution or the last renewal of the contract, as the case may be. (d) The owner shall furnish the legislative body with any information the legislative body shall require in order to enable it to determine the eligibility of the property involved. (e) No later than 20 days after a city or county enters into a contract with an owner pursuant to this article, the clerk of the legislative body shall record with the county recorder a copy of the contract, which shall 986
14 describe the property subject thereto. From and after the time of the recordation, this contract shall impart a notice thereof to all persons as is afforded by the recording laws of this state. 50284. The legislative body may cancel a contract if it determines that the owner has breached any of the conditions of the contract provided for in this article or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historical property. The legislative body may also cancel a contract if it determines that the owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in the contract.
50285. No contract shall be canceled under Section 50284 until after the legislative body has given notice of, and has held, a public hearing on the matter. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the last known address of each owner of property within the historic zone and shall be published pursuant to Section 6061.
50286. (a) If a contract is canceled under Section 50284, the owner shall pay a cancellation fee equal to 121/2 percent of the current fair market value of the property , as determined by the county assessor as though the property were free of the contractual restriction. (b) The cancellation fee shall be paid to the county auditor, at the time and in the manner that the county auditor shall prescribe, and shall be allocated by the county auditor to each jurisdiction in the tax rate area in which the property is located in the same manner as the auditor allocates the annual tax increment in that tax rate area in that fiscal year.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, revenue received by a school district pursuant to this section shall be considered property tax revenue for the purposes of Section 42238 of the Education Code, and revenue received by a county superintendent of schools pursuant to this section shall be considered property tax revenue for the purposes of Article 3 (commencing with Section 2550) of Chapter 12 of Part 2 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code. 50287. As an alternative to cancellation of the contract for breach of any condition, the county, city, or any landowner may bring any action in court necessary to enforce a contract including, but not limited to, an action to enforce the contract by specific performance or injunction. 50288. In the event that property subject to contract under this article is acquired in whole or in part by eminent domain or other acquisition by any entity authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, and the acquisition is determined by the legislative body to frustrate the purpose of the contract, such contract shall be canceled and no fee shall be imposed under Section 50286. Such contract shall be deemed null and void for all purposes of determining the value of the property so acquired. 50289. In the event that property restricted by a contract with a county under this article is annexed to a city, the city shall succeed to all rights, duties, and powers of the county under such contract. 50290. Local agencies and owners of qualified historical properties may consult with the State Historical Resources Commission for its advice and counsel on matters relevant to historical property contracts. 987
15 California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.9, Sections 439 – 439.4 439. Historical Property Restrictions; enforceably restricted property.

For the purposes of this article and within the meaning of Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution, property is "enforceably restricted" if it is subject to an historical property contract executed pursuant to Article 12 (commencing with Section 50280) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code. 439.1. Historical Property; definitions.

For purposes of this article "restricted historical property" means qualified historical property, as defined in Section 50280.1 of the Government Code, that is subject to a historical property contract executed pursuant to Article 12 (commencing with Section 50280) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code. For purposes of this section, "qualified historical property" includes qualified historical improvements and any land on which the qualified historical improvements are situated, as specified in the historical property contract. If the historical property contract does not specify the land that is to be included, "qualified historical property" includes only that area of reasonable size that is used as a site for the historical improvements. 439.2. Historical Property; valuation.

When valuing enforceably restricted historical property, the county assessor shall not consider sales data on similar property, whether or not enforceably restricted, and shall value that restricted historical property by the capitalization of income method in the following manner:
(a) The annual income to be capitalized shall be determined as follows:
(1) Where sufficient rental information is available, the income shall be the fair rent that can be imputed to the restricted historical property being valued based upon rent actually received for the property by the owner and upon typical rentals received in the area for similar property in similar use where the owner pays the property tax. When the restricted historical property being valued is actually encumbered by a lease, any cash rent or its equivalent considered in determining the fair rent of the property shall be the amount for which the property would be expected to rent were the rental payment to be renegotiated in the light of current conditions, including applicable provisions under which the property is enforceably restricted.
(2) Where sufficient rental information is not available, the income shall be that which the restricted historical property being valued reasonably can be expected to yield under prudent management and subject to applicable provisions under which the property is enforceably restricted.
(3) If the parties to an instrument that enforceably restricts the property stipulate therein an amount that constitutes the minimum annual income to be capitalized, then the income to be capitalized shall not be less than the amount so stipulated. For purposes of this section, income shall be determined in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the board and with this section and shall be the difference between revenue and expenditures. Revenue shall be the amount of money or money's worth, including any cash rent or its equivalent, that the property can be expected to yield to an owner- operator annually on the average from any use of the property permitted under the terms by which the property is enforceably restricted. Expenditures shall be any outlay or average annual allocation of money or money's worth that can be fairly charged 988
16 against the revenue expected to be received during the period used in computing the revenue. Those expenditures to be charged against revenue shall be only those which are ordinary and necessary in the production and maintenance of the revenue for that period.

Expenditures shall not include depletion charges, debt retirement, interest on funds invested in the property, property taxes, corporation income taxes, or corporation franchise taxes based on income.
(b) The capitalization rate to be used in valuing owner-occupied single family dwellings pursuant to this article shall not be derived from sales data and shall be the sum of the following components:
(1) An interest component to be determined by the board and announced no later than September 1 of the year preceding the assessment year and that was the yield rate equal to the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Board, rounded to the nearest 1/4 percent.
(2) A historical property risk component of 4 percent.
(3) A component for property taxes that shall be a percentage equal to the estimated total tax rate applicable to the property for the assessment year times the assessment ratio. (4) A component for amortization of the improvements that shall be a percentage equivalent to the reciprocal of the remaining life.
(c) The capitalization rate to be used in valuing all other restricted historical property pursuant to this article shall not be derived from sales data and shall be the sum of the following components:
(1) An interest component to be determined by the board and announced no later than September 1 of the year preceding the assessment year and that was the yield rate equal to the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Board, rounded to the nearest 1/4 percent.
(2) A historical property risk component of 2 percent.
(3) A component for property taxes that shall be a percentage equal to the estimated total tax rate applicable to the property for the assessment year times the assessment ratio. (4) A component for amortization of the improvements that shall be a percentage equivalent to the reciprocal of the remaining life.
(d) Unless a party to an instrument that creates an enforceable restriction expressly prohibits the valuation, the valuation resulting from the capitalization of income method described in this section shall not exceed the lesser of either the valuation that would have resulted by calculation under Section 110, or the valuation that would have resulted by calculation under Section 110.1, as though the property was not subject to an enforceable restriction in the base year.
(e) The value of the restricted historical property shall be the quotient of the income determined as provided in subdivision (a) divided by the capitalization rate determined as provided in subdivision (b) or (c).
(f) The ratio prescribed in Section 401 shall be applied to the value of the property determined in subdivision (d) to obtain its assessed value. 439.3. Historical Property; notice of nonrenewal.

Notwithstanding any provision of Section 439.2 to the contrary, if either the county or city or the owner of restricted historical property subject to contract has served notice of 989
17 nonrenewal as provided in Section 50282 of the Government Code, the county assessor shall value that restricted historical property as provided in this section. (a) Following the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 50285 of the Government Code, subdivision (b) shall apply until the termination of the period for which the restricted historical property is enforceably restricted.
(b) The board or assessor in each year until the termination of the period for which the property is enforceably restricted shall do all of the following:
(1) Determine the full cash value of the property pursuant to Section 110.1. If the property is not subject to Section 110.1 when the restriction expires, the value shall be determined pursuant to Section 110 as if the property were free of contractual restriction. If the property will be subject to a use for which this chapter provides a special restricted assessment, the value of the property shall be determined as if it were subject to the new restriction.
(2) Determine the value of the property by the capitalization of income method as provided in Section 439.2 and without regard to the fact that a notice of nonrenewal or cancellation has occurred.
(3) Subtract the value determined in paragraph (2) of this subdivision by capitalization of income from the full cash value determined in paragraph (1). (4) Using the rate announced by the board pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 439.2, discount the amount obtained in paragraph (3) for the number of years remaining until the termination of the period for which the property is enforceably restricted. (5) Determine the value of the property by adding the value determined by the capitalization of income method as provided in paragraph (2) and the value obtained in paragraph (4).
(6) Apply the ratios prescribed in Section 401 to the value of the property determined in paragraph (5) to obtain its assessed value.
439.4. Historical Property; recordation.

No property shall be valued pursuant to this article unless an enforceable restriction meeting the requirements of Section 439 is signed, accepted and recorded on or before the lien date for the fiscal year in which the valuation would apply. 990

Page 1 of 2 ends

Palm Desert City CouncilAugust 22, 2024

Palm Desert City Council
August 22, 2024