Palm Springs City Council
September 12, 2024

office is located at 6819 East Gage Avenue, Commerce, CA 90040 (Phone (760) 782-3271, (562) 505-6415), [email protected].

DRAINAGE
ENG 12. This property is located within a special flood hazard area (SFHA), specifically the Tahquitz Creek Channel is located within the property and is subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.68 et. seq. (“Flood Damage Prevention”) of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, and applicable state and federal laws and regulations. The property is located within a designated SFHA identified by Zone AE as shown on the current Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Reservation, California, Riverside County, Community Panel Number 060763 1559G, dated August 28, 2008, and Community Panel Number 060763 1567G, dated August 28, 2008. The applicant shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations associated with development occurring within a SFHA.

ENG 13. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall coordinate and obtain necessary approvals from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) for all proposed work affecting the Tahquitz Creek Channel. Applicant shall review the project footprint with representatives of RCFC to determine the limits of the project disturbance within the defined Flood Control Channel. A copy of RCFC required approvals shall be provided to the City Engineer to obtain a Grading Permit. (Modified by PC on July 24, 2024).

ENG 14. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the Palm Springs Quadrangle (7.5-Minute Series), the 2021 edition map with GNIS Cell ID 33995, the Tahquitz Creek is listed as a blue line stream in the latest topographical map. The applicant shall obtain all necessary regulatory permits for work within a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain (i.e. the Tahquitz Creek). Such permits could include but are not limited to: a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and/or a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Evidence of the issuance of these, and/or other required regulatory permits, shall be provided to the City Engineer. Alternatively, the applicant shall provide a copy of a determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the project does not impact waters of the U.S., and a letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife authorizing the project without an agreement.

GENERAL
Item 2B - Page 24
Conditions of Approval - Case #5.0303-PD 153 AMND – Prescott Preserve September 12, 2024

ENG 15. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115.

ENG 16. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground.

ENG 17. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans if required for the project. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line.

ENG 18. Upon approval of any improvement plan (if required) by the City Engineer, the improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD drawing filetype) and PDF (Adobe Acrobat document filetype) formats. Variation of the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval by the City Engineer.

ENG 19. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record drawing “as-built” information and returned to the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.

Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction.

ENG 20. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any intersection or driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D.

ENG 21. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904.

TRAFFIC
ENG 22. All damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement legends, traffic control devices, signing, striping, and streetlights, associated with the proposed development shall be replaced as required by the City Engineer prior to completion of the project.

ENG 23. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided during all phases of construction as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and Item 2B - Page 25
Conditions of Approval - Case #5.0303-PD 153 AMND – Prescott Preserve September 12, 2024

barricading shall be in accordance with Part 6 “Temporary Traffic Control” of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), dated November 7, 2014, or subsequent editions in force at the time of construction.

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
FID 1. These Fire Department conditions may not provide all requirements. The owner/developer is responsible for all applicable state and locally adopted fire codes. Detailed plans are still required for review. Conditions are subject to final plan check and review.

FID 2. Fire Department Conditions were based on the 2022 California Fire Code as adopted by City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs Municipal Code, PSFD Appendix “T” Development Requirements. This building will require fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system.

FID 3. Conditions of Approval – “Conditions of Approval” received from the Palm Springs Planning Department must be submitted with each plan set. Failure to submit will result in a delay of plan approval.

FID 4. Required access: Exterior doors and openings required by this code, or the California Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided when required by the fire code official.

FID 5. Security Gates: A Knox Key operated switch shall be installed at every automatic gate. Secured automated vehicle gates or entries shall utilize a combination of a Tomar Strobeswitch™, or approved equal, and an approved Knox Key switch when required by the fire code official. Secured non-automated vehicle gates or entries shall utilize an approved padlock or chain (maximum link or lock shackle size of 1/4 inch) when required by the fire code official.

FID 6. Key Box Required to be Installed: Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for lifesaving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved Item 2B - Page 26
Conditions of Approval - Case #5.0303-PD 153 AMND – Prescott Preserve September 12, 2024

location. The key box shall be flush mount type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official.

FID 7. Key Box Contents: The Knox key box shall contain keys to all areas of ingress/egress, alarm rooms, fire sprinkler riser/equipment rooms, mechanical rooms, elevator rooms, elevator controls, plus a card containing the emergency contact people and phone numbers for the building/complex.

FID 8. Waste Accumulation Prohibited: Combustible waste material creating a fire hazard shall not be allowed to accumulate in buildings or structures or upon premises.

FID 9. Waste Material: Accumulations of wastepaper, wood, hay, straw, weeds, litter, or combustible or flammable waste or rubbish of any type shall not be permitted to remain on a roof or in any court, yard, vacant lot, alley, parking lot, open space, or beneath a grandstand, bleacher, pier, wharf, manufactured home, recreational vehicle, or other similar structure.

FID 10. Vegetation: Excessive weeds, grass, vines, or other growth that, in the opinion of the Fire Department, is capable of being ignited and endangering property, shall be cut down and removed by the owner or occupant of the premises.

END OF CONDITIONS
Item 2B - Page 27

ATTACHMENT D
Item 2B - Page 28
Item 2B - Page 29
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2024
City of Palm Springs

4. NEW BUSINESS:

C. A REQUEST BY THE OSWIT LAND TRUST, FOR A MINOR

AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD
153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 90
ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER GOLF COURSE AND

COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT HABITAT AND
NATURE PRESERVE; THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN
SUNRISE WAY; AND EL CIELO ROAD; NORTH OF MESQUITE
A VENUE; ZONE PDD 153/W, SECTION 24 (CASE 5.0303-PD 153) (ER).

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DETERMINING

THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICAL EXEMPT PER CEQA GUIDELINES

AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENT TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 153, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS.

Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and answered questions of the commission.

Jim Priest, City Attorney, answered questions of the commission.

Joel Montalvo, City Engineer, answered questions of the commission.

Jane Garrison and Aaron Leider, Founder and Treasurer of the applicant Oswit Land Trust, spoke and answered questions of the commission.

Commissioner Miller moved, seconded by Commissioner Baker, to approve Item #4C with revised conditions that addressed concerns regarding restoration, wildlife, and security.

To be revised:

1. Restoration: The project shall be limited to the restoration of the former golf course to suit a native desert habitat and nature preserve by restoring native, non-invasive vegetation species to include water efficient plants and water-adjacent plants such as desert willows and California Fan Palm (Washingtonian filifera).

2. Wildlife Species: The restoration project shall be developed to support the wide range of native desert flora and fauna, including migratory and non-migratory species.

Original: The restoration project shall be developed to support the many kinds of native desert wildlife including migratory species and migratory bird species. 2 Item 2B - Page 30
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2024
City of Palm Springs

3. Security: The applicant shall be required to prepare a Security Plan, subject to approval by the Director of Planning Services. Such Security Plan shall require that the applicant provide regular patrol of the Preserve to prevent loitering, illegal dumping, and encampments of the unhoused citizens on the property, and may also identify what hours the preserve is closed to the public where necessary for public health and safety or for maintenance purposes.

Original: Rangers: The applicant shall be required to employ the services of full-time rangers to patrol the Preserve on a regular basis to prevent loitering, illegal dumping, and encampments of the unhoused citizens on the property.

4. Access to Public Trails: Public (including on-leash pets) access to the on-site trails, as required by recorded easements in favor of the City, shall be maintained throughout the site, which shall remain Open Space per Council Resolution No. 15648.

Original: The trails shall be opened to the public at all times and the entire site shall always remain as an Open Space per Council Resolution No. 15648.

FIDIO: Vegetation: Excessive weeds, grass, vines, or other growth that, in the opinion of the Fire Department, is capable of being ignited and endangering property, shall be cut down and removed by the owner or occupant of the premises.

Original: Vegetation: Weeds, grass, vines, or other growth that is capable of being ignited and endangering property, shall be cut down and removed by the owner or occupant of the premises.

To be added:

5. Equestrian Access: The applicant shall ensure that existing public equestrian access, as contemplated by the General Plan's Open Space and Circulation Element, is maintained through the property. Such trail(s) shall be kept free of debris and maintained in a safe and accessible condition.

6. Predatory Animals: The applicant shall collaborate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to educate residents regarding best practices on how to protect themselves, their pets, and their properties from predatory animals such as Coyotes and Bobcats, which are known to be present on the Preserve. Such information shall be disseminated in a manner determined in an Education Plan to be approved by the Director of Planning Services.

7. Coyote Dens: The applicant shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to determine best management practices to minimize conflicts between the public and coyotes. The applicant shall coordinate with CDFW if, in the opinion of 3 Item 2B - Page 31
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2024
City of Palm Springs
CDFW, it becomes necessary to relocate Coyote dens for public welfare and safety purposes.

8. Project Timeline: The applicant shall commence the planned restoration work within 6 months of this approval and demonstrate on-going progress toward implementation of the entire restoration and landscape plan.

9. Review of Progress: The Planning Commission shall receive an annual update from the Applicant on their progress and may, at such time that update is considered, amend the Conditions of Approval as necessary to ensure that the site is being maintained and managed so as to protect public health and safety. This requirement shall remain in effect until such time that all restoration work is complete unless extended by the Planning Commission.
l 0. Property Maintenance: The applicant shall resolve any maintenance and/or security issues raised by the City's Police, Fire, or Code Enforcement Departments within 30-days of receiving notification of such violation or complaint and to the satisfaction of the notifying-Department. If complete resolution is not feasible within 30 days, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan and schedule for resolution within 30 days of being notified of the issue

13. (ENG) Riverside County Flood Control to confirm that the channel clear and has not been impacted prior to the city issuing a grading permit.

To be removed:

ADM9 - Quimby fees are not triggered
AYES:

EXCUSED:

BAKER, MURPHY, A YLAIAN, MILLER, MORRILL

ROTMAN, WEREMIUK
4 ATTACHMENT E
Item 2B - Page 32
Item 2B - Page 33
Recording Requested By
Orange Coast Title Company of Southern
California
-· ·------ 2022-032639
_
9 __ _
07/22/2022 09:27 An Fee:$ 32.09
Pagel of 7
When Recorded Mail to CRecorded in OfflclnJ Records Po~ty of Riverside e.er Aldana And Mall Tax Statements To Save Oswlt Canyon Inc.
1775 E. Palm Canyon #4020
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Assessor-Cou~ty Clerk-Recorder
1lll i~l~?lh1.~tlt(!lll fll
APN: see attached
Escrow Number: CEPD-6544-KB
Title Number: 210-2320341-10 TRA: 011-003 The undersigned Grantor(s) Declare(s):

THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY

GRANT DEED
Documentary Transfer $9,625.00 City Tax Is ----
x Computed on the full value of the Interest of property --Computed on the full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale --Unincorporated x City of Palm Springs FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged, Palms Partners Capltal, LLC, a California Limited Llablllty Company
hereby GRANT(S) to Save Oswit Canyon, Inc., dba Oswit Land Trust, a California nonprofit (public benefit) corporation.
all the following described real property in the County of Riverside, State of California:

Commonly Known as: 2700 East Mesquite Avenue, Palm Springs, CA 92264 Escrow No.: CEPD-6544-KB
Signature Page Attached Hereto and Made a part Hereof

MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
OrantDecd
Pago 1 of2
Item 2B - Page 34
DOC #2022-0326399 Page 2 of 7

SIGNATURE PAGE
Title of Document: GRANT DEED
Date of Document: June 6, 2022
A notary public or other officer completing th1s certificate verifies only the Identity of 1he Individual who signed.the document to which this certificate Is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or velldlty of that document
f ~" ~a
On J~ 3 \ '20t.L before me,,--1\S-rz:t..=...C.'-.a.l ....--:.A,:..:..\..;.,YWJ=l.t=d-~O ___ , e Notary Public personally appeared_.:..~=-""'--.:~ ..... , '1 ........ __ ~-.,F,f:-h.;.,liUo.::;.;:..L.a...__ _________ _ who proved to me on the basts 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.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Callfomla that the foregoing para raph Is true and correct.
cial seal.
(SEAL}
Grant Deed
Esorow No.: CBPD-6544-KB hge2of2
Item 2B - Page 35
DOC #2022-0326399 Page 3 of 7
Parcel 1: (APN S02-590-011 [P'IN])
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South. Range 4 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Pabn Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. lying Easterly of the East line of Farrell Drive as described in docmnent recorded Juno 2S, 1964 as Instrument No, 78051, of Official Records of Riverside County, California.

Excepting therefrom that portion lying Southerly ofa line that is 150 feet Northerly oftbe Southerly line ofTahquitz Cn:ek Storm Channel as shown on Record{s) of Survey on filo in Book 34 Pages 93 through 98, ofRecord(s) of Survey, Records of Riverside.

Parcel lB: (APN 502-S90-011 (P'IN])
Tho Northeast quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; 1he Bast half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence Northwest Quarter of tho Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter;
The North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; and the North half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, all of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California.

Also excepting therefrom that portion lying within Tract 18370-3, as shown by map on file in Book 141 Page n, of Maps, records of Riverside County, California.

Parcel 2: (APN S02-560-020 {Pt:n])
That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. described as follows:

Commencing at tho Southwest comer of that portion of Sunrise Way shown as Lot "C .. of Tract 3362, as shown by Map on file in Book S4, Pages 74 and 75, of Maps. Records of Riverside County. California.

Thence along the South lane of said Tract, South 89° 43• 13" East, 76.00 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave Southeasterly having a radius of20.00 feet, a radial to said point bears North 89° 48' 13" West; Thence Northerly and Easterly 31.29 feet on said curve through a central angle of89° 38' 04'; Thence North 89° 49• 51" East 43032 feet, to the beginning of a curve concave Southerly having a radius of 470.00 feet, and Easterly 185.96 feet on said curve to a point on a radial bears North 22° 30• 01" East; Thence leaving said South line 15° oo• 00" West 271.S0 feet, for the true point of beginning; Thence continuing South 15° oo• 00" West, 207 33 feet, to a point on the center line of the 80.00 foot wide Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Right(s) of Way as shown on Record(s) of Survey on file in Book 34 Pages 93 to 98 of Rccord(s) of survey, Records of Riverside County, California, said point bears South S6° 24 • 17" East, 688.04 feet from the West line of said Section;
Thence along tho said center line South 56° 24 • 1 r• East, 336.87 feet; Thence North 89° 52' 09'' East. 81.21 feet; Thence North 7° 49• 40" East. 321.59 feet; Thence North 72° 55• 36" West, 363.33 feet to the true point of beginning.

Excepting therefrom that portion thercoflying within Tract 18370-2, as shown by Map on file in Book 141 Pages 75 and 76, of Maps, Records ofRiverside County, on file in Book 141 Pages 7S and 76, of Maps, Records ofRivcrside County, CaliforniL Also exc:cpting therefrom that portion thereof lying within the Baristo Wash, as conveyed to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation. recorded August 5, 1974 as Jnstrument No. 98747, Official Records.

Parcel 3: APN 502-560-020 [PlN])
Item 2B - Page 36
DOC #2022-0326399 Page 4 of 7
That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 Bast, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

Commencing at the Southwest comer of that portion of Sunrise Way shown as Lot "C' of Tract 3362, as shown by Map on tile in Book 54 Page 74, of Maps, Records ofRivcraide County, California; Thence along the South line of said Tract, South 89° 48' 13" East, 76.00 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave Sol11heasterly, having a radius of 20.00 feet, a radial to said point bears North 89° 4& • 13"; Thence Northerly and Easterly 31.29 feet on said curve through a central angle of B9° 3B • 04"; Thence North &9° 49' SI" Bast, 430.32 feet, to the beginning of a curve concave Southerly having a radius of 470.00 feet and Easterly 185.96 feot on said curve to a point to which a radial bears North 22° 30' 01" East; Thence leaving said South line South 15° 00' 00" West 271.S0 feet; Thence South 72° 5S' 36" East, 363.31 feet. for the true point of beginning; Thence South 7° 49' 40" West, 321.S9 feet to a point on the South line of the North half of the Northwest said Section; Thence North 89° 52' 09" Bast, 394.12 feet to the Southeast comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section;
Thence along the East line of said Northwest Quarter North 0° 02' 42" East, 318.52 feet; Thence South &9° 52' 09" West. 350.S6 feet, to the true point of beginning.

Excepting therefrom that portion thereof lying within Tract 18370-2 as shown by Map on file in Book 141 Pages 75 and 76, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, CalifomiL
Parcel 4: (APN 502-570--008 IPTN])
That portion oftbe Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California, lying Westerly of the West line of Farrell Drive as described in document Recorded June 25, 1964 as Instrument No. 7&051 of Official Records of Riverside County, California.

Excepting therefrom that portion thereof lying within Tract 18370-1 as shown by Map on file in Book 137 Pages 26, 27 and 28, of Maps, Records ofRiverside County, CalifomiL
Also excepting therefrom that portion described in document Recorded November 12, 1975 as Instrument No. 141017 of Official Records ofRiverside County, CalifomiL
Also excepting therefrom that North 40 feet as disclosed by proceedings in an action in the United States District Court for Southern District of California, Case No. 118B2-M, entitled "Clement Segundo vs. United States of America, et al".

Parcel 5: (APN: 502-570-008 [PTN])
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 East, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Palm Springs. County ofRivcrside, State of California.

Excepting therefrom any portion thereof lying within Tract 1050&, as shown by Map on file in Book 96 Pages 20 through 23, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California.

Also oxcepting therefrom that portion lying Southerly of a line that is 150 feet Northerly of the Southerly line ofTahquitz Creek Storm Channel as shown on Record(s) of Survey on file ln Book 34, Pages 93 through 98, ofRecord(s) of Survey, Records of Riverside County, CalifomiL
Parcel 6: (APN: 502-570-008 p>TN])
That portion of tho Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 East, San Bernardino Base Item 2B - Page 37
DOC #2022-0326399 Page 5 of 7
and Meridian, in the City of Palm Springs, Comity ofRiverside, S1ate of California, lying Westerly of the Westerly line of Farrell Drive as described in document Recorded June 25, 1964 as Instrument No. 780S1 of Official Records of Riverside County, California. •
Excepting therefrom any portion lying within Tract 10508, as shown by Map on file in Book 96 Pages 20 through 23, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California;
Also excepting thcrcftom that portion lying Southerly of a line that is 1S0 feet Northerly of tho Southerly line ofTahquftz Creek Stonn Channel as shown on Record(s) ofSU(Vey, Records of Riverside County, California.

Parcel 7: (APN: 502-S70-008 [PTN])
That portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and that portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, both in Section 24, Township 4 Sou~, Range 4 Bast. San Bernardino Base and Meridian, In the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California, lying Southerly of a line ISO feet Northerly of the Southerly line ofTahquitz Creek Storm Channel, as shown on Record(s) of Survey on file in Book 34 Pages 93 through 98, ofRecord(s) of Survey, Records ofRiverside County, California, and Westerly of the Westerly line of Farrell Drive as described In instrument Recorded June 25, 1964 as Instrument No. 78051 of Official Records of Riverside County, CalifomiL Excepting therefrom the Southerly 44 feet thereof as descnoed in Instrument Recorded March 10, 1970 as Instrument No. 22462 of Official Records ofRivenide County, CalifomiL
Also excepting therefrom any portion lying within Tract 10S08, as shown by Map on file in Book 96 Pages 20 through 23, of Maps, Records ofRivcrside County, California.

Parcel 8: (APN: S02-S80-003)
That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 East. San Bernardino Base and Meridian. in the City of Palm Springs, County ofRiversido, State of California, lying Easterly oftbe Easterly line of Farrell Drive as described in documents Recorded lune 25. 1964 as Instrument No. 780S1 of Official Records of Riverside County, California;
Excepting therefrom that portion described in document Recorded November 12, 197S as Instrument No. 141017 of Official Records ofRiversido County, California.

Also excepting therefrom the North 40 feet as disclosed by proceedings in an action in the United States District Court for tho Southern District of California. Case No. 11 882-M. entitled "Clement Segundo vs. the United States of America, et al"; also excepting therefrom that portion thereof lying within Tract 18370-1. as shown by Map on file in Book 137 Pages 26 to 28, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California.

Parcel 9: (APN 502-570.007/009-610-173)
That portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 10807-1, in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. as shown by Map on file in Book 'Tl. Pages 3 and 4 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California, and a portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 10807, in the City of Palm Springs. County of Riverside, State of California. as shown by Map on file in Book 104, Pages 90 and 91 of Maps.

Records of Riverside County, California, desa-ibed as follows:

Beginning at the Southeast comer of Lot 1 of said Tract No. 10807; thence North 0° 3' 34" West, 643.30 feet; Thence South 89° 49' S l .. West, 0.46 feet to tho Southeast comer of an exist block wall; Thence South. S4° 58' 08" West, 625.75 feet to the Southeast comer of Tennis Court; Thence South 89° 44' 18" West, 149.80 feet;
Thence North 0° 00' 28" West 29.48 feet;
Thence South 89° 5S' 19" West, 120.38 feet to the Southwest comer ofa Tennis Court; Thence North 63° 33' 45" West, 583.22 feet to the Southeast comer of an exist bloclc wall; Item 2B - Page 38
DOC #2022-0326399 Page 6 of 7
Thence South 89° 49' 51" West, 29.43 feet to the West line of said Tract 10807-1; Thence along said line South 0° 03' 20" West, 575.14 feet; thence along the South line of said Tract 10807-1 and 10807, North 89° 52' 44 .. East 1335.93 feet to the point of beginning.

Parcel 10: (APN 502-560-034/009-610-835, 502-560-039/009-613-311/502-560-033) Lot(s) 1, 2, F,. G and L of Tract 11559, in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California, within the allotted lands of the Agua <;alientc Band of Cahullla Indians of tho Agua Caliente Reservation, as shown by Map on file in Book 143 Pages 1 through 4, inclusive, of Maps. Records of Riverside County, Califomla.

Parcel 11: (S02-562~74 and 502-562-075)
An exclusive easement for the installation, operation and maintenance of a Golf Course, In and over the following described property:

That portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 4 F.ast, San Bernardino Meridian, described as follows:

Beginning at the Northeast comer of said Southwest Quarter; Thence along the East lino of said Southwest quarter South 0° 02' 42 .. West, 616.08 feet to tho South line of Parcols 6060.4A and 6060.4B, as shown on Record(s) of Survey on file in Book 57 Pagc(s) 3 through 17, inclusive, ofRecord(s) of Survey, Records of Riverside County, California, said point being the true point of beginning; Thence along said South line through a 1850 radius curve being concave to the South and a central angle of 4° 49' 19", a distance of 1S5.69 feet;
Thence along said South line 80° 11' 3T' West, 695.48 feet; Th~ce South 0° 11' 47" West, 100.60 feet; Thence North 89° 48' 13" West, 126.35 feet;
'Thence South 20° 11' 47" West, 12233 feet;
Thence North·72° 48' 34'' East, 71.99 feet; Thence North 70° 51' 09"East, 105.9S feet; Thence North 70° 21' 3T' East 106.28 feet:
'Thence North 70° 52' 09" East, I 05.95 feet;
Thence North 80° 30' 40" East 101.37 feet to the beginning ofa 5202.07° radius curve being concave to the South and having a central angle of O 1 ° 07' 02";
Thence Easterly a distance of 101.44 feet; Thence North 81° 27' 42" Bast 101.12 feet to the beginning ofa 390.00° radius curve being concave to the North and having a central angle ofl5° 13 • 07'' Easterly, a distance ofl03 .59 feet; Thence North 66° 24' 35" East 109.25 feet:

Thence North 69° 21' 09" East 106,98 feet; Thence North 76° 24' 37" East 40.86 feet; Thence North 0° 02' 51'' East 60.35 feet to the true point of beginning.

AsscsSOJ's Parcel Numbcrs(s):
1: 502-590-011
2: 502-562-075
3: 502-570-008
4: 502-580-003
Item 2B - Page 39
S: 502-560-020
6: 009-610-173
7: 009-613-311
8: 009-610-835
9: 502-560-033
10: 502-562-074
'IM: 011-003
DOC #2022-0326399 Page 7 of 7
Item 2B - Page 40
,_ A Jr,il . °' ,
FirstAmerican
--- - - - - - - - - -
al clarityfirst "' Recorded Document
State
CA
The Recorded Document images are displayed in the subsequent pages for following request:

County

RIVERSIDE
Document Number
2022.326399
limitation of Liability for Informational Report
IMPORTANT- READ CAREFULLY: THIS REPORT IS NOT AN INSURED PRODUCT OR SERVICE OR A REPRESENTATION OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY. IT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT OR PRELIMINARY REPORT, OR ANY FORM OF TITLE INSURANCE OR GUARANTY. THIS REPORT IS ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANT THEREFOR, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT FIRST AMERICAN'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. FIRST AMERICAN DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION

HEREIN IS COMPLETE OR FREE FROM ERROR, AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, AS-IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS. AS A MATERIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THIS REPORT, RECIPIENT AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN'S SOLE LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN ERROR OR OMISSION DUE TO INACCURATE INFORMATION OR NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARING THIS REPORT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FEE CHARGED FOR THE REPORT. RECIPIENT ACCEPTS

THIS REPORT WITH THIS LIMITATION AND AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THIS REPORT BUT FOR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY DESCRIBED ABOVE. FIRST AMERICAN MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY OF RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN.

Recorded Document 5/2/2023
©2005-2020 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates, All rights reserved.

Item 2B - Page 41
'
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

DOC # 2023-0037998
02/09/2023 08:54 AM Fees: $105.00

County of Riverside
Peter Aldana
Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
.. This document was electronically submitted
to the County of Riverside for recording ..

Receipted by: TERESA #134
New Palm Oroup. LLC
9984 Sunset Blvd
Beverly Hills. CA 90210
APN: S02-590-011 [PTN] SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE

GRANT DEED
The land is lm:ated in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside. Thi) undersipied decl11r~ tha1 the documentary tran .. -fer tax is City: SO. Count)' $0. No TOA Due as di, grantc,rs and grante.? in this conveyance 11~ comprised of the same pa"ies who C(lDtinue 10 hold the s:une proponicnate interest in the Propecty.

R&T 11925 ld).

FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Palms Partners Capital, LLC. a California limited liabiHty company hereby GRANTS to New Palm Group, LLC, a California limited liability company the real property in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside State of California described on Exhibit "A" hereto.

Dated: January 25, 2023

MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE
Item 2B - Page 42
DOC #2023-0037998 Page 2 of 3
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description

THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND

MERIDIAN, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF FARRELL DRIVE AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 25, 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 78051 OF

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE THAT IS 150 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE

OF TAHQUITZ CREEK STORM CHANNEL AS SHOWN ON RECORD(S) OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOOK 34 PAGES 93 THROUGH 98, OF RECORD($) OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 44 FEET AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 14, 1975 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 4680 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHTN TRACT 18370-3, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 141 PAGE 77, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
2 Item 2B - Page 43
I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
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
valldltv of that document.

State of Callfomla
County of /'c,s A?~b:"-t l
DOC #2023-0037998 Page 3 of 3
On fi6"""r1 11~ .. .zo~3 before me, I ch1rnt,,,/ t~rc.z.. - ~ryPubh~ (insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ',?qml'M k 11/tw, 1 Sffah~t1n• - ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence be the person(9) whose nameC., is/arp, subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sbe/th~ executed the same in his/he~hftir authorized capacityQ,n), and that by his/hpr/their'signature(H-On the Instrument the personp,,, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(S.>-acted, executed the Instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature----~---... £.,._ ____ _ CSeal)
3 ATTACHMENT F
Item 2B - Page 44
Item 2B - Page 45
...

MAG/JMS:JB 10/14/83

SUBLEASE
1r !,,1~·
~, :::u~~I lh: ~11~1
THIS SUBLEASE, made this 14th day of October, ~~3 ~ J ~ j _,,. between NEW MESQUITE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LTD., a // California Limited Partnership, (the "Sublessor"), and
JAMBS F. TEMPLE, a married man as his sole and separate property, (the "Sublessee").

W I T N E S S E T H
The Sublessor is the successor in interest to the
Lessee under a certain lease dated August 14, 1977 (the "Master Lease") between Belinda Sue Short and LeRoy F.

Segundo, therein called Lessor, and Cain Development corp., a California Corporation, therein called Lessee, which Master Lease was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on March 8, 197B and was assigned to Sublessor by Document recorded as Document No. 50927, official records of Riverside County, on March 18, 1983. The subject premises are leased by Sublessor under the Master Lease and are more fully
described or depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Premises"). The Sublessor hereby subleases the Premises to Sublessee upon the following terms and conditions.

1. Term. The term of this Sublease shall commence on Novembe~l983 (the "Commencement Date") and terminate on March 8, 2043 (the "'l'erm").

2. Rent. Sublessee shall pay annual rent to
Sublessor as of the Commencement Date ("Rent") of Fortyfive Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) per annum payable in monthly installments of Three . Hundred seventy-five Dollars ($375.00) a month. All rentals received by Sublessor from. Sublessee under this Sublease shall be paid to the Lessors under the Master· Lease.

3. Rent Adjustment. The Rent shall be increased
at the end of each five (5) year period of the within term commencirig March 8, 1988, by the same percentage as the cost of living index has increased over and above the base index as used herein during said five (5) year period. The Rent shall be adjusted upwards or downwards every five (5) years thereafter, providing that in no event shall the Rent be less than the Rent provided hereinabove. Such increase or decrease in Rent as provided herein shall not exceed an Item 2B - Page 46
i

1. ,,
averaie of three percent (3%) per year. As an example,
at the conclusion of the first five (5) year term applying the cost of living index formula, the maximum increase for that term would be fifteen percent (15%). Tre cost of living index to be used is.that reflected by the Consumer Price Index, all items, Los Angeles, California - (1967 = 100), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. If for any reason whatsoever, · there{, any change in the method of calculation or formulation of said price index, or if that index shall be no longer published, then another index generally recognized as authoritative shall be substituted by agreement. ln
any event, the bas~ used by any new index shall be reconciled to the 1967 index. It is agreed for purposes of this index that the base index shall be the index of March 1982.

4. Additional Rent. Sublessee agrees as additional
rent over and above the Rent, to pay to Sublessor a sum equal to the difference between · the Rent and the following p~rcentages of gross receipts of businesses, as specified below:

USE
(1) Residential lot rentals, including
family lot rentals, planned unit
development lot rentals, and
condominium lot rentals
(2) ApartJnent Ho\lse Rentals
70%
4%
The term gross receipts shall be defined as in Paragraph 2B of the Master Lease.

5. Use and Taxes. The Premises shall be used by
the Sublessee. for the construction and development of
residential condominium units, planned development units, apartment houses, single family residences and such other residential recreational uses as are incidental thereto and/or for the development of a golf course. If the construction of a~y improvements by Sublessee shall restilt in an increase in the real estate taxe s assessed against the Premise s, Sublessee shall pay all r e al estate taxes assessed against the Premises.

6. Suble~se Subject to the Master Lease. This
Sublease and the interest of the parties hereto are, except as may be . provided in the consent attached hereto, subject to all of the cove nants, conditions and provisions set forth 2 Item 2B - Page 47
in the Master Lease, and to the rights and interest of the Lessor thereunder. Reference is made to the Master Lease for particulars, and the same is incorporated as a part of this Sublease as if set forth at length herein. In the
event of conflict, the terms and conditions of the Master Lease and consent hereto will prevail. Sublessor shall
cooperate with Sublessee in enfo.rcement of the obligations of the Lessor under the Master Lease. Whenever there shall be any right to enforce any rhghts against the.Lessor under the Master Lease, Sublessee shall pro~ptly notify Sublessor thereof in writing and Sublessee may request Sublessor to enforce such rights and, if such request is mad~ and Sublessor fails or refuses to enforce such rights within a reasonable period thereafter, then Subiessee shall have the right in its own name, or in Sublessor's name to enforce any such rights of the Sublessee~ · · ·
· 7. rnsurance. All obligations for insurance coverage as described in Articles 9 and 10 of the Master Lease shall be obligations of the Sublessee herein, including naming the Sublessor as an additional insured.

8. Default. In the event of default by Sublessee
in the payment of Rent or in the performance of any of the obligations of this Sublease, or if Sublessee vacates or abandons the Premises, then, in any such event, Suble.ssor may, after thirty (30) days written notice to Sublessee in the event·of a monetary defauli and sixty [60) days
written notice in the event of a non-monetary default,
declare by written notice that the term of this .Sublease is ended, and may thereafter re-enter the Pr~mises, or any part thereof, and with process of law retake possession thereof, Sublessee hereby waiving notice of any kind except as aforesaid and waiving also any demand for possession of the Premises or for other performance.

9. Surrender. Termination of the Master Le~se, by
cancellation or otherwise, shall not serve to cancel this .Sublease and/or any subtenancy hereunder but shall only operate as an assignment to the Lessor under the Master Lease of the Sublessor's interest in this Sublease. Until the Subles·see is notified of any such termination of the Master Lease by the Lessor thereunder, there shall be no liability to the Lessor thereunder for the performance of the covenants and conditions herein which have been.performed for the benefit of the Sublessor. After the Lessor under the Master Lease ~as notified Sublessee that the
Master Lease nas been terminated, Sublessee shall at~orn to the Master Lessor. ·
3 Item 2B - Page 48

10. Construction and Effect. This Sublease and each and all of the covenants, corid1tions and restrictions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and shall bind the successors and assigns of Sublessor, and the successors and assigns and subtenants of Sublessee, and all reference to Sublessee, Sublessor or the Lessor under the Master Lease (Buii~ess Lease No. PSL-21~) shall include the successors of said respective parties unless the context shall otherwise require. If any successor Sublessee consists of more than one person, the covenants and obligations of Sublessee hereunder shall be the joint and sever~l covenants and obligations of such persons. In this l~ase the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, and the singular number includes the plural, wherever the context so requires.

11. Nolices. Whenever notice, demand or communication
shall be required to be given to or made on Sublessor, it shall be deemed sufficient for that purpose to mail such notice by registered or certified· mail to the Sublessor, addressed to 73080 El Paseo, Suite 1, Palm Desert, California 92260, or to such other address as Sublessor may otherwise designate in writing. · Whenever notice, demand or communication is to be given or made on Sublessee, it shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose to . mail such notice by registered or certified mail to the Sublessee, addressed to 555 commercial Road, Suite 13, Palm Springs, California 92262, or to such other address as Sublessee may otherwise designate in writing. The effective date of any such notice, demand or communication shall be the date on which the same is deposited in · the ma-il.

12. Right to Assign and Sublease. Sublessee shall have
the right to assign this Sublease or to sublet the Premis·es; provided, however, any assignment or sublease shall be made with the consent of all necessary parties under the Master Lease.

13. Limitations on Construction. Sublessee shall be
prohibited from constructing any wells, fences, or hedges along the perimeter of any of the Premises which abuts any portion of the Master Lease property. ·
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Sublease as of the day and year first above written.

SUBLESSOR:
4 Item 2B - Page 49
The undersigned Director of the Palm Springs office, Bureau of Indian Affairs: and LeRoy F. Segundo and Belinda Sue Short, as Lessors under Business Lease No. PSL-219, hereby consent to and approve the following:
1, The Sublease hereinbefore described of the Premises
described on Exhibit A attached hereto.

2. The use of all or a portion of the Premises for a golf course.

J. The exclusion of any golf .course useage from the
provisions of Paragraph 5B of the Master Lease.

4. The exclusion of the Premises from the requirements of Paragraphs 7A and 7B of the Master Lease and the agreement that should the Master Lease be terminated or altered as a result of Sublessor's £ailure to satisfy the requirements of Paragraphs 7A and B, same shall not affect Sublessee's rights under this Sublease. ·
S. The general plan referred to in Paragraph 12 Of the
Master Lease shall be amended to reflect Sublessee's development of the Premises, including but not limited to use of all or a portion of the Premises for golf course purposes, and the undersigned shall not unreasonably withhold their approval of .Sublessee' s plans and specifications submitted to them pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Master Lease.

6. Sublessee shall have the right to make alterations,
additions or repairs to any portion of the Premises used as a golf course without the further consent of the undersigned.

Consented to and Approved:

Dated:_N~O~V'---_9:;_.c,;;19~83-=---- DIRECTOR - Palm Springs Office Department of the Int-erior
Bureau of Indian Affairs Pursuant to the authority delegated by 209 Di\11 8, 10 [3IAM 3.1, and Sacramento
Area Oll;rn H,0 cielegation Order No. 1 R. S. McDermott {43 F.R 30131)
Consented to and Approved:
&L'L-vL~
~ELINDASUE SHORT
s
Item 2B - Page 50
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) , ) s s.

C_OUNTY OF C.:.'-.,, ~~)
On October J!::L., 1983, before_ me, the undersigned, a Notary P~blic in and for- said State, personally appeared CURTIS G.

DUNHAM and PAUL THORYK, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person that executed this instrument on behalf of the partnership, and acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same.

WITNE~hand and official
'9_ Notary ~O.

Public
~

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY .OF~/4 ss.
seal.
~~-;;;-f;IAI SEA7
SHt\LA D. HESS NOTARV PU8LIC-CAllf_ORNlf\
, ~ ., , PRINCIPAL OFflC( IN
· <·-(~ .,.,..: Si\N 0llG0 COUNlY
My commission fapires June 16, 1985
On October fl_, 19-83, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared JAMES F.

TEMPLE, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to -the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_«-,U~v£~ Notary Public

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OP £,-vt!#.S,De ss.

On "6"J"(:/t:f1r q , 1983, before me, the undersigned, a Notary· Public in and for said State, personally appeared LEROY F.

SEGUNDO, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed tot.he within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same.

WITNE~-d and official seal. .gze-"._
otary Public
6 Item 2B - Page 51
. . I· ...

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
. COUNTY' OF /,.;e.,e:-,·,oe ss .

N.,vq,,/,u On Oetober ff . , 1983, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said. State, personally appeared BELINDA SUE SHORT, pers•nally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person .whose name is ·subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that she executed the same.
seal. f,, .. ,..,._..,,,,., ,.-s, '."
~ . '
; -·.-i ,'
' l
. 1 J_·S~
~~'
7 Item 2B - Page 52
It ,
E'.(Ht~.:t' •·g·
s L'B lEAS E !)E: s·,::;u p:·: O!i'
That portion i,! th<e Sou1"..h•..,e:11t q,MrUr e! t?.,c; lr,'.)•:·,tJ.<'•lf,,?:t qua.r·t.,;,r of Section 24, Township 4 South, ~..sr.q-ec 4 Zd,s·t, !~~ ~~-~u,~:i: ,o Be.t>e an,, Meridian, described a• tcllo•..,s:

Beginning at the Ur:>-rthi!,ut co-rr..er of iuid ~:.UJ~•st -;,=·u,r; Thence along the Ea:11t line ot said S:11"9 5 r/r'Ji:l''-'•''1' .;.n1~.{Ja feet t-o the South line of Parcels 6t.)60.4A ars.d #i(.i~~.4a, ,&3, ~'°''"' ,on Reoor~ of Survey on tile il\ Boole S7 !'ages J tr..ro(l,:qf", 1;, k~:•:.:sii,•e of '
Records ot Survey, Records ot l<.i•rersit!111c C~-:a·,i:.7, ·Cicb f•or.1d.&; e,ence along eaid South line thru a l~S<:l' radi.ru ,:,,·.n'o£- be~.<:i? oonca,·e ito the South and a central anqle ot 4° 49' l')"', a di.•V.!'JO!' o! l.5-S.f!i9 !eet; thence along said Sou1:h line 9 80~.H 'l•i"'l,j' ;<.,-~.4'3 !1t;t:r*.:,ce S o0 11 '-G7"M' 100.60 feet; thence N 89°,a•u•w 4,C,,.QCI' !~,e~; -.?~~~ ~ ,cPna ',G7"E 400.00 feet; thence s 89°48" 13'.E: J')0 . 15. t eeri:.~ te~.-...-~ ll'. .=:i:Pn• :n .. z: ~02.05 feet to the West line of the EA:n, hd.lf o! ,M,1~ 'S'o~'tt'N"i s:'t -q"ll¼rt.E-r :t..'lence N o0 o7'14"E 419.12 f~et to th<'!! i'fo·!'l';f,: H= ,o,! -a~.ii,t £o~tl.!>RE:e;t « '.i>-r·t.er; thence along said N<n:eh line lli e9°s2·•r,,:,••z i>;,6?.•.1Z f~~t t,;, ~.he po:int of beginninq.

APPROVED:
,.---
NEW ~rTE DE'nl.G?')'.Z'.~.:7 ASS1)ClP..T£S LTD .

B ·r"C":0· ,t:-_-c , · --~-,..'-- - C<i r t. is G • 8,.i:::-,:L"::l.

Ii,
,
i
l
•
• t
•
• I
- I

ATTACHMENT G
Item 2B - Page 53
Item 2B - Page 54
Appeal Form
Formulario de Apelaci6n
City of Palm Springs
TEL (760) 323-8204 I FAX (760) 322-8332
ReserRl0Eff¥Et)m P
AUG ~ 5 2024

CE OF THE CITY C
New Mesquite Homeowners Association [email protected]

ADDRESS / DIRECCI N
c/o Schlecht, Shevlin & Shoenberger, ALC,
801 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 100

CITY/ CIUDAD STATE / EST ADO
Palm Springs CA

PHONE/ TELEFONO
760-320-7161

ZIP/ C DIGO FAX / EL FAX
POSTAL
92262

SUBJECT OF APPEAL/ OBJECTO DE APELACION
The date the decision being appealed was rendered/ lfhe application or project was entitled / La aplicaci6n o La fecha en que se emiti6 la decisi6n que se esta apelando: Proyecto tenla derecho:

Planning Commission - July 24, 2024 CASE 5.0303-PD 153

SPECIFY THE BASIS FOR THE APPEAL IN DETAIL (YOU MAY USE AS MANY ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY)/

ESPECIFIQUE LA BASE PARA LA MEDIDA EN DETALLE (PU EDE UTILIZAR TANT AS HOJAS ADICIONALES COMO SEA NECESARIO):

See attached Letter

FOR STAFF USE ONLY
~ Appeal to City Council • Appeal to Administrative Appeal Board This completed form must be sent to:

City of Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262
Item 2B - Page 55
JON A. SHOENBERGER
DANIEL T. JOHNSON
DAVID A. DARRIN
ULRICH R. McNUL TY
CHRISTOFFER J. THOMSEN
August 2, 2024

HAND DELIVERED
Palm Springs City Council
c/o City Clerk
801 EASTTAHQUITZCANYON WAY, SUITE 100
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262

M AILING A DDRESS
P. 0 . BOX 2744
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92263-2744
RE: Planning Commission Approval of "Minor" Plan Amendment, Case 5.0303-pd-153 on July 24, 2024
New Mesquite Homeowners Association, Landowner re
APNs: 502-560-033, 034 & 039, and 502-562-074 & 075
Dear Council:

TELEPHONE (760) 320-7161
TELECOPIER (760) 323-1758
E-MAIL [email protected]
JAMES M. SCHLECHT (1927-2015)
JOHN C. SHEVLIN (1943-2021)
IN REPLY REFER TO:
13216.1
This office represents New Mesquite Homeowners Association (''NMHOA"). It is ourunderstanding that the Planning Commission last week on July 24, 2024 approved a "minor" plan amendment to Planned Development District (PDD 153), based on the application and/or request of the Oswit Land Trust ("OLT"). NMHOA respectfully appeals the above-described Planning Commission approval for the following reasons:

A portion of the land covered by POD 153, including assessor parcel numbers ("APNs") 502-560-033, 034 & 039, and 502-562-074 & 075 ("NMHOA Land"), is owned, not by OLT, but by NMHOA. NMHOA did not make application for any amendment to the plan (POD 153) and did not consent to or join any application or request from OLT, nor did NMHOA authorize OLT to request such a plan amendment on its behalf.

OL T holds certain rights to use the NMHOA Land as a golf course, under the terms of (i) a Sublease dated October 14, 1983, which sublease was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, on November 9, 1983, and filed for record with the Riverside County Recorder on January 13, 1984, as Instrument No. 8390 ("Sublease"), which covers the portion of the NMHOA Land (APNs: 502-560-033, 034 & 039), and (ii) an Easement Agreement dated November 10, 1983, which agreement was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on November 10, 1983, and ft led for record with the Riverside County Recorder on January 13, 1984 as Instrument No. 8391 ("Easement"), which covers a portion of the NMHOA Land (APNs: 502-562-074 & 075); However, OLT bas no right to use theNMHOA Land as a preserve under the terms of the Sublease or Easement.

Item 2B - Page 56

SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & SHOENBERGER

A LAW CORPORATION

LAWYERS
Palm Springs City Council
August 2, 2024

It is our understanding that part of the "minor" plan amendment would change not only the landscaping but also the use of the property from golf course to preserve. The change of use from golf course to preserve would appear to materially change the original intent of POD 153, and thus should not be considered a minor modification.

Before any changes to PDD 153 are made, a complete application and public hearing should be held to deal with the entirety of the land covered by the original approved Planned Development District (PDD 153) with public hearing notice going to all neighboring property owners in accordance with Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) Section 94.03.00. The disposition of the entirety of the original PDD boundary should be included in any application and an owner of only a portion of the land included within the PDD boundary should not be able to force its desired changes as to owners of other portions of the land without their consent and approval.

If you have any questions with regard to this letter, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,
CHRISTOFFER J. THOMSEN
for Schlecht, Shevlin & Shoenberger, ALC
APPROVED AND AGREED:

EW MESQUITE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a California mutual benefit
corporation
By: 'R.oxaMMa V tr~aMt
Roxanna Br;¼nt, President

ATTACHMENT H
Item 2B - Page 57
Item 2B - Page 58

ADDRESS / DIRECCION

CITY/ CIUDAD
Appeal Form
Formulario de Apelaci6n
Reserved for Filing Stamp

RECEIVED
AUG O 1 2024
City of Palm Springs
TEL (760) 323-8204 I FAX (760) 322-8332 Office of the City Cieri

STATE / EST ADO

PHONE / TELEFONO

ZIP / C DIGO FAX / EL FAX
POSTAL
The date the decision being appealed was rendered/ he application or project was entitled / La aplicaci6n o La fecha en que se emiti6 la decision que se esta apelando: Proyecto tenfa derecho:

SPECIFY THE BASIS FOR THE APPEAL IN DETAIL (YOU MAY USE AS MANY ADDITIO AL SHEETS AS NECESSARY) /

ESPECIFIQUE LA BASE PARA LA MEDIDA EN DETALLE (PUEDE UTILIZAR TANTAS HOJAS ADICIONALES COMO SEA NECESARIO):

FOR STAFF USE ONLY
• Appeal to Administrative Appeal Board
This completed form must be sent to:

City of Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262
Item 2B - Page 59
<'\ ~.ESERT CHA~EL RECEIVED
~ _A Spirit 'JJ/eJ 'Jeffow:1hip AUG O 1 2024
Office of the City Clerk
Ex.rt-·
Palm Springs Council
c/o City Clerk
Case# 5.0303-PD-153
August 1, 2024
---
The Planning Commission approval of a "minor" landscape approval, Case 5.0303-PD-153 on July 24 is hereby appealed for the following reasons:
• Oswit is in a lawsuit with the MCC HOA that has a determining factor in use depending on ruling. HOA requires that area to be a golf course not a preserve. • The change from golf course to open space preserve is hardly a minor change to the landscape plan but a major change in how the property will be used and impact people. • The extensive conditions of approval belie that this is a minor landscape plan amendment.
• A public hearing should be held to deal with the entirety of the land covered by the original approved Planned Development District with public hearing notice going to all properties within 500 feet of the entire PDD.
• The disposition of the entirety of the original PDD boundary should be included in any application and not piecemeal the PDD.
• It's being done in the middle of summer with most of the adjacent residence away.

We request that the City Council remand this application back to the Pla1ming Commission to amend the PDD completely and thoroughly included public hearings by both the Planning Co1m11ission and City Council as set forth in the ZO.

Thank you,
Fred Donaldson
Dese1t Chapel Pastor
630 S. Sunrise Way • Palm Springs, CA 92264
Ph 760-327-2772 • www.desertchapel.org • FAX 760-325-7048 Item 2B - Page 60
City of Palm Springs

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PO Box 2743
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
+1 (760) 323-8299
Like No Place Else !
08/01/2024 04 : llPM Shahriar
003168-0004

MISCELLANEOUS

OTHER CHARGE CURRENT

SVC (OTHCHG)
2025 Item: OTHCHG
1@ $677 . 0000
Balance unpaid: - $677 . 00

OTHER CHARGE CURRENT

SVC (OTHCHG)
Subtotal
Total

EERP TYLER PAYMENTS CC
$677 . 00
$677.00
$677.00
$677.00
$677 . 00
MasterCard ************1914
Ref=b6a2f52d- bc08 -4cff- a58f-24cf94ec94f3
Auth=48434Z
rv
Change due $0.00
Paid by : APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL I CITY

CLERK ' S OFFICE
Thank you for your payment
City of Palm Springs COPY

DUPLICATE RECEIPT
Item 2B - Page 61
Desert Chapel
630 S Sunrise Way
Palm Springs, Ca 92264
Palm Springs Council
c/o City Clerk
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262

ATTACHMENT I
Item 2B - Page 62
From: arthurdmac
To: Planning
Subject: July 24th Agenda - Item 4.C.

Date: Saturday, July 20, 2024 4:48:09 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Sent from my Galaxy
Arthur MacMillan
2001 E. Camino Parocela Unit K77
Palm Springs CA. 92264
7/20/2024
Item 2B - Page 63
From: Abby Winston
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Dept recommendation to approve the Oswit Land Trust"s (OLT) Application for Prescott Preserve Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:28:15 PM
Attachments: The Demise of The Environmental Trust.docx NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email is in regards to Item 4c on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024 Dear Planning Commissioners:

First, I would like to commend the Planning Department staff for a thorough and thoughful report/recommendation. They have addressed many of my and my neighbors concerns about having a nature preserve in an urban area. If you recommend the approval with all the recommended conditions and with one additional requirement I believe the current and future residents of Palm Springs will have been well served by this process. The condition that should be added would require OLT to build a dedicated fund for on-going operations.

In the 2 years since the land was donated to OLT they have continued to buy other land but they have not made an effort to build an endowment that would allow them to safely operate an urban preserve now or in the future. In addition, they have made no effort to comply with city fire and safety code ordinances unless forces by code compliance to do so. These requirement will also help ensure that the promises that have been made to the community are kept. In order to maintain the land and manage the wildlife is a way that will keep visitors as well as the homes and surrounding residents safe they must have sufficient operating funds.

I have attached an article that shows the necessity of this requirement for the continued protection of the city as a whole and the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed preserve. It is a case study of a failed land trust by an expert on Land Trusts.

In addition, below I have used the "Center for Natural Lands Managements Cost Analysis, 28 Case Study" from 2004 to calculate an estimated annual cost of the Prescott Preserve. I have used the annual inflation rate to increase the cost for the 2004 dollar to $1.66 in 2024.

CNLM did this Analysis in 2004. They looked at 28 preserves with the express purpose of analyzing a wide range of preserve types. They were looking to see if they could come up with a cost per acre.

What they discovered was a relationship between overall size and cost per arce. Very large preserves costed out to $100 per acre but smaller preserves cost $1,000 an acre. They also found that costs were also depended on the type of preserve. For example: public use, presence of invasive exotics, uses of the surrounding areas, edge effect and the quality and appropriateness of any restortation.

Since Prescott is small and will have high use as an urban preserve it also will have the highest costs.

Applying the highest costs of $2,100 per acre in 2004 dollars to the 120 acres of the Prescott Preserve the annual costs would have been $252k. Applying an inflation calculator to that makes 1 2004 dollar equal to $1.66 in 2024. So, $2,100 is now $3,486. At 120 acres that's $418,320 annually. Taking a more conservative approach, we can look at the average cost per acre for a small preserve of $1k an acre. That calculation would make the annual cost estimate for Prescott in 2024 dollars ~$199,920.

I think it is safe say the costs to operate Prescott Preserve is between $199k and $418k per year.

These numbers include annualized capital mainenance. So they would include things like pond equipment, road repairs etc.

Item 2B - Page 64
These cost would require an endowment of berween $5M and $10M. There is a high likelihood that OLT will not be able to maintain this land based on this analysis if they can't even fund a fulltime ranger and repair sidewalks that are heir responsibilty. A requirement for OLT to create and fund an endowmnet of at least $5M in the two years time recommended for OLT to meet the other requirements for approval would improve the odds of them running a successful preserve.

Another fact that indicate the necessity of this requirement is the recent request from Jane Garrison, OLT's founder and CEO, to the City Council to give the preserve $200k in operating funds annually with no end date identified or committment to find funding from donors. The Council has turned this request down because OLT didn't request this funding through any mechanism that the city has for funding projects like this it was just a letter to the City Council.

I strongly urge you to approve the staff recommendation with the additional requirement for OLT to fund the project. This will protect the city and the neighborhood surrounding the Prescott Preserve from the same outcome as the Palm Springs Country Club, over a decade ago.This urban preserve was the vision of OLT. The city and the surrounding neighborhoods should not be responsible to pay for it with no committment from the organization that owns it to fund it's operations.

Thank you,
Abby Winston
505 S Farrell Dr N83
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 65
The Demise of The Environmental Trust

SHERRY TERESA
After 15 years in business, with 4,621 acres under management and over four million dollars in endowment funds, The Environmental Trust in California filed for bankruptcy on July 29, 2005. The organization listed “unperformed obligations” exceeding $13 million. Sherry Teresa, Executive Director of the Center for Natural Lands Management, delves into what happened and pulls out some lessons for conservation organizations everywhere.

Winston Churchill once said: “Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.” We have many opportunities on a daily basis to learn from our mistakes. The greatest mistake, however, is to ignore the lesson and just continue on unenlightened. This story—the demise of The Environmental Trust—presents an interesting lesson. It is the story of an environmental mitigation land management organization in the US that set out to achieve great things and in the end, set the example of how not to run a nonprofit organization.Don “Doc” Hunsaker, a former San Diego State University biology professor, organized The Environmental Trust (TET) as a California 501(c) (3) (non-profit) private foundation in 1990 to acquire environmentally threatened and sensitive properties and then assume perpetual responsibility for their maintenance, monitoring, and management. TET operated primarily in San Diego County where its properties included mitigation lands, conservation easements, conservation and mitigation banks, and lands within the Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) created for endangered species listed under the state and federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).After 15 years in business, with 4,621 acres under management and over four million dollars in endowment funds, TET filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States code on July 29, 2005 for “unperformed obligations” exceeding $13 million. A liquidating plan for reorganization was filed on December 30, 2005 and called for the sale or distribution of all TET assets to qualified parties. TET’s president at the time observed “TET’s liquidation marks a very sad event from both the commercial as well as from an environmental perspective.

Environmentally, TET’s winding up and closure represents a failure to maintain sensitive habitat entrusted by many interested parties with TET for perpetual maintenance, monitoring and preservation.”
What Went Wrong?
I remember the first time I met Doc. He is an affable guy, the favorite uncle type. He came up to Sacramento to talk about our organizations joining forces. While I immediately liked him, the more we spoke the more I realized how vastly different were our philosophies of conservation land management and stewardship. These philosophical differences embodied the core issues, described below, that I believe eventually led to TET’s decline and demise.

I believe that five factors contributed to TET’s fate:

Item 2B - Page 66
(1) TET failed to develop and execute a realistic business plan; (2) TET, and arguably the wildlife agencies, had a vague definition of what constituted best management practices for habitat stewardship;
(3) State and federal regulators did not adequately monitor TET’s business practices, its compliance with accepted nonprofit fiduciary duty standards, or monitor its habitat management practices;
(4) TET’s staff and board had poor or non-existent internal financial management controls; and
(5) The organization made clear departures from sound corporate governance principles.

Lack of a Business Plan: TET failed to appreciate that it was in the business of conservation. It did not have a well-considered and well-crafted business plan that addressed both current conditions and changes that might occur in the future. TET had no strategic plan, no clear set of overarching guiding principles, and a limited understanding of its habitat protection mission. These failings had practical, serious consequences. For example, with some frequency, TET’s Executive Director would enter into negotiations for the perpetual maintenance of habitat lands without performing any serious due diligence regarding the conservation property or the business transaction.

Little consideration was given to the full range of stewardship tasks TET would have to assume or their actual costs. TET’s key managers frequently disregarded their own staff’s recommendations concerning the management and funding of property.

Stewardship endowments were frequently based on a fixed “dollar per acre” estimate, not upon any disciplined task-based analysis tied to an actual property. As a result, “deals” were too frequently negotiated far below actual cost, but justified by the overriding desire to add to the number of properties and total acreage under management. Sadly, TET often chose to underbid the competition to add property and money to its portfolio, the general approach was ‘We’ll make it up on the next deal.’ Lack of a Model for Conservation Land Stewardship: There remains a lack of clarity about what constitutes adequate habitat stewardship. In my mind, TET’s bankruptcy was caused largely by the failure of resource agencies to define “the work” of the steward—the long-term mitigation requirements of a proponent’s permit, as well as monitoring obligations and responsibilities. The goals or intent of “the work” are usually straightforward and well defined in the law and various project-specific documents, such as biological opinions. Actually setting forth tasks that achieve the goals is a different matter. Few entities know how to do that. Thus definitions became a ground for contentious negotiations. If you are a project proponent, you probably believe that stewardship ceases at the end of mandatory 5-year monitoring periods. A large number of people, including some in resource agencies, believe nature preserves are, or should Item 2B - Page 67
be, self- sustaining after some minimal re-vegetation or restoration. Hunsaker’s definition of TET’s stewardship was simple: it will maintain fences (when funding was available), pick up trash, and conduct drive-by “monitoring” visits. Indeed, most mitigation permits set forth broad perpetual habitat management goals—leaving the interpretation of what actually must be done to achieve them to a land manager.

Adaptive management is an emerging issue that is not clearly addressed in permit conditions or property management plans. We have struggled to educate project proponents (who are dedicating land and contributing endowment funding as a condition of receiving permits to develop land) and define stewardship and to explain why certain activities are necessary—not just to maintain habitat, but to fend off invasive and exotic plants and animals, to control visitor use and trespass issues, to adequately monitor a property’s biology, to maintain gates, fences and roads, to educate the public, to anticipate the need for and maintain fuel breaks and to conduct controlled burns, and a myriad other stewardship tasks that are rarely if ever specifically identified in any permit.

Habitat managers will tell you how challenging it is to maintain and enhance endangered species habitat that are next to urbanized areas. How do you allow people to use and enjoy these sites while trying to protect species? At the Center’s preserves, we have dealt with many totally unanticipated issues. They have ranged from dealing with marijuana plantations, to eliminating motocross and BMX tracks established by local teenagers, to stopping gangs target shooting concrete-encased telephone poles with machine-guns, to removing illegal migrant camps, to dealing with arson, to stopping the dumping of unwanted pets, to overcoming the results of ruptured oil pipelines—and the list goes on. We are constantly presented with new challenges. A funding strategy that anticipates the unanticipated—what we often call contingencies and adaptive management is the only way to manage preserves that are adjacent to or surrounded by urban areas.

Global issues such as climate change and local issues such as nitrogen deposition from smog have profound implications for habitat preservation and may totally change ecotypes. It is impossible to predict what unique things will occur over time and what impact those changes may have on the land. Stewardship is not easy, and it is not for the fainthearted! TET, in my opinion, was neither prepared nor willing to meet the challenges of modern day habitat management.

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) jointly composed a letter to TET in 2003 that clearly identified TET’s most serious stewardship deficiencies. For the first time, state and federal natural resource agencies jointly gave specific directions on habitat stewardship and outlined what they expected from a manager While CDFG/USFWS made numerous requests of TET for habitat management and financial information, their entreaties were frequently unanswered.

Item 2B - Page 68
Failure of Regulatory Agencies to Act: It was evident early on that TET was not conducting sound business or habitat management practices. Many resource agency personnel knew this and requested information from TET that would clarify what they were doing, and the results of those actions. Requests were frequently ignored and the agencies failed to take action. Was there blatant procrastination by the agencies in dealing with TET? Even today, months after TET’s demise, there still exists a serious lack of oversight of habitat managers by the regulatory agencies. This external oversight problem is compounded by a lack of internal oversight by stewardship organizations.

Reports are not submitted, or are poorly researched and written. Violations are not enforced. In fairness to the regulatory agencies, they have few trained personnel to address these issues. Yet they have failed to create a process to whereby they might know if a land manager is or is not doing their job.

Financial: TET failed to take its fiduciary responsibility seriously. An organization that relies on the income from endowments to fund its work must have a sound investment management strategy. Newly formed organizations and those with small endowments face different risks and have different investment obligations than larger, more stable entities. TET lacked a reliable investment policy—one that would assure adequate inflation-adjusted perpetual income from endowments to fund current and future preserve management.

TET endowments were pooled for investment purposes. That is lawful, typical and an efficient and appropriate practice. However, TET failed to account for each preserve’s income and expense–something that is generally required by permits. Every preserve needs an original cost estimate and annual budgets. Because TET may have deliberately underbid projects, its endowments were “short”. Money for annual management had to come from somewhere. That meant TET had a choice: it could either do less work than was required, or it could use funding from another preserve to make up the difference.

TET often used the PAR� program, software created by the Center for Natural Lands Management, to estimate its future stewardship costs, but TET’s bids to proponents included endowment requests based not on long-term inflation-adjusted earning rates of balanced debt and equity portfolios, (“capitalization rates”), but on guesses about investment earnings from its endowment. Incorrect cost and income assumptions allowed proponents to put up endowments that almost immediately began to waste.

Investing endowments is complex, and generally requires the assistance of highly skilled, professional financial management experts. The Ford Foundation provides excellent advice for endowment holders on its website www.fordfound.org and see Investment Management for Endowed Institutions.

Under California’s Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004, charitable corporations with assets of $2 million or more must prepare annual financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant (CPA). The statements must use generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The independent CPA must follow generally accepted auditing standards. The audited financial statements must be made available to the Attorney General and the public no later than nine months after the close of the Item 2B - Page 69
fiscal year. It appears TET never obtained a formal annual opinion letter from any auditor.

TET’s Board Abdicated Fiduciary Responsibility. Several of TET’s board members have stated that they were not given complete financial reports and were not aware of the gravity of the situation until told so by a new executive director who realized that the organization could no longer sustain itself. However, board minutes show that prior to 2002 and following a special report in 2002, TET’s dire financial situation and lack of sound management practices was brought before the board. Even if there was not complete financial information presented to the board, its members are not absolved—it is their responsibility to have asked questions. Nonprofit board members are accountable for any wrong doing in the organization and can be held personally liable.

The California Attorney General could sue TET’s board members personally. If this sends a chill down the spine of nonprofit board members everywhere, it should.

So What Now?
According to proceedings to “wind up” the The Environmental Trust, it appears that fee title to some properties will be offered back to the original owners, along with a portion of the endowment they provided. However, all habitat management and monitoring obligations and encumbrances (typically conservation easements) would remain with the land. According to information disclosed in bankruptcy proceedings (case# 05- 0232l-LAl-l), TET failed to record many of these conservation easements and frequently deposited only 80% of endowment funds into investment accounts, keeping the other 20% as some kind of overhead reimbursement. Hunsaker, who had stated earlier, “basically, we are protectionists who wanted to grab land and save it,” now believes TET “did not receive enough moneys to fund the obligations that it assumed and the services it agreed to provide.”
This, according to Hunsaker, was due in large part to “under funding its services, poor planning, inefficiency in executing of its tasks, poor investment decision making and the general decline of the U.S. equity markets.” The corporation’s books were in disarray and its endowments without adequate funds. When push came to shove, most of TET’s real estate could not be sold, and the wildlife agencies refused to renegotiate stewardship obligations. No entity will willing assume TET’s habitat management obligations without adequate funding.

Under the bankruptcy proposal, if the original owners do not agree to take the property back, TET’s nature preserves will be offered to a local agency. But that agency must comply with regulatory permits. How will they, absent funding? If local agencies are not interested, TET property will be offered to the wildlife agencies, and if they pass, to qualified nonprofits.

TET properties were scheduled to be disposed of in this manner starting on February 9, 2006. It is unclear what will happen to the properties. Without adequate endowments, Item 2B - Page 70
other organizations are unlikely to accept them. The owner of last resource may end up being the State of California. This may mean that the public may ultimately assume responsibility for the properties. And yet again, the public will end up subsidizing private development by paying for the perpetual maintenance of the habitat lands.

Without recorded conservation easements, many of these mitigation properties could be in jeopardy of being developed or used for purposes other than nature preserves.

Ensuring the Future
A New York Times article estimates that by 2025 the population of the US will increase by 70 million people. This increase equals the current population of New York, Florida and California combined. All the population growth in the US in the last decade didn’t equal the growth of just two Southern California counties, Riverside and San Bernardino. We are in the throes of a $25 trillion building boom. The needs and requirements to set aside lands to compensate for development impacts to endangered species and wetlands will only increase. The need for experienced, credible and professional land management entities will also increase. It is imperative that stringent guidelines and standards be established for these stewards, as well as for public agencies that hold mitigation lands. Regulatory agencies must find a way to correctly define stewardship goals and provide consistent and thorough oversight of the steward’s work.

Private land trusts and conservation organizations are great innovators. They undertake groundbreaking work typically not found in any government controlled land conservation program. Therefore we cannot afford to lose the energy, effectiveness and efficiency of private stewards. Government is not the solution to the TET problem. But government is a key partner. The government needs the private sector to ensure the long-term sustainability of these lands and cost-effective protection of resources for future generations. Government must create a flexible and responsible regulatory framework for mitigation. It can provide oversight itself, or by outsourcing to qualified organizations. Indeed, oversight can probably be delegated to qualified private entities.

Organizations and individuals in California representing private and public conservation entities have developed a model: Standards and Guidelines for Managing Endowment Funds and Mitigation Lands. Legislation has been introduced to formally allow nonprofits and other public conservation entities to hold and manage mitigation endowment funds under these strict standards and guidelines. However, all this will be for naught and we could have many more failures like TET if the regulatory agencies fail to set goals and do not provide the necessary oversight to monitor an organization’s activities.

Mitigation banks receive oversight from a committee made up of USFWS, U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, CDFG & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called the Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT). Perhaps a Mitigation Stewardship Review Team (MSRT) should be formed to review mitigation manager’s biological and financial reports and audits, and to conduct site visits to ensure stewardship is being carried out under clearly defined best management practices. This would allow nonprofits Item 2B - Page 71
concerned with conservation to conduct the day-to-day conservation land management, while allowing the regulatory agencies the oversight to ensure that these lands are properly managed. As new nonprofit organizations spring up to offer stewardship services and land trusts enter the mitigation land management arena, it is imperative they will have learned lessons from the demise of TET.

Private stewardship is an experiment. Perhaps the private sector cannot assume all funding obligations in perpetuity. But it is equally clear that government has few mechanisms in place to assure perpetual funding. Most budgets are subject to annual appropriation. Government can rarely invest in a balanced portfolio of assets that has an adequate inflation and risk-adjusted return. If government does not earn enough to manage land, the land is not managed. We are back to TET. Only time will tell. But I think the answer must be a responsible partnership among all the players.

The Business of Conservation
I believe the lesson learned from TET is this: we are in the business of conservation. In order to be successful and accomplish our mission, however, we must conduct our activities using strong ethical, financial and professional standards. No nonprofit can abandon its fiduciary and moral responsibilities. As we have seen from Congressional hearings and legislation surrounding The Nature Conservancy’s recent troubles, nonprofits involved in conservation assume significant societal obligations under a sacred trust that cannot be abused. This means we must be absolutely open and operate transparently, meeting the highest of ethical and professional standards. To do anything less is to abdicate our fiduciary trust; worse yet, it is a breach of public trust.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ecosystem Marketplace or its staff.

Item 2B - Page 72
From: Abby Winston
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Dept recommendation to approve the Oswit Land Trust"s (OLT) Application for Prescott Preserve Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:28:15 PM
Attachments: The Demise of The Environmental Trust.docx NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email is in regards to Item 4c on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024 Dear Planning Commissioners:

First, I would like to commend the Planning Department staff for a thorough and thoughful report/recommendation. They have addressed many of my and my neighbors concerns about having a nature preserve in an urban area. If you recommend the approval with all the recommended conditions and with one additional requirement I believe the current and future residents of Palm Springs will have been well served by this process. The condition that should be added would require OLT to build a dedicated fund for on-going operations.

In the 2 years since the land was donated to OLT they have continued to buy other land but they have not made an effort to build an endowment that would allow them to safely operate an urban preserve now or in the future. In addition, they have made no effort to comply with city fire and safety code ordinances unless forces by code compliance to do so. These requirement will also help ensure that the promises that have been made to the community are kept. In order to maintain the land and manage the wildlife is a way that will keep visitors as well as the homes and surrounding residents safe they must have sufficient operating funds.

I have attached an article that shows the necessity of this requirement for the continued protection of the city as a whole and the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed preserve. It is a case study of a failed land trust by an expert on Land Trusts.

In addition, below I have used the "Center for Natural Lands Managements Cost Analysis, 28 Case Study" from 2004 to calculate an estimated annual cost of the Prescott Preserve. I have used the annual inflation rate to increase the cost for the 2004 dollar to $1.66 in 2024.

CNLM did this Analysis in 2004. They looked at 28 preserves with the express purpose of analyzing a wide range of preserve types. They were looking to see if they could come up with a cost per acre.

What they discovered was a relationship between overall size and cost per arce. Very large preserves costed out to $100 per acre but smaller preserves cost $1,000 an acre. They also found that costs were also depended on the type of preserve. For example: public use, presence of invasive exotics, uses of the surrounding areas, edge effect and the quality and appropriateness of any restortation.

Since Prescott is small and will have high use as an urban preserve it also will have the highest costs.

Applying the highest costs of $2,100 per acre in 2004 dollars to the 120 acres of the Prescott Preserve the annual costs would have been $252k. Applying an inflation calculator to that makes 1 2004 dollar equal to $1.66 in 2024. So, $2,100 is now $3,486. At 120 acres that's $418,320 annually. Taking a more conservative approach, we can look at the average cost per acre for a small preserve of $1k an acre. That calculation would make the annual cost estimate for Prescott in 2024 dollars ~$199,920.

I think it is safe say the costs to operate Prescott Preserve is between $199k and $418k per year.

These numbers include annualized capital mainenance. So they would include things like pond equipment, road repairs etc.

Item 2B - Page 73
These cost would require an endowment of berween $5M and $10M. There is a high likelihood that OLT will not be able to maintain this land based on this analysis if they can't even fund a fulltime ranger and repair sidewalks that are heir responsibilty. A requirement for OLT to create and fund an endowmnet of at least $5M in the two years time recommended for OLT to meet the other requirements for approval would improve the odds of them running a successful preserve.

Another fact that indicate the necessity of this requirement is the recent request from Jane Garrison, OLT's founder and CEO, to the City Council to give the preserve $200k in operating funds annually with no end date identified or committment to find funding from donors. The Council has turned this request down because OLT didn't request this funding through any mechanism that the city has for funding projects like this it was just a letter to the City Council.

I strongly urge you to approve the staff recommendation with the additional requirement for OLT to fund the project. This will protect the city and the neighborhood surrounding the Prescott Preserve from the same outcome as the Palm Springs Country Club, over a decade ago.This urban preserve was the vision of OLT. The city and the surrounding neighborhoods should not be responsible to pay for it with no committment from the organization that owns it to fund it's operations.

Thank you,
Abby Winston
505 S Farrell Dr N83
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 74
The Demise of The Environmental Trust

SHERRY TERESA
After 15 years in business, with 4,621 acres under management and over four million dollars in endowment funds, The Environmental Trust in California filed for bankruptcy on July 29, 2005. The organization listed “unperformed obligations” exceeding $13 million. Sherry Teresa, Executive Director of the Center for Natural Lands Management, delves into what happened and pulls out some lessons for conservation organizations everywhere.

Winston Churchill once said: “Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.” We have many opportunities on a daily basis to learn from our mistakes. The greatest mistake, however, is to ignore the lesson and just continue on unenlightened. This story—the demise of The Environmental Trust—presents an interesting lesson. It is the story of an environmental mitigation land management organization in the US that set out to achieve great things and in the end, set the example of how not to run a nonprofit organization.Don “Doc” Hunsaker, a former San Diego State University biology professor, organized The Environmental Trust (TET) as a California 501(c) (3) (non-profit) private foundation in 1990 to acquire environmentally threatened and sensitive properties and then assume perpetual responsibility for their maintenance, monitoring, and management. TET operated primarily in San Diego County where its properties included mitigation lands, conservation easements, conservation and mitigation banks, and lands within the Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) created for endangered species listed under the state and federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).After 15 years in business, with 4,621 acres under management and over four million dollars in endowment funds, TET filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States code on July 29, 2005 for “unperformed obligations” exceeding $13 million. A liquidating plan for reorganization was filed on December 30, 2005 and called for the sale or distribution of all TET assets to qualified parties. TET’s president at the time observed “TET’s liquidation marks a very sad event from both the commercial as well as from an environmental perspective.

Environmentally, TET’s winding up and closure represents a failure to maintain sensitive habitat entrusted by many interested parties with TET for perpetual maintenance, monitoring and preservation.”
What Went Wrong?
I remember the first time I met Doc. He is an affable guy, the favorite uncle type. He came up to Sacramento to talk about our organizations joining forces. While I immediately liked him, the more we spoke the more I realized how vastly different were our philosophies of conservation land management and stewardship. These philosophical differences embodied the core issues, described below, that I believe eventually led to TET’s decline and demise.

I believe that five factors contributed to TET’s fate:

Item 2B - Page 75
(1) TET failed to develop and execute a realistic business plan; (2) TET, and arguably the wildlife agencies, had a vague definition of what constituted best management practices for habitat stewardship;
(3) State and federal regulators did not adequately monitor TET’s business practices, its compliance with accepted nonprofit fiduciary duty standards, or monitor its habitat management practices;
(4) TET’s staff and board had poor or non-existent internal financial management controls; and
(5) The organization made clear departures from sound corporate governance principles.

Lack of a Business Plan: TET failed to appreciate that it was in the business of conservation. It did not have a well-considered and well-crafted business plan that addressed both current conditions and changes that might occur in the future. TET had no strategic plan, no clear set of overarching guiding principles, and a limited understanding of its habitat protection mission. These failings had practical, serious consequences. For example, with some frequency, TET’s Executive Director would enter into negotiations for the perpetual maintenance of habitat lands without performing any serious due diligence regarding the conservation property or the business transaction.

Little consideration was given to the full range of stewardship tasks TET would have to assume or their actual costs. TET’s key managers frequently disregarded their own staff’s recommendations concerning the management and funding of property.

Stewardship endowments were frequently based on a fixed “dollar per acre” estimate, not upon any disciplined task-based analysis tied to an actual property. As a result, “deals” were too frequently negotiated far below actual cost, but justified by the overriding desire to add to the number of properties and total acreage under management. Sadly, TET often chose to underbid the competition to add property and money to its portfolio, the general approach was ‘We’ll make it up on the next deal.’ Lack of a Model for Conservation Land Stewardship: There remains a lack of clarity about what constitutes adequate habitat stewardship. In my mind, TET’s bankruptcy was caused largely by the failure of resource agencies to define “the work” of the steward—the long-term mitigation requirements of a proponent’s permit, as well as monitoring obligations and responsibilities. The goals or intent of “the work” are usually straightforward and well defined in the law and various project-specific documents, such as biological opinions. Actually setting forth tasks that achieve the goals is a different matter. Few entities know how to do that. Thus definitions became a ground for contentious negotiations. If you are a project proponent, you probably believe that stewardship ceases at the end of mandatory 5-year monitoring periods. A large number of people, including some in resource agencies, believe nature preserves are, or should Item 2B - Page 76
be, self- sustaining after some minimal re-vegetation or restoration. Hunsaker’s definition of TET’s stewardship was simple: it will maintain fences (when funding was available), pick up trash, and conduct drive-by “monitoring” visits. Indeed, most mitigation permits set forth broad perpetual habitat management goals—leaving the interpretation of what actually must be done to achieve them to a land manager.

Adaptive management is an emerging issue that is not clearly addressed in permit conditions or property management plans. We have struggled to educate project proponents (who are dedicating land and contributing endowment funding as a condition of receiving permits to develop land) and define stewardship and to explain why certain activities are necessary—not just to maintain habitat, but to fend off invasive and exotic plants and animals, to control visitor use and trespass issues, to adequately monitor a property’s biology, to maintain gates, fences and roads, to educate the public, to anticipate the need for and maintain fuel breaks and to conduct controlled burns, and a myriad other stewardship tasks that are rarely if ever specifically identified in any permit.

Habitat managers will tell you how challenging it is to maintain and enhance endangered species habitat that are next to urbanized areas. How do you allow people to use and enjoy these sites while trying to protect species? At the Center’s preserves, we have dealt with many totally unanticipated issues. They have ranged from dealing with marijuana plantations, to eliminating motocross and BMX tracks established by local teenagers, to stopping gangs target shooting concrete-encased telephone poles with machine-guns, to removing illegal migrant camps, to dealing with arson, to stopping the dumping of unwanted pets, to overcoming the results of ruptured oil pipelines—and the list goes on. We are constantly presented with new challenges. A funding strategy that anticipates the unanticipated—what we often call contingencies and adaptive management is the only way to manage preserves that are adjacent to or surrounded by urban areas.

Global issues such as climate change and local issues such as nitrogen deposition from smog have profound implications for habitat preservation and may totally change ecotypes. It is impossible to predict what unique things will occur over time and what impact those changes may have on the land. Stewardship is not easy, and it is not for the fainthearted! TET, in my opinion, was neither prepared nor willing to meet the challenges of modern day habitat management.

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) jointly composed a letter to TET in 2003 that clearly identified TET’s most serious stewardship deficiencies. For the first time, state and federal natural resource agencies jointly gave specific directions on habitat stewardship and outlined what they expected from a manager While CDFG/USFWS made numerous requests of TET for habitat management and financial information, their entreaties were frequently unanswered.

Item 2B - Page 77
Failure of Regulatory Agencies to Act: It was evident early on that TET was not conducting sound business or habitat management practices. Many resource agency personnel knew this and requested information from TET that would clarify what they were doing, and the results of those actions. Requests were frequently ignored and the agencies failed to take action. Was there blatant procrastination by the agencies in dealing with TET? Even today, months after TET’s demise, there still exists a serious lack of oversight of habitat managers by the regulatory agencies. This external oversight problem is compounded by a lack of internal oversight by stewardship organizations.

Reports are not submitted, or are poorly researched and written. Violations are not enforced. In fairness to the regulatory agencies, they have few trained personnel to address these issues. Yet they have failed to create a process to whereby they might know if a land manager is or is not doing their job.

Financial: TET failed to take its fiduciary responsibility seriously. An organization that relies on the income from endowments to fund its work must have a sound investment management strategy. Newly formed organizations and those with small endowments face different risks and have different investment obligations than larger, more stable entities. TET lacked a reliable investment policy—one that would assure adequate inflation-adjusted perpetual income from endowments to fund current and future preserve management.

TET endowments were pooled for investment purposes. That is lawful, typical and an efficient and appropriate practice. However, TET failed to account for each preserve’s income and expense–something that is generally required by permits. Every preserve needs an original cost estimate and annual budgets. Because TET may have deliberately underbid projects, its endowments were “short”. Money for annual management had to come from somewhere. That meant TET had a choice: it could either do less work than was required, or it could use funding from another preserve to make up the difference.

TET often used the PAR� program, software created by the Center for Natural Lands Management, to estimate its future stewardship costs, but TET’s bids to proponents included endowment requests based not on long-term inflation-adjusted earning rates of balanced debt and equity portfolios, (“capitalization rates”), but on guesses about investment earnings from its endowment. Incorrect cost and income assumptions allowed proponents to put up endowments that almost immediately began to waste.

Investing endowments is complex, and generally requires the assistance of highly skilled, professional financial management experts. The Ford Foundation provides excellent advice for endowment holders on its website www.fordfound.org and see Investment Management for Endowed Institutions.

Under California’s Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004, charitable corporations with assets of $2 million or more must prepare annual financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant (CPA). The statements must use generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The independent CPA must follow generally accepted auditing standards. The audited financial statements must be made available to the Attorney General and the public no later than nine months after the close of the Item 2B - Page 78
fiscal year. It appears TET never obtained a formal annual opinion letter from any auditor.

TET’s Board Abdicated Fiduciary Responsibility. Several of TET’s board members have stated that they were not given complete financial reports and were not aware of the gravity of the situation until told so by a new executive director who realized that the organization could no longer sustain itself. However, board minutes show that prior to 2002 and following a special report in 2002, TET’s dire financial situation and lack of sound management practices was brought before the board. Even if there was not complete financial information presented to the board, its members are not absolved—it is their responsibility to have asked questions. Nonprofit board members are accountable for any wrong doing in the organization and can be held personally liable.

The California Attorney General could sue TET’s board members personally. If this sends a chill down the spine of nonprofit board members everywhere, it should.

So What Now?
According to proceedings to “wind up” the The Environmental Trust, it appears that fee title to some properties will be offered back to the original owners, along with a portion of the endowment they provided. However, all habitat management and monitoring obligations and encumbrances (typically conservation easements) would remain with the land. According to information disclosed in bankruptcy proceedings (case# 05- 0232l-LAl-l), TET failed to record many of these conservation easements and frequently deposited only 80% of endowment funds into investment accounts, keeping the other 20% as some kind of overhead reimbursement. Hunsaker, who had stated earlier, “basically, we are protectionists who wanted to grab land and save it,” now believes TET “did not receive enough moneys to fund the obligations that it assumed and the services it agreed to provide.”
This, according to Hunsaker, was due in large part to “under funding its services, poor planning, inefficiency in executing of its tasks, poor investment decision making and the general decline of the U.S. equity markets.” The corporation’s books were in disarray and its endowments without adequate funds. When push came to shove, most of TET’s real estate could not be sold, and the wildlife agencies refused to renegotiate stewardship obligations. No entity will willing assume TET’s habitat management obligations without adequate funding.

Under the bankruptcy proposal, if the original owners do not agree to take the property back, TET’s nature preserves will be offered to a local agency. But that agency must comply with regulatory permits. How will they, absent funding? If local agencies are not interested, TET property will be offered to the wildlife agencies, and if they pass, to qualified nonprofits.

TET properties were scheduled to be disposed of in this manner starting on February 9, 2006. It is unclear what will happen to the properties. Without adequate endowments, Item 2B - Page 79
other organizations are unlikely to accept them. The owner of last resource may end up being the State of California. This may mean that the public may ultimately assume responsibility for the properties. And yet again, the public will end up subsidizing private development by paying for the perpetual maintenance of the habitat lands.

Without recorded conservation easements, many of these mitigation properties could be in jeopardy of being developed or used for purposes other than nature preserves.

Ensuring the Future
A New York Times article estimates that by 2025 the population of the US will increase by 70 million people. This increase equals the current population of New York, Florida and California combined. All the population growth in the US in the last decade didn’t equal the growth of just two Southern California counties, Riverside and San Bernardino. We are in the throes of a $25 trillion building boom. The needs and requirements to set aside lands to compensate for development impacts to endangered species and wetlands will only increase. The need for experienced, credible and professional land management entities will also increase. It is imperative that stringent guidelines and standards be established for these stewards, as well as for public agencies that hold mitigation lands. Regulatory agencies must find a way to correctly define stewardship goals and provide consistent and thorough oversight of the steward’s work.

Private land trusts and conservation organizations are great innovators. They undertake groundbreaking work typically not found in any government controlled land conservation program. Therefore we cannot afford to lose the energy, effectiveness and efficiency of private stewards. Government is not the solution to the TET problem. But government is a key partner. The government needs the private sector to ensure the long-term sustainability of these lands and cost-effective protection of resources for future generations. Government must create a flexible and responsible regulatory framework for mitigation. It can provide oversight itself, or by outsourcing to qualified organizations. Indeed, oversight can probably be delegated to qualified private entities.

Organizations and individuals in California representing private and public conservation entities have developed a model: Standards and Guidelines for Managing Endowment Funds and Mitigation Lands. Legislation has been introduced to formally allow nonprofits and other public conservation entities to hold and manage mitigation endowment funds under these strict standards and guidelines. However, all this will be for naught and we could have many more failures like TET if the regulatory agencies fail to set goals and do not provide the necessary oversight to monitor an organization’s activities.

Mitigation banks receive oversight from a committee made up of USFWS, U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, CDFG & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called the Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT). Perhaps a Mitigation Stewardship Review Team (MSRT) should be formed to review mitigation manager’s biological and financial reports and audits, and to conduct site visits to ensure stewardship is being carried out under clearly defined best management practices. This would allow nonprofits Item 2B - Page 80
concerned with conservation to conduct the day-to-day conservation land management, while allowing the regulatory agencies the oversight to ensure that these lands are properly managed. As new nonprofit organizations spring up to offer stewardship services and land trusts enter the mitigation land management arena, it is imperative they will have learned lessons from the demise of TET.

Private stewardship is an experiment. Perhaps the private sector cannot assume all funding obligations in perpetuity. But it is equally clear that government has few mechanisms in place to assure perpetual funding. Most budgets are subject to annual appropriation. Government can rarely invest in a balanced portfolio of assets that has an adequate inflation and risk-adjusted return. If government does not earn enough to manage land, the land is not managed. We are back to TET. Only time will tell. But I think the answer must be a responsible partnership among all the players.

The Business of Conservation
I believe the lesson learned from TET is this: we are in the business of conservation. In order to be successful and accomplish our mission, however, we must conduct our activities using strong ethical, financial and professional standards. No nonprofit can abandon its fiduciary and moral responsibilities. As we have seen from Congressional hearings and legislation surrounding The Nature Conservancy’s recent troubles, nonprofits involved in conservation assume significant societal obligations under a sacred trust that cannot be abused. This means we must be absolutely open and operate transparently, meeting the highest of ethical and professional standards. To do anything less is to abdicate our fiduciary trust; worse yet, it is a breach of public trust.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ecosystem Marketplace or its staff.

Item 2B - Page 81
From: Karolyn Anderson
To: Planning
Subject: Owner at MCC
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:04:14 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you,
Karolyn Anderson
Owner at Mesquite Country Club
Item 2B - Page 82
From: Ilona Arsoni
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024
Date: Sunday, July 21, 2024 6:36:03 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email is regarding item 4.C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24,2024 I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite C.C., directly adjacent to the proposed preserve.I encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust.

Thank you,
Ilona Arsoni
2001 Camino Parocela E34
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 83
From: Joe Atkinson
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:13:38 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Joe and Lorenzo Atkinson
2001 E Camino Parocella Unit Q124
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 84
From: [email protected]
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 8:21:39 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Michael Azzarella 505 S. Farrell DR. #G39 Palm Springs
Item 2B - Page 85
Planning Commission at [email protected]
Re: Oswit Land Trust submission for “minor landscape amendment” July 24, 2024
I understand that the Oswit Land Trust has applied for a “minor landscape amendment” in order to proceed with their plans for the Prescot Preserve, formerly the Mesquite Golf Course.

First of all, what has occurred to the property and what is purportedly planned for the property is not “minor” in any way. The day the land was purchased by Oswit, it was a green, fully functioning golf course. Now it is a dry, barren eyesore. It attracts bobcats and coyotes in such numbers that dogs are now banned from being on the Preserve and walkers are advised to carry airhorns in case of a confrontation. It creates dust swells which overwhelm homes in the area on windy days. Homeowners are also concerned about fire hazards as the area is not watered and is full of tinder dry trees and shrubs. This is right in the middle of a densely populated area of Palm Springs.

My other concern is that Oswit is involved in litigation with the Mesquite HOA over their failure to honor a lease agreement, with the Mesquite homeowners, held on the property. Oswit for the past 2 years has not acted in good faith with the HOA Board and made many false statements to the Board about their intentions. This litigation is before the court and until it is resolved, I would suggest that The City of Palm Springs should not be engaging with them in making changes to land use or any other requests they have of the Planning Commission.

Respectfully,
Beth Christopher
Mesquite Country Club homeowner
Item 2B - Page 86
From: Brian Ramos
To: Planning
Subject: Public Comment re: Agenda Item 4C | July 24, 2024 Date: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40:54 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I am an owner of a single family home in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly adjacent to the proposed Prescott Preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to the recommendations by city staff.

Sincerely,
Brian Ramos
Item 2B - Page 87
From: AustinCo Office
To: Planning
Subject: This email pertains to item 4.C on the agenda for July 24, 2024 Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:16:09 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I would strongly urge the commission to not approve this application and foremost if approved, the application should not be stripped of any conditions presently in the application.

First of all, the HOA and OLT are presently engaged in a lawsuit to protect the 40 year old lease on the Golf Course property. The HOA has invested nearly 10 million dollars into this lease. I am an owner of six condos, five of which border the property. I have owned these for as long as 12 years, and they were purchased because of the Golf Course. I am not saying we have to have a golf course but would like to have a green space.

If this radical change is allowed we have been told by more than one Real Estate appraiser that the condo's value would be affected negatively.

There is also a Golf Course Conversion Ordinance enacted by the city that should be enforced. I believe it states that if a golf course, either active or inactive, is used for any other use than a golf course the ordinance should apply.

Also, it would be nice if a change such as this was undertaken, that it should be more of a cooperative effort.

Again, I would request that you not approve this item on the agenda.

Respectfully,
Bill White
[email protected]
Item 2B - Page 88
From: Scott Bedrick
To: Planning
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda item 4-C
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 5:49:22 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I support Agenda item 4-C

A REQUEST BY THE OSWIT LAND TRUST, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER GOLF COURSE AND

COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE; THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN SUNRISE WAY; AND EL CIELO ROAD; NORTH OF MESQUITE AVENUE; ZONE PDD 153/W, SECTION 24 (CASE

5.0303-PD 153) (ER).

Thank you,
Scott Bedrick
2232 N Palermo Dr
Palm Springs, CA
92262
Item 2B - Page 89
From: Desert Dweller
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust Minor Landscape Modification
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 7:52:47 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

You received an email from Angie Knapp with some excellent points. I agree with all of them. Please vote no on the “minor” modification.

Diane Beecher
2701 E Mesquite Avenue, Unit HH187
Palm Springs, CA 92264
[email protected]
Sent from my iPad
Item 2B - Page 90
From: Charles Bemis
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit land trust
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 6:58:18 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

My name is Charles Bemis, I am a Rancho Mirage resident and have been for six years. I have taken 100’s photographs of beautiful birds in the Preskett preserve water resource areas. This park is a valuable resource that we should cherish and enhance. We do not need any more apartments or McMansions, or whatever the developers, whose only goal is to make money want. Please consider the motivations of people on both sides of this issue, and make a logical and reasonable decision to support the land trust and everything that goes with it, including getting rid of the revisions that are designed as a poison pill Charles Bemis
37106 Ferber Dr.

Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Item 2B - Page 91
From: donbriv (null)
To: Planning
Subject: 7/24/24 Agenda Item - Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:02:23 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear City of Palm Springs:

I write to strongly oppose the approval of the Oswit Land Trust’s application for minor modification that is presently before the City for consideration.

As all the relevant parties are clearly aware, there are active, ongoing litigation proceedings between the Mesquite Home Owners’ Association (HOA) and Oswit Land Trust (OLT) regarding the proposed development project currently under consideration.

It makes no sense for the City to intercede in this matter, especially since the City has been aware of numerous existing, years-long procedural complaints and property maintenance violations arising from OLT’s failed stewardship of the disputed property which, to this day, remain unresolved and are simultaneously the subject of the aforementioned litigation proceedings.

For these reasons, I strongly urge City officials to delay any action regarding approval of OLT’s application that on today’s meeting agenda, until such time as the pending litigation/dispute between OLT and the HOA is resolved.

Respectfully submitted,
Donald Benegas
Property Owner/Member
Mesquite HOA - Phase One
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 92
From: John Blackburn
To: Planning
Subject: In Support of the Oswit Land Trust Proposal (Case 5.0303-PD 153) (ER) Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:01:17 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Commissioners:

As a seasonal visitor to Palm Springs, I urge the Palm Springs Planning Commission to adopt a Categorical Exempt status under CEQA guidelines and approve the Oswit Land Trust proposal for a minor amendment to Planned Development District (PDD 153). This proposal to restore 90 acres of the former golf course into a native desert habitat and nature preserve offers significant environmental and community benefits, directly impacting my experience as a birding enthusiast. During my annual 6-7 weeks visiting Palm Springs, I visit the Prescott Preserve no less than two times per week.

Environmental Advantages:

Habitat Restoration: The project directly addresses habitat loss by restoring a significant portion of the land to its natural state. This will benefit native plant and animal species, especially birds, creating a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem for birding. During my visits in November, February, and March, I specifically seek out the Prescott Preserve for its unique birdlife. Restoring this additional area would undoubtedly enhance the birding experience for myself and countless other visitors.

Water Conservation: Replacing a water-intensive golf course with native desert landscaping will result in substantial water savings, a critical benefit in the arid region.

Reduced Environmental Impact: The elimination of pesticide and herbicide use associated with golf course maintenance will contribute to a healthier environment, benefiting the entire ecosystem, including the birds I enjoy observing.

Community Enrichment:

Public Access: A nature preserve offers opportunities for passive recreation, education, and appreciation of the desert ecosystem, including birdwatching. This expanded public access would further enhance the quality of life for Palm Springs residents and visitors like myself.

Property Values: Studies have shown that proximity to nature preserves can increase property values in surrounding areas.

Sustainable Future: This project aligns with Palm Springs' commitment to environmental sustainability and responsible land use practices.

Conclusion:

The Oswit Land Trust proposal offers a unique opportunity to restore a vital piece of desert habitat while providing long-term benefits for the Palm Springs community, especially for visitors like myself who enjoy birding at the Prescott Preserve. By approving this minor amendment with a Categorical Exempt status, the Planning Commission can contribute to a Item 2B - Page 93
more sustainable future for Palm Springs and enhance the experience for nature enthusiasts like myself.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
John Blackburn
65 E Monroe, Unit 4513
Chicago, IL 60603
312-209-3737
Item 2B - Page 94
From: Edward Bobbett
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:44:07 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you,
Edward Bobbett
2001 Camino Paroclo, J67, Palm Springs
Edward
Edward Bobbett
C: 714-310-9447
WhatsApp: 714-310-9447
Item 2B - Page 95
From: Karolyn Anderson
To: Planning
Subject: Owner at MCC
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:04:14 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you,
Karolyn Anderson
Owner at Mesquite Country Club
Item 2B - Page 96
From: Ilona Arsoni
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024
Date: Sunday, July 21, 2024 6:36:03 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email is regarding item 4.C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24,2024 I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite C.C., directly adjacent to the proposed preserve.I encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust.

Thank you,
Ilona Arsoni
2001 Camino Parocela E34
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 97
From: Joe Atkinson
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:13:38 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Joe and Lorenzo Atkinson
2001 E Camino Parocella Unit Q124
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 98
From: [email protected]
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 8:21:39 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Michael Azzarella 505 S. Farrell DR. #G39 Palm Springs
Item 2B - Page 99
Planning Commission at [email protected]
Re: Oswit Land Trust submission for “minor landscape amendment” July 24, 2024
I understand that the Oswit Land Trust has applied for a “minor landscape amendment” in order to proceed with their plans for the Prescot Preserve, formerly the Mesquite Golf Course.

First of all, what has occurred to the property and what is purportedly planned for the property is not “minor” in any way. The day the land was purchased by Oswit, it was a green, fully functioning golf course. Now it is a dry, barren eyesore. It attracts bobcats and coyotes in such numbers that dogs are now banned from being on the Preserve and walkers are advised to carry airhorns in case of a confrontation. It creates dust swells which overwhelm homes in the area on windy days. Homeowners are also concerned about fire hazards as the area is not watered and is full of tinder dry trees and shrubs. This is right in the middle of a densely populated area of Palm Springs.

My other concern is that Oswit is involved in litigation with the Mesquite HOA over their failure to honor a lease agreement, with the Mesquite homeowners, held on the property. Oswit for the past 2 years has not acted in good faith with the HOA Board and made many false statements to the Board about their intentions. This litigation is before the court and until it is resolved, I would suggest that The City of Palm Springs should not be engaging with them in making changes to land use or any other requests they have of the Planning Commission.

Respectfully,
Beth Christopher
Mesquite Country Club homeowner
Item 2B - Page 100
From: Brian Ramos
To: Planning
Subject: Public Comment re: Agenda Item 4C | July 24, 2024 Date: Friday, July 19, 2024 10:40:54 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I am an owner of a single family home in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly adjacent to the proposed Prescott Preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to the recommendations by city staff.

Sincerely,
Brian Ramos
Item 2B - Page 101
From: AustinCo Office
To: Planning
Subject: This email pertains to item 4.C on the agenda for July 24, 2024 Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:16:09 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I would strongly urge the commission to not approve this application and foremost if approved, the application should not be stripped of any conditions presently in the application.

First of all, the HOA and OLT are presently engaged in a lawsuit to protect the 40 year old lease on the Golf Course property. The HOA has invested nearly 10 million dollars into this lease. I am an owner of six condos, five of which border the property. I have owned these for as long as 12 years, and they were purchased because of the Golf Course. I am not saying we have to have a golf course but would like to have a green space.

If this radical change is allowed we have been told by more than one Real Estate appraiser that the condo's value would be affected negatively.

There is also a Golf Course Conversion Ordinance enacted by the city that should be enforced. I believe it states that if a golf course, either active or inactive, is used for any other use than a golf course the ordinance should apply.

Also, it would be nice if a change such as this was undertaken, that it should be more of a cooperative effort.

Again, I would request that you not approve this item on the agenda.

Respectfully,
Bill White
[email protected]
Item 2B - Page 102
From: Scott Bedrick
To: Planning
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda item 4-C
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 5:49:22 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I support Agenda item 4-C

A REQUEST BY THE OSWIT LAND TRUST, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER GOLF COURSE AND

COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE; THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN SUNRISE WAY; AND EL CIELO ROAD; NORTH OF MESQUITE AVENUE; ZONE PDD 153/W, SECTION 24 (CASE

5.0303-PD 153) (ER).

Thank you,
Scott Bedrick
2232 N Palermo Dr
Palm Springs, CA
92262
Item 2B - Page 103
From: Desert Dweller
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust Minor Landscape Modification
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 7:52:47 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

You received an email from Angie Knapp with some excellent points. I agree with all of them. Please vote no on the “minor” modification.

Diane Beecher
2701 E Mesquite Avenue, Unit HH187
Palm Springs, CA 92264
[email protected]
Sent from my iPad
Item 2B - Page 104
From: Charles Bemis
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit land trust
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 6:58:18 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

My name is Charles Bemis, I am a Rancho Mirage resident and have been for six years. I have taken 100’s photographs of beautiful birds in the Preskett preserve water resource areas. This park is a valuable resource that we should cherish and enhance. We do not need any more apartments or McMansions, or whatever the developers, whose only goal is to make money want. Please consider the motivations of people on both sides of this issue, and make a logical and reasonable decision to support the land trust and everything that goes with it, including getting rid of the revisions that are designed as a poison pill Charles Bemis
37106 Ferber Dr.

Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Item 2B - Page 105
From: donbriv (null)
To: Planning
Subject: 7/24/24 Agenda Item - Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:02:23 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear City of Palm Springs:

I write to strongly oppose the approval of the Oswit Land Trust’s application for minor modification that is presently before the City for consideration.

As all the relevant parties are clearly aware, there are active, ongoing litigation proceedings between the Mesquite Home Owners’ Association (HOA) and Oswit Land Trust (OLT) regarding the proposed development project currently under consideration.

It makes no sense for the City to intercede in this matter, especially since the City has been aware of numerous existing, years-long procedural complaints and property maintenance violations arising from OLT’s failed stewardship of the disputed property which, to this day, remain unresolved and are simultaneously the subject of the aforementioned litigation proceedings.

For these reasons, I strongly urge City officials to delay any action regarding approval of OLT’s application that on today’s meeting agenda, until such time as the pending litigation/dispute between OLT and the HOA is resolved.

Respectfully submitted,
Donald Benegas
Property Owner/Member
Mesquite HOA - Phase One
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 106
From: John Blackburn
To: Planning
Subject: In Support of the Oswit Land Trust Proposal (Case 5.0303-PD 153) (ER) Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:01:17 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Commissioners:

As a seasonal visitor to Palm Springs, I urge the Palm Springs Planning Commission to adopt a Categorical Exempt status under CEQA guidelines and approve the Oswit Land Trust proposal for a minor amendment to Planned Development District (PDD 153). This proposal to restore 90 acres of the former golf course into a native desert habitat and nature preserve offers significant environmental and community benefits, directly impacting my experience as a birding enthusiast. During my annual 6-7 weeks visiting Palm Springs, I visit the Prescott Preserve no less than two times per week.

Environmental Advantages:

Habitat Restoration: The project directly addresses habitat loss by restoring a significant portion of the land to its natural state. This will benefit native plant and animal species, especially birds, creating a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem for birding. During my visits in November, February, and March, I specifically seek out the Prescott Preserve for its unique birdlife. Restoring this additional area would undoubtedly enhance the birding experience for myself and countless other visitors.

Water Conservation: Replacing a water-intensive golf course with native desert landscaping will result in substantial water savings, a critical benefit in the arid region.

Reduced Environmental Impact: The elimination of pesticide and herbicide use associated with golf course maintenance will contribute to a healthier environment, benefiting the entire ecosystem, including the birds I enjoy observing.

Community Enrichment:

Public Access: A nature preserve offers opportunities for passive recreation, education, and appreciation of the desert ecosystem, including birdwatching. This expanded public access would further enhance the quality of life for Palm Springs residents and visitors like myself.

Property Values: Studies have shown that proximity to nature preserves can increase property values in surrounding areas.

Sustainable Future: This project aligns with Palm Springs' commitment to environmental sustainability and responsible land use practices.

Conclusion:

The Oswit Land Trust proposal offers a unique opportunity to restore a vital piece of desert habitat while providing long-term benefits for the Palm Springs community, especially for visitors like myself who enjoy birding at the Prescott Preserve. By approving this minor amendment with a Categorical Exempt status, the Planning Commission can contribute to a Item 2B - Page 107
more sustainable future for Palm Springs and enhance the experience for nature enthusiasts like myself.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
John Blackburn
65 E Monroe, Unit 4513
Chicago, IL 60603
312-209-3737
Item 2B - Page 108
From: Edward Bobbett
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:44:07 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you,
Edward Bobbett
2001 Camino Paroclo, J67, Palm Springs
Edward
Edward Bobbett
C: 714-310-9447
WhatsApp: 714-310-9447
Item 2B - Page 109
From: Terence bonace
To: Planning
Cc: Larry Boehlke
Subject: Agenda Item 4C, Oswit Land Trust
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:28:38 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

As regular seasonal visitors to Palm Springs, a major draw for us is birdwatching at the Prescott Preserve. The area is a great habitat for birds and a great draw for birdwatchers. Habitat restoration is vital for this precious property.

We hope restoration will be allowed to go forward.

R Terence Bonace
Larry Boehlke
5908 N Kenneth Ave
Chicago, Il. 69646
219 2014541
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 110
From: Pat Boren
To: Planning
Cc: Pat Boren
Subject: Comment on agenda for July 24 2024 meeting
Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:26:12 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Good morning,
Re: item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for 24 July 2024. I am an owner of a condo in Mesquite Country Club, Phase 3. It is directly adjacent to the proposed preserve and open space we hope to maintain. I want to voice my vote to strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Boren
Phase 3, Unit P-109
Item 2B - Page 111
From: Karen Braff
To: Christopher Hadwin
Cc: Planning
Subject: Fwd: Bud Furer Trail, Prescott Preserve
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 4:44:21 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
>
> Dear Chair Weremiuk and Members of the Planning Commission:
>
> I am a member of the Desert Riders Club and a 3rd generation Palm Springs resident. Regarding the Landscape Plans for the Prescott Preserve, yes, this is a nature preserve but it is in an unusual setting. It is surrounded by a city, by homes situated on it, near a riding stable and contains an equestrian trail that is much older than the golf course that was once there. This trail has been in use consistently since its beginning in perhaps the 1960’s, I don’t have the exact date. It’s not a beaten path like some trails so the Preserve needn’t worry about that. But it is not a forgotten trail by any means.
>
> In the approval process for the Prescott Preserve landscape plan, please ensure that the existing Equestrian trail stay intact as it is. That it is not rerouted, not shortened and has adequate signage for any standard equestrian trail commonly seen in nature preserves, national parks and any riding/hiking trail throughout California. >
> Thank you for consideration.
>
> Karen Braff
> 1757 S. Palm Canyon Drive
> Palm Springs, CA 92674
> 760-413-7983
>
>
>
Item 2B - Page 112
From: Steve Braff
To: Planning
Subject: Re: Item 4 C Prescott Preserve July 24 PC Meeting Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 4:52:01 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commissioners.

As a long-time Palm Springs resident, I was concerned to learn that the Oswit Land Trust (OLT) is being burdened by numerous and egregious conditions for getting the Planning Commission's approval of their landscaping plan for Prescott Preserve. I'm mystified as to why the Commission would place expensive and unreasonable requirements upon a nonprofit whose work benefits our residents.

To call out a couple that I've gotten word of:
- Requiring employing a full time ranger, when to my knowledge, over the past two years under OLT ownership the property has been protected from illegal dumping and encampments by a team of staff & volunteers augmented by surveillance. So why this requirement? - Requiring trails be open to the public at all times. This request seems counter to the implied safety concerns suggested by requiring the full-time ranger. Isn't it in the communities interest that the trails be closed to the public from sunset to sunrise? My recollection is that the Indian Canyons are closed at night. What is your rationale for this requirement? OLT is dedicated to preserving open space for our residents, visitors, and wildlife. Why place these sorts of obstacles in their way? Please work with them in their efforts to make Prescott Preserve a treasured gem in our city.

Thanks.
- Steve
Steve Braff
1757 S Palm Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 113
From: Karen Brobeck
To: Planning
Subject: Oswitt Trust and Country Club Mesquite
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 5:05:51 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

We are expressing our disapproval of the Oswit Landscape modification at this time. There are too many details to still be negotiated.

We are the owners of the unit at 2001 East Parocela, F39. Hopefully you will table this decision this evening until a later time.

Charles and Karen Brobeck
939 N. Avenida Palos Verdes
Palm Springs, Ca 92262
760-322-7303 or 760 250 9920 cell
Item 2B - Page 114
From: Karen Isebrands Brown
To: Planning
Subject: Regarding: Item 4.C. on the PLANNING CONMMISSION agenda for July 24, 2024 Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:51:49 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Greetings, We have owned at Mesquite for 12 years.

Our address is I-57 Camino Parocela. We are directly
adjacent to the proposed preserve. We strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor
amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

With gratitude for your consideration of this matter,
Karen Isebrands Brown
Jim Brown
Item 2B - Page 115
From: Cliff Cotton
To: Planning
Subject: OLT MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION OF TODAYS DATE.

Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 5:21:26 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Re: Palm Partners / OLT preserve and development project I write to you as a taxpayer and property owner in Palm Springs. I am opposed to the apparent favorable treatment by the City of Palm Springs of the preserve and associated development proposals.

There is a definitive non-arm’s length relationship between the two. This is just one of several legal issues related to the application by OLT to proceed with their landscaping modification. There is a portion of the Mesquite Golf Course property that is not subdivided from the proposed preserve. That property could be subdivided from the proposed preserve property by OLT but they choose not to. Further, that property is the subject of a development application that relies on the preserve property to attempt to satisfy your GCCO ordinance requirements with respect to permissible development. That application is being advanced without objection from OLT and so, it follows, the OLT property is not separate and distinct, from the development property. It cannot be considered part and parcel of a development proposal for one purpose, and then separate and distinct for any other purpose at their sole discretion and for their unilateral benefit.

This landscaping application by OLT cannot rightfully be considered in isolation. The right for OLT to advance its project in any fashion, is one of several subjects of the well known lawsuit by MCC HOA.

I, and many others are being financially and otherwise prejudiced by this preferential treatment by the city.

It is your fiduciary duty to ensure any applicant, any citizen, or entity is in full compliance with your bylaws and ordinances.

This application should be deferred until, at the very least, an arm’s length relationship is established between OLT and Palm Partners. It is easily, and only within their capabilities and responsibilities.

Sincerely,
Cliff Cotton
Mesquite GCC
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 116
From: Charles Lincoln
To: Planning
Subject: OLT
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:45:26 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
>>>>>
I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly discourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Sincerely,
Charles Lincoln
Item 2B - Page 117
From: Diane Carmony
To: Planning
Subject: Comment on item 4C
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 1:43:45 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing in support of the request by Oswit Land Trust to restore about 90 acres of a former golf course into a nature preserve.

Although I live in La Quinta, I have had the pleasure of walking through this area multiple times including on several guided bird walks. The site is already a refuge for many birds and animals and will be even more so when fully restored. I believe that the preserve will be a significant draw for area residents and visitors alike. I applaud Palm Springs for all the efforts to incorporate desert-friendly natural areas into the city as this benefits wildlife and humans alike.

Thank you very much for your consideration,
Diane Carmony
Item 4C of today’s agenda
760-799-6419
51450 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 118
From: Craig
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission Item 4C
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:46:31 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I am an owner of a condo in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly adjacent to the proposed Prescott Preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust. I am excited about Oswit's plan for this long defunct golf course.

Sincerely,
Craig Woythaler
Item 2B - Page 119
From: [email protected]
To: Planning
Subject: Urgent Input on Oswit Agenda Item Tonight
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:38:32 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To: The Palm Springs Planning Commission
Re: Oswit Agenda Item
We are homeowners at the Mesquite Golf and Country Club which holds a lease on 120 acres of land that was designated as a golf course when the condominiums were built. Oswit purchased part of this land knowing it was a golf course on leased land. Just because Oswit does not want to operate a golf course doesn't mean nobody else would. The Oswit request on the agenda is premature considering the Mesquite Golf and Country Club is currently in a lawsuit which covers all 120 acres that served as a golf course when the 600 condominium project was built. Additionally, the City of Palm Springs must first consider the Golf Course Conversion Ordinance that was established when projects are proposed for this piece of land. 600 Homeowners comprising The Mesquite Golf and Country Club are affected by the Oswit purchase of only part of the land that we hold a lease to with rights and responsibilities and we object to having part of it changed in any way until this lawsuit is resolved.

Duane and Dixie Baker
2700 E. Mesquite Avenue
Palm Springs, CA. 92264
(509) 449-5491
Item 2B - Page 120
From: [email protected]
To: Christopher Hadwin; Edward Robertson; Planning
Subject: Public comments- Agenda Item 4.C- Oswit/Prescott preserve PDD 153 Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 4:20:38 PM
Attachments: PSGP Recreational Trails Map.pdf
Figure 4-4 Bikeways and Recreational Trails_DRAFT_Jan_2024.pdf NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Good afternoonPlease provide the following information to the planning commission members.

I will bring hard copoes to handout to the commsiion durng public comments.

Thanks,
Doug
Item 2B - Page 121
Item 2B - Page 122
'Cilyslaff has told Dese,1 Riders Iha! !h!,,e w111 be a proposed condition of approval that wil clarify 100 equestrian trail, and we support the commissjons appro'l81 of such a condffion. We are confident that we c,n work with Oswit and dl,j staff to enhance the Prescott Preserve.

Desert Ridem ha$ WOrl<ed with 0&11iVPrescott Preserve representatives for t'M':?r t\NO yearS to resolve the equestrian trail a5,nment. We have walked lhe property mul!iple times wfth representatives and have carefully explained tho impo<tant aspect., of equ~ lrail siting and design. It is in the best interest of the public to kee" a separation between hoTse riders. hikers. and bike riders whcre\/Cr possible~ Desert Riders has built and maintained trails in partnership ¼'fth the oommunity and city since 1930. For many years wa actoo as the trail mainle.n.ance organization for the city induding sharing the oosl We wwld like to see the Oswil/ Prescott Pcosorve proceed and we U111k h will be a great addition to tlw city.

We look forward to 'A'Orkiig v.ith tile City and Oswit/Prcsoon Presorvc to fine rune the on-sito trail progtam.

Doug Eva . , Presider.I
Dosort Riders Trails Ftnld Inc.

Mark Graham, Round Up Boss
Des<l<!Ride,s
CC- Jim Pries, City Attorney (pioase forward)
Att.oehmenls•

1. Applicant exhibits with notations

2. City General Plan Recreationa.t Trails Map and new draft

3. History of the Desert Riders
Item 2B - Page 123
Juty 23, 202d
DESERT )~~ RIDERS
DESERT RIDERS TRAU. F UND INC. r.o. eo, 4063
Polm Spr,ngs. Ca 92263-4063
Re: Agenda ltem4.C• Oswit Land Trust POD 153 Minor Amendment Hello Chail-Weremiuk and MemllefS ol lhe Planning Convnissiol>- We arc writing this email on behalf of Desert Riders Inc. and Desert Riders Traiis Fuod. Inc. {Desort Ridels). Desert Riders has been aclively plamirJg. !Joil<ing, and maintaining trails in Palm Sp,ings ,md svr1Qtindin9 communities since 1930. Our oquestrian riding dub hos been riding the Tahquttz Wash area long before Mesquite Counb'y Club opened. The Svd Furer Trc!il is a key oos~rit of the city's approval of the goli course plan. Bud Furer was a property O\\T!er of some of the prC.11:>erty that now makes up the Prescott Preserve. As a condition of selling his land for the golf course, the cfe-..,11(opor was required to bu6d an equostrian trail to mainta=n the city's loop trail system connecting the T ahquit2: Wash, Palm canyon Wash 31ld:the Nortn and Soulh Lykkon Trail$. Desan Ride<s, Los Compadres members and others ric)e the Bud Furer Trail as individoals ~lld in formal group rides. We have had group .tides of over 20 (iders.

Th9 Planning Conln'ission s1aff report. and anal)'$i$ ove<looked the existing Bud Furer Trail. We lhink this was an. oversight. We ho~ U)lt Pta11nin9 Comrnissioo suppoct:S the continued use of this General Plan Equestrian TraR. TM Bud Furor Trail is shown on both the current General Ptan Re<;<eailotlal Trails Map and the draft Bil<eways al1(f Recreational r..,,J1s Plan. The st;IT , ei,ort very specificallyo~ mentions hiking and bi5<iog trails. Additionally, the appfjcan.ts Justification Statement omits 8f'IY refemnoo to the existing equestria.n traii and oriy mentions h!Ki09 and baking trais. 1he applicant has roach8d out to Desort Riders and has stated that the Planning: Commissioo is orliy approWlg a landscape plan and tha:l H. is the in\enl of OswiV?t&scon Preserve· to keep -and maintain the existing Bud Furer Trail. We thank the appljc;ant for clarifying this si~tioA in writing via email to Desert Riders.
' For lhe reocxd I have attached the appllcan1S exhibils lhat are included in your agenda packeL n,ese exhil:its show Ot&N hiking trails and a short link ol an P.qOOStrian trai. I have added haoowlitten OOleS to lhe exhibits highlighting lho existing trai and what is shown oo the exhibils. OS'M\ rep,esentativos h<lve assured Desert Rioors that the new location for the equestrian trai was ~ intended to be part of the • Plllicalioo before you tooight. It appears to be an ovorsighl "So thal the ~ lativc rocord of the PtannirlQ Comrr.ssloo's action is ~...ar a.nd to ctarifyOswit's intent we v10V!d ask that the Commis$lon make It~ In yourmcord that tho plans before you- are for ta~ approvcli only and that thA trail a!igM)OOts shown oo the applicant pf.ans are not part of this awrovat 'The existing SW Furer T rai was a loog{emi pre-existing. condition that was part of the acquisition of the prop,-.rty just as are lhe sidewalks. bikeways, bridges. landscaping. oll1er lmpro\'8111enls, and .lhe existing POD 153 penni!. Adcf11g a condition of approval to darify 1he equestrian trail issue would not be a new exaction and does not impose any new requiremenl
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ

SUNRISE WAY

S AVENIDA CABALLEROS

ALEJO RD S PALM CANYON DR

E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
A RABY
D
R
GE

NE AUTRY TRL
CAM
N
I
O
REA L

RAMON RD

CROSSLEY RD

N PALM CANYON DR

MURRAY CANYON DR

E VISTA CHINO

SAN RAFAEL DR

FARRELL DR

TACHEVAH DR

N INDIAN CANYON DR

MESQUITE AVE

LA VERNE WAY

BARONA RD

E PALM CANYON DR

BOGE RT TRL

EL CIELO RD

PEREZ RD
SH-111

RACQUET CLUB RD HERMOSA DR

DILLON RD

DINAHSHORE
DR

BELARDO RD
20TH AVE

GOLF CLUB
DR

PALM DR

VARNER RD

GARNE T AVE

CATHEDRAL
CITY

DESERT HOT

SPRINGS

DESERT HOT

SPRINGS
10 10
62 111
111
111
111
Palm Springs City Limits
Palm Springs Sphere of Influence
Adjacent City Limits
Railroad
Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Mixed Use (Class IV)
Proposed in CVAG ATP
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Mixed Use (Class IV)
Trail_Terminus
Trails_Lines
0 0.5 1
Miles Palm Springs General Plan
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
Date: 6/20/2023
Bikeways and Recreational Trails
Figure 4-4
Item 2B - Page 124
CJ
--. ·-- CJ
--+-
-
•
,'--,.----- ~
I • ' ·1 --~~
--------------- ~ 1 -....,_ ----
~--•• --1---tl--+- I 1•,.._.1.... --•- ''n, u l---~ __.. , L~• I -+--+--!--+--+-- ··1
. •
r=~ ··7 "•~
: -,~ L___ ·~
L .. ~
••
• •
••• ••
L .. J
.
.

I
I
r1
.,_J
Item 2B - Page 125 • J -:~ . ~ '" - : .. ..
"
..
'
.
-( ~ .,
(
a r .
.
- .,,. r 0 l - )
,. -I
C
:,:,
rn
ll'I
...,
,-
• z
Item 2B - Page 126
•
...
•
EQUESTRIAN TRAl!::_L ~::-e;i7"° r _,;.._.,J
Item 2B - Page 127
z
<(
_,
C.
uJ
Ill)
UJ
>
I-
<(
0::

Iv,
~ _,
_,
..
•~; " - . • •'
.... .. ~ .. 11'"1
··~ ' ·;, •• «, J -
•
- ~ -:

Item 2B - Page 128
DD[
. : ,--
'
' .
. -
.,
p
ta l.
:r
• OJ --
• -I
;;;
"' on
-I
0 ;;:;
J;,
-I -
0 z
N
0 ~ ._
re
-:,
,-
>
z
Item 2B - Page 129
U!~$v9C!C-# 1.1;1:ww O"' t-pue r,,:)ff.c u:r..c Pllll:u!irs{IP Mlli~ 1111 ~ ·-
3S ,~
l!u1111Ca 11\1110 ult'J ~ll!!~.:i&.~ IOI.I~:..~ 1.1 ·~951'1• u0 op~~ still 1~, •n:,p""! "!'U. 11~~0rN;WCt~ ~ ...... \.l~Olt .... Olt-OUI! -.i~&..~~O...b.'c6\<MO:JA11~,q~t ~l;l!llfd~AAo~I
:-n.ell"..eot hp 6111~ 1,.1odll11-" t ~ 1:N1!u .cl o;p ~ d111~ -,cu 10 :t'!S ~I J! jO ~wi:u•
~Wl<111111®;,qNO:J.._.J~tJ&IIIS1~Sil!IP1:.PUoq ~"'if. ~ u~o ~1.,~ 1¥-'P.--C axd'i u'Odo11.<~ we;)G~~ 11:!U ow ~~111 ~ ~ • 111 l!11t'.lilltl, .<.~..io.ie .-~e w.,lli('.c:.el~I! m4W!~.o>1r-~ •1u ~ (l)IRXfpc 1:,0:,:lwt JIOU 111...,t,,;ifo)t! Olli/lJIOl-4 ... :)ffflbo,J Ille"' ptO;.ilr,)OliSII!: U )MW,l,IM,IJ" ~S ~I w~ '!1V$.<I Gu!oil,,s~l!! (!C,:! ll'\HQlllOMNMCl)WII , . IN ..-io:i R'lll:t'l~.<v,) -4-'~•.JO.i wSPlS
u11111-~v1
'UllJ""lll<l'I! ~1:1 \4 i;m.r,b,,,, ,._ Gill. Ol "!l)OO$ ~ ...-:S ~OJ._,. ""A.ti S'N:~ ·!:l!:IL ~ .,_m ~Y.)'6.udS"t.itt<; ~ 10 ~ >Jfl'd. "i S,Ut _.,..l :un~OCIP~t,..$() ~
-.all It llil llnf' ~ "'-\1:Wlt &:.,,RS
Item 2B - Page 130
•• ••
-.. ••••
'
. • ·•"''
~<>·!Oo ~ ,;... .. .., :: -
•
. • ,
•
. ·{-"-'-·- . 1
• I
l
• • • I
• • •
-·
rn
><
Vl
-I
z
" -I
::,
171
,.,,
n
>
z
0 7J
-<
•
Cl
C
2-
Cl
,..,
::,
Vl
-I
0 -<
<
"' C'l
r,
-I
)>
--- 0
z
>
·|}þ111
·|}þ111
·|}þ111
·|}þ111
%&'(10
%&'(10
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
Feet
F
Legend
TrailHeads
Hiking/Equestrian
4-Wheel Drive
Unpaved Road
Proposed Hiking/Equestrian/Backpacking
Bike Paths
Streets
City and Sphere Limits
Dillon Rd.

DISCLAIMER:

THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION, OR GUARANTEE OF ANY KIND REGARDING EITHER ANY MAPS OR OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN OR THE SOURCES OF SUCH MAPS OR OTHER INFORMATION. THE

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The City of Palm Springs assumes no liability either for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the cause of such or for any decision made, action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein.

Data Sources:

City of Palm Springs

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

RECREATIONAL TRAILS MAP
ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 5, 2011 BY RESOLUTION 23031 Tahquitz Canyon
Visitor Center
Palm Springs
Regional
Airport
34th Ave
(Along west side of Palm Canyon Wash Levee)
(Along Whitewater Levee)
Gene Autry Trail
Murray Canyon Dr.Calle Palo Fierro
Baristo Rd
Camino Real
Compadre Rd
Tamarisk Rd
Tachevah Dr Camino Real
Path: P:\PalmSprings_BikePaths\Trails_Map_Final.mxd
McMANUS TRAIL

EAGLE CANYON TRAIL

CLARA BURGESS TRAIL

PALM CANYON WASH TRAIL

ARABY TRAIL

SHANNON TRAIL

BURNS TRAIL

WILD HORSE TRAIL

THELEMAN CANYON

GARSTIN TRAIL

HENDERSON TRAIL

ALEXANDER TRAIL

OSWIT CANYON

SOUTH LYKKEN TRAIL

NORTH LYKKEN TRAIL

SKYLINE TRAIL

MUSEUM TRAIL

NORTH LYKKEN TRAIL

TRAIL LOOP

DIKE TRAIL

CONNECTION TO SNOW CREEK AND

PACIFIC CREST TRAIL

BUD FURER TRAIL

WHITEWATER

WASH TRAIL
Map Prepared by:

General Plan Figure 4-4 Revised October 5, 2011
Item 2B - Page 131
L ........................ 1.:. •• -,,
•
e,
l r• " I
(; ' . ' ·, µ,.
• C
C.,'" ~
' s
r--,__ I ------'C"----!!,02 A_sC:__tL.,'--,____L......A,-V_,.--t t E y - ---...,_" · Sco.,u,.,rn Pl!(:,,~ Ka,tr,.,,d ,• - .,,... . . . . .................. ... '
T
i
T~ I I> 0
-
'
' ,
--------------, i
:
0 >
,
'
<
<~--''-W'J:1---l--1---l-f--l-i'l---l
'
'
• jt, • 0
c ' ,
z '
•
I
'
I --.,.,..".-" .......... •--•••••••••••'•-••• ........... .. ! !

C O A C H E L L A
V ,
'
p ,-
................................. ,
------------ Sa"
rrardino
101 F'oresl
---·-· ----
M
---,
.
i
i
.i A
<i 1J
S A N
C I N
N T A
•••• , ..... 1••••11••1• .. •11• ~~ ~~~';
"-lt SWl
Ja ·o
St
~n 6elna{,dino
Nat onal l;:irest
I
., ... • •• ..
••••
.................
• I
! = ii. .............. .11
T
I
0 N s
N 0 C A
................................................ i
!
i
• •
N y 0 N
s A N J
• • •--'"1.11'.l'Jl'.I' ... • ••
A C N r 0
Palm Springs
•• ••
•• ••• •••
..........
•• • C O A C H E
•
-~
• • • • • •
, •
• • • •
• •• • • • ••
.: ..
,l ....
• ••
• •• • •• ~ •
... ..•·
•• ••
• •• ~ . • • • •
•• •••••• ••
• • •
• • • •
•
•
• •• •
• ••
•
_!,:,:•::·~·~·:.:·:.:•--,.
• • -··· ii ~ .. •• ... •
. ~1, ,· p
'"
"
z
••• #•"
.. -~ Palm Springs • • ••
• •••
• ·---
C ' ',
M 0 u N T A N s
.,
... •
• -• • :
.. 6 ....... .. ..
• • • • •
•
•
•
• • •• • .. . • •• • • • •
... • • .
• • • .. . • • • •
.. • . ...... •
,, .. • _1-. -·.
•
. .... . .. - ·••"' ... .. . " ..
l
Palm Springs
C
•••••••••••••
L L A
' a• ~-
,,,
, FH
,,
' ,,

V A L L
, .
,1, ~ r 1
"
'
'
'
············· ...... ........ ••• ... ••I
E y
"
' '
" F ,~ '1
r Ci
s
' "
Raymood Cre~
JI H,~h St~,:,,:,i
1 ' '
,
u
..
,. i;-~,:~;,:~.~,--,:==·~'~~~~;--o:;-1t.::.::.::~,-1==::'.::!,f;"r1-ri ME-d1aal r ,, . St en,
c,~ta ~
'
,<;01hen n•
•1nd'lt Elam
'°''"
'
I '
'
" '
, "'
• •••
' .
-~
• •
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•• •• ••
••
P~,.., Spfin11s
C.:..iM~ Cl~!)
• •
• • • •
_ ~'. II 1
'' p I u..
'
'
- ,
J J, 0
["' ;..
z
'
-
•
,
''
I a R J
Palm
Springs
'' 0
TA C H E VA /-1 C A N Y O N ,
I
I
I
I
.
•·
,
•
•
•
e,n
Spnng~
romMa~ '
•
.. !!a ,~ "ar
' .
' "
C
u
" ~ I
"
0 0
,~ ""
'1
apel
C n5~an Es
"~
Springi
Mall
P;i m Springs
1-ilgh School
' C
'
' " S,int Th~,
El•m""t
SCI-I
-te~quite
Co.,ntr~
C•u~
• •, • . • • • • •• • • •• •
' -•.r••······ • ••• • • •
~
•
•
~
•
•
• #
•• •
•
•
aim
rings
r
J '
-an:t""'
~O<Jth Gol1
Cou~~
'
"
C u,11;1
E .,~ntar•
' ""
C.;m,cn
CO<Jntry Club
• -·--·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-~D •
•••••• ·•. • ••
·-·-·-·-· , ,.,
'
'
•
C
c,nycn SWlh
Gol!CO(J'H
·-·-·-
',
-" o T,_,
' 0 ;
'
••
I
• '---~.l.~--~I • • •
•
•• •••• ••
, ... -
L_,_J
a o
L
• •
•• ••
,, ' ,.
"'" I' A·,
-~ Av
'
"'i" "Rd
••
s 'Ii ,,.,,. ,,·
Bl. 'Re

V A LLEY
••• •
Tllomtr,,i R~
•• •
••
••••
'
'
0 '
'
" ,
" 'C >
'
1~ t A•·
On-erl Ounu
Go~Cou ru
CO A ~ HELL A V A
•
' '
'
!
!
!
!
' "
•
,,
i t E Y
i
'
'
'
'
Ri R.s
Sandi
RV R.,~ort
QQlf CoYrff
,...,I Cle
1( ... ,
• f----~~- -
CI ,.,,
, >-------,
Ya 1 I
flal
"
' '
' '
"
0 1,1, "
'
,,
~,r I PJ
•
•
p,,o,.,_. I j

S E V E N
p
V
A
A
L
L
M
L
s
< y
-"~--------"c>c·c· ,,_. - --, §I
l";Jn,,.,, ~'
Cathedral City
•••• ••• )I" n P1
••
R -,t-
•• •
•
•
• •
•••
•
•
i .
! • • •
! •
•
"
Cathedral City
" "
C
.r1 " .,.
•••'----"""r:.ll.,c' a•~ • •

0..-;ftrt
Prlri~ss
°"n lr,Club
•
•
•
• ' '
' •
•
• • "- - ~---<
" '
;i ............ .
•
••• •
·" )
•
Ci<l lo
1---'-4 "'- "'la Elem ,,. ' 1 L School
•• ••
' '
' "
' ,,. ,,
•• 1••··············
• • •• •
' '.
n
"
ll • •,-. •• • • •1' •
•• • ••
• !
•
• • Palm Springs • • ~·• •
. ....... .
.. ..... .... .. .. .. . . ..
•
•
•• ••
:
..
•. -- .
• 't •
............. :.;
•
.i
•
• ..,,.-.... ~·
•
.,
•
t
•
•• :
.:·
<
•
•
"\ "
•••
•
...
•
.. •• • • •
......

M
J
0 s
A C
U N
A N
N
r A
T 0
N s
',,,.-
•
'
, ,, 0
. , __ _ •
• •'
•
•
•
• ti , I p·,
•
.'f--------'-== , -",-~ 0 11---H---
u
• 6
• '~ Dr
. -...,-~ •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
L;ind;,u ----1-----~---1
~m~nlar1
Sct,ool ----1----,"~"- -I
•• 't------,-->'c'-1-lt--------f----l
•
C,m•n-on G;clf Cl • .. ,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
········•~•,,1••1-s••····"'···
!
• i . -· . • I ~
••
••
1 I
;
••
=· !
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
•
•
0 "
\le a Id
'"' I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r- I
"
.......... :..t..
0 '
'
•., i
-!
"
, '
•
_,
,,
1 '
'
a erlal
i nfacrma1ion
,:.~ote~
From: Jarek Dallos
To: Planning
Cc: Jane Garrison
Subject: Comment Letter: ITEM 4C - A REQUEST BY THE OSWIT LAND TRUST, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESER...

Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:54:58 AM
Attachments: Comment Letter - ITEM 4C.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
I am reaching out on behalf of Jane Garrison, to share with you a comment letter regarding:

Re: ITEM 4C - A REQUEST BY THE OSWIT LAND TRUST, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE

FORMER GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE; THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN SUNRISE WAY; AND EL CIELO ROAD; NORTH OF MESQUITE AVENUE; ZONE PDD 153/W, SECTION 24 (CASE 5.0303-PD 153) (ER).

Please confirm receipt and distribute the attached letter to the Planning Commission.

Thank you kindly.

Jarek Dallos
--
ING. JAREK DALLOS (He/Him/His)
| Administrative Assistant for Executive Office & ACE Division Website: www.OswitLandTrust.Org
Email: [email protected]
Item 2B - Page 132
OswitLandTrust.org | 760.385.8255
Oswit Land Trust, PO Box 4020, Palm Springs, CA 92263
1 July 22, 2024
Planning Commission
City of Palm Springs
Sent via email
Re: item 4C PrescoC Preserve July 24th PC meeEng
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are wriEng to ask for you to vote in favor of the PrescoC Preserve Minor modificaEon of the landscape plan for PDD 153 as recommended by staff. However, we are reques9ng important changes to the staff recommenda9ons for condi9ons.

Summary of changes requested (details about each below) Modify or remove the following condiEons:

Project specific condiEons 3 and 4, ADM 5, ADM 9, ENV 1, ENV 2, PLN 1, ENG 2, ENG 13, ENG 14, ENG 22, FID 10.

Important history
● Oswit Land Trust received the property that is now PrescoC Preserve as a donaEon. ● OperaEng and maintaining a public nature preserve is consistent with the goals of Oswit Land Trust and adds to the well-being of our residents and visitors and we take that responsibility seriously.
● Our goal is for our property to remain as a preserve that current and future generaEons can enjoy.
● The city determined that we would require a minor modificaEon to a landscaping plan from the exisEng PDD before we could start planEng. This could have been approved by the Planning Director but staff chose to send it to the Planning Commission. ● We were disappointed the city was requiring this minor modificaEon to go before the Planning Commission considering that over a dozen neighborhoods have converted their grass to naEve landscape (which is essenEally what we are doing at PrescoC Preserve).

Item 2B - Page 133
OswitLandTrust.org | 760.385.8255
Oswit Land Trust, PO Box 4020, Palm Springs, CA 92263
2 ● We had several meeEngs with City staff (including the City Manager) where four condiEons were idenEfied that we would need to comply with. We agreed to those four condiEons.
● We were shocked to receive the agenda/staff report and see that 50 condiEons had been added to this simple minor modificaEon to a landscaping plan. ● Although many of these condiEons create a huge burden for our nonprofit, we can agree to 38 of these condiEons but need modificaEons to project specific condiEons 3 and 4 and 10 other condiEons detailed below.

Misinforma9on in staff report

trees. We have not removed any trees from the property or any vegetaEon, other than nonnaEve, invasive species for fire safety reasons. We received a warning for plan9ng 100 trees that were donated to us and worth $700,000. PlanEng trees that help improve air quality, add shade and beauEfy the property is a benefit to the environment and the community.

Details of requested changes to condi9ons:

Project specific condiEon 3: it is a financial burden to require OLT to employ a full-Eme ranger for PrescoC Preserve. We have owned this property for 2 years and we have a successful system to protect our property from illegal dumping, encampments, etc. We respecdully request that condiEon 3 is modified to state that “OLT will employ rangers as needed to protect the property and prevent illegal dumping, encampments, etc.”
Project specific condiEon 4: it is unsafe for trails to be open to the public at all Emes. Our trails are only open from sunrise to sunset. In addiEon, there are Emes when we need to close certain trails for safety reasons. We respecdully request that the condiEon is modified as follows: Access to trails: The trails shall be opened to the public (delete: at all Emes) (add: from sunrise to sunset) and the enEre site shall always remain as Open Space per Council ResoluEon No. 15648. OLT has the right to close trails as needed for repairs and for the safety of humans and wildlife as needed.

ADM 5: our lawyers will not allow us to put ourselves in a situaEon to cover the city's legal costs.

Item 2B - Page 134
OswitLandTrust.org | 760.385.8255
Oswit Land Trust, PO Box 4020, Palm Springs, CA 92263
3 ADM 9: this is not applicable for a nature preserve. We are not developers.

ENV 1: all environmentals have been completed by the Wildlife ConservaEon Board (WCB). We do not want the city to file anything that could conflict with what has already been approved by the WCB in connecEon with our pending 7.2-million-dollar grant.

ENV 2: not applicable for a nature preserve. We are adding habitat for wildlife so would not need to pay the California Fish and Wildlife anything for negaEve impact.

PLN 1: As our submiCed plans and plant species list shows, we are only planEng water efficient naEves. It is a burden for us to have to have our plans approved by the Riverside County Agricultural commissioner's office and not applicable for a preserve.

ENG 2: We cannot agree to making street improvements.

ENG 13: as stated in the plans we submiCed and the meeEngs we held with staff, we are not touching the creek channel so do not need any approvals from Riverside County Flood Control and Water ConservaEon District.

ENG 14: we are not working within the creek or creek bed. This was a very important decision we made to help with the environmental approvals we received via Wildlife ConservaEon Board ENG 22: not applicable. This is for a developer.

FID 10: This language is too general and lel to interpretaEon for us to agree to. Everything in the desert could be classified as “capable of being ignited.” The last thing we would want is a fire on our property. Therefore, we are very proacEve in miEgaEng any risk. We own and are responsible for over 5,000 acres. As a land trust, we take fire safety incredibly seriously. In fact, when we first purchased the property, we spoke with the fire department regarding debris that had been lel on the property for several years which OLT removed.

Oswit Land Trust is dedicated to preserving open space for humans and wildlife. We pride ourselves on the accomplishments and successes we conEnue to achieve. PrescoC Preserve is already our most popular and visited property of all the land we own. We recognize the importance of allowing it to remain open to the public. However, we can't achieve this if we are Item 2B - Page 135
OswitLandTrust.org | 760.385.8255
Oswit Land Trust, PO Box 4020, Palm Springs, CA 92263
4 not allowed to plant the naEve plants needed to reduce water use, beauEfy the property and create a safe and enjoyable experience for the public and wildlife.

For these reasons, we hope you will approve the modificaEon of landscaping and modify or remove the 12 condiEons we idenEfied. Your consideraEon of this request is appreciated.

If you have any quesEons, please feel free to reach out to me directly at 843-343-8887 or by email at [email protected].

Thank you,
Jane Garrison
ExecuEve Director
cc: ScoC SEles
Christopher Hadwin
Item 2B - Page 136
From: Rod Davis
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4C on 7/24/24 Agenda
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:51:25 AM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-09-26 at 11.22.16 AM.png
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning CommissionThis email is in reference to item 4C on Wednesday's Planning Commission agenda.

My wife and I are full-time residents in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood and live across the street from the proposed Prescott Preserve. We are supporters of the Preserve and hope the Planning Commission approves the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to the recommendations by city staff.

We thank you for your consideration.

Warm regards,
Rod Davis
Little Beverly Hills Resident & Neighborhood Organization Board President Rod Davis
Davis Sports + Entertainment
E: [email protected]
M: 317.902.0202
Item 2B - Page 137
DAV IS SPO"TS •
L~~Tlh\1/~INM[Nl
--------------
From: John Deely
To: Planning
Subject: Yes I aprove, thank You
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:19:51 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Item 2B - Page 138
From: Rocklen DeHoog
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4.C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 2:52:35 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Rocklen DeHoog
2701 E. Mesquite Ave., H42
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 139
From: David Newell
To: Anita Fields; Edward Robertson
Subject: Fw: PC Agenda Item 4.C- Oswitt/Prescott Preserve Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:23:24 PM
Attachments: PSGP Recreational Trails Map.pdf
Figure 4-4 Bikeways and Recreational Trails_DRAFT_Jan_2024.pdf From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:14 PM
To: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; David Newell <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Rick Minjares <[email protected]>; Mark Graham <[email protected]>
Subject: PC Agenda Item 4.C- Oswitt/Prescott Preserve
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Good afternoon Christopher, David and EdwardWe are writing this email on behalf of Desert Riders Inc. and Desert Riders Trails Fund. Inc.(Desert Riders). Desert Riders has been actively planning, building, and maintaining trails in Palm Springs and surrounding communities since 1930. Our equestrian riding club has been riding the Tahquitz wash area long before Mesquite Country Club opened. The Bud Furer Trail is a key component of the city's approval of the golf course plan. Bud Furer was a property owner of some of the property and a condition of his selling the land was that a equestrian trial be established to maintain the city's loop trail system connecting the Tahquitz Wash, Palm Canyon Wash and the North and South Lykken Trails in the hillside. Desert Riders as well as members of Los Compadres ride the Bud Furer Trail as individuals and in more formal group rides.

I am hoping that the Planning Commission staff report and analysis overlooked the existing Bud Furer Trail and that the City supports the continued use of this General Plan Trail designated on the General Plan Recreational Trails Map and the draft Bikeways and Recreational Trails Plan. The staff report very specifically only mentions hiking and biking trails. Additionally the applicants Justification Statement omits any reference to the existing equestrian trail and only mentions hiking and biking.

As currently written the staff report does not address the General Plan Trail and the conditions of approval do not address maintaining or relocating this General Plan Trail. Based upon a review of the staff report, draft resolution, applicants Justification Statement, and a detailed review of the plans and documents in the agenda packet the proposed Minor Modification of PD 153 cannot be approved since it is in violation Item 2B - Page 140
of the General Plan.

Here is why. The diagrams and plans that are before the Planning Commission do not show the existing trail alignment. The only document that shows any part of the existing trail alignment is the Existing Tree and Large Under Story Vegetation Plan.

This diagram labels a small segment of the existing equestrian trail. The Illustrative Site Plan and the Site Features Plan show a hiking trail and partially relocated equestrian trail along the southern boundary of the property. The equestrian trail appears to end just south of the confluence of the Tahquitz Wash and the Baristo Flood Control Channel. The hiking trail continues westerly and then utilizes the the existing bridge to cross over the Tahquitz Wash. The equestrian trail just ends. I have attached copies of the exhibits included in the staff report with hand written notes regarding what is shown and not shown on the diagrams regarding the equestrian trail. As noted above, the staff report makes no mention of the General Plan equestrian trail, makes no mention of the proposed realignment of the existing trail. and makes no mention of why the equestrian trail appears to abruptly end in the middle of the property.

In the documents I attached I added orange dots to show the existing trail alignment form Sunrise Way to El Cielo. The existing trail and its alignment were carefully planned to not only work with the former golf course but to navigate the crossing of the Tahquitz Wash in the safest location for horse riders and horses.

The Tahquitz Wash crossing was carefully located just west of the confluence of the Tahquitz Wash and Barristo Flood Control Channel for the following reasons:

1. The location is up stream of the Baristo Flood Control Channel so that when there are low flows the Tahquitz stream crossing has lower water flows and the urban runoff from the Baristo Flood Control Channel are located down stream of the crossing.

2. The Tahquitz Creek westerly of this location has wash bottom conditions that are unstable for riders and horses due to the confluence of the Unnamed Channel, its urban runoff, and deeper water conditions.

Desert Riders has tried to work with Oswitt/Prescott Preserve Board of Directors and staff for over two years to resolve the equestrian trail alignment and frankly have been surprised by the appearance of the the Minor Amendment to PD 153 appearing on the agenda. We have met with Oswitt/Prescott representatives, walked the property multiple times with representatives, and have been told conflicting information regarding the applicants intention for the equestrian trail. Additionally Oswit/Prescott Preserve has blocked access to the existing trail by placing landscape debris over the trail and telling us we cannot cross the Tahquitz Wash.

At this time we ask planning staff to issue a revised and corrected staff report so that the administrative record is factual regarding the General Plan Equestrian Trail, factual about the proposed relocation of the equestrian trail, and factual about the diagrams that are before the Planning Commission. An existing equestrian trail that is Item 2B - Page 141
relocated and then shown as a dead end trail is not consistent with the General Plan and constitutes a project under CEQA. As currently described in the staff report, in the applicants Justification Statement, and as shown on the applicant proposed plans and exhibits the project violates the General Plan, and causes a potentially significant environmental impact that is not analyzed in the staff report or mitigated.

We believe that this item should be continued until such time the staff report is corrected, the equestrian trail is shown in a safe location, and that a condition of approval be added to require a dedicated right of way for the equestrian trail in the existing trail location. The condition of approval should also require the applicant to construct and maintain the equestrian trail. If it is the applicants intent to terminate the equestrian trail in the middle of the property then the Minor PD amendment cannot be approved without the Planning Commission and City Council amending the General Plan and conducting a full environmental assessment.

Desert Riders has built and maintained trails in partnership with the City since our inception. For many years we acted as the trails maintenance organization for the city and we split cost with the City.

We would like to see the Oswitt/ Prescott Preserve proceed and we think it will be a great addition to the city.

However, as currently proposed it does not conform to the General Plan and could result in the elimination of a important equestrian trail.

We look forward to working with the City and Oswitt/Prescott Preserve to positively resolve the equestrian trail issue.

Doug Evans, President
Desert Riders Trails Fund Inc.

Mark Graham, Round Up Boss
Desert Riders
CC- Jim Priest, City Attorney (please forward)
Item 2B - Page 142
Item 2B - Page 143
•• ••
-.. ••••
'
. • ·•"''
~<>·!Oo ~ ,;... .. .., :: -
•
. • ,
•
. ·{-"-'-·- . 1
• I
l
• • • I
• • •
-·
rn
><
Vl
-I
z
" -I
::,
171
,.,,
n
>
z
0 7J
-<
•
Cl
C
2-
Cl
,..,
::,
Vl
-I
0 -<
<
"' C'l
r,
-I
)>
--- 0
z
>
·|}þ111
·|}þ111
·|}þ111
·|}þ111
%&'(10
%&'(10
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
Feet
F
Legend
TrailHeads
Hiking/Equestrian
4-Wheel Drive
Unpaved Road
Proposed Hiking/Equestrian/Backpacking
Bike Paths
Streets
City and Sphere Limits
Dillon Rd.

DISCLAIMER:

THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION, OR GUARANTEE OF ANY KIND REGARDING EITHER ANY MAPS OR OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN OR THE SOURCES OF SUCH MAPS OR OTHER INFORMATION. THE

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The City of Palm Springs assumes no liability either for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the cause of such or for any decision made, action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein.

Data Sources:

City of Palm Springs

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

RECREATIONAL TRAILS MAP
ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 5, 2011 BY RESOLUTION 23031 Tahquitz Canyon
Visitor Center
Palm Springs
Regional
Airport
34th Ave
(Along west side of Palm Canyon Wash Levee)
(Along Whitewater Levee)
Gene Autry Trail
Murray Canyon Dr.Calle Palo Fierro
Baristo Rd
Camino Real
Compadre Rd
Tamarisk Rd
Tachevah Dr Camino Real
Path: P:\PalmSprings_BikePaths\Trails_Map_Final.mxd
McMANUS TRAIL

EAGLE CANYON TRAIL

CLARA BURGESS TRAIL

PALM CANYON WASH TRAIL

ARABY TRAIL

SHANNON TRAIL

BURNS TRAIL

WILD HORSE TRAIL

THELEMAN CANYON

GARSTIN TRAIL

HENDERSON TRAIL

ALEXANDER TRAIL

OSWIT CANYON

SOUTH LYKKEN TRAIL

NORTH LYKKEN TRAIL

SKYLINE TRAIL

MUSEUM TRAIL

NORTH LYKKEN TRAIL

TRAIL LOOP

DIKE TRAIL

CONNECTION TO SNOW CREEK AND

PACIFIC CREST TRAIL

BUD FURER TRAIL

WHITEWATER

WASH TRAIL
Map Prepared by:

General Plan Figure 4-4 Revised October 5, 2011
Item 2B - Page 144
L ........................ 1.:. •• -,,
•
e,
l r• " I
(; ' . ' ·, µ,.
• C
C.,'" ~
' s
r--,__ I ------'C"----!!,02 A_sC:__tL.,'--,____L......A,-V_,.--t t E y - ---...,_" · Sco.,u,.,rn Pl!(:,,~ Ka,tr,.,,d ,• - .,,... . . . . .................. ... '
T
i
T~ I I> 0
-
'
' ,
--------------, i
:
0 >
,
'
<
<~--''-W'J:1---l--1---l-f--l-i'l---l
'
'
• jt, • 0
c ' ,
z '
•
I
'
I --.,.,..".-" .......... •--•••••••••••'•-••• ........... .. ! !

C O A C H E L L A
V ,
'
p ,-
................................. ,
------------ Sa"
rrardino
101 F'oresl
---·-· ----
M
---,
.
i
i
.i A
<i 1J
S A N
C I N
N T A
•••• , ..... 1••••11••1• .. •11• ~~ ~~~';
"-lt SWl
Ja ·o
St
~n 6elna{,dino
Nat onal l;:irest
I
., ... • •• ..
••••
.................
• I
! = ii. .............. .11
T
I
0 N s
N 0 C A
................................................ i
!
i
• •
N y 0 N
s A N J
• • •--'"1.11'.l'Jl'.I' ... • ••
A C N r 0
Palm Springs
•• ••
•• ••• •••
..........
•• • C O A C H E
•
-~
• • • • • •
, •
• • • •
• •• • • • ••
.: ..
,l ....
• ••
• •• • •• ~ •
... ..•·
•• ••
• •• ~ . • • • •
•• •••••• ••
• • •
• • • •
•
•
• •• •
• ••
•
_!,:,:•::·~·~·:.:·:.:•--,.
• • -··· ii ~ .. •• ... •
. ~1, ,· p
'"
"
z
••• #•"
.. -~ Palm Springs • • ••
• •••
• ·---
C ' ',
M 0 u N T A N s
.,
... •
• -• • :
.. 6 ....... .. ..
• • • • •
•
•
•
• • •• • .. . • •• • • • •
... • • .
• • • .. . • • • •
.. • . ...... •
,, .. • _1-. -·.
•
. .... . .. - ·••"' ... .. . " ..
l
Palm Springs
C
•••••••••••••
L L A
' a• ~-
,,,
, FH
,,
' ,,

V A L L
, .
,1, ~ r 1
"
'
'
'
············· ...... ........ ••• ... ••I
E y
"
' '
" F ,~ '1
r Ci
s
' "
Raymood Cre~
JI H,~h St~,:,,:,i
1 ' '
,
u
..
,. i;-~,:~;,:~.~,--,:==·~'~~~~;--o:;-1t.::.::.::~,-1==::'.::!,f;"r1-ri ME-d1aal r ,, . St en,
c,~ta ~
'
,<;01hen n•
•1nd'lt Elam
'°''"
'
I '
'
" '
, "'
• •••
' .
-~
• •
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•• •• ••
••
P~,.., Spfin11s
C.:..iM~ Cl~!)
• •
• • • •
_ ~'. II 1
'' p I u..
'
'
- ,
J J, 0
["' ;..
z
'
-
•
,
''
I a R J
Palm
Springs
'' 0
TA C H E VA /-1 C A N Y O N ,
I
I
I
I
.
•·
,
•
•
•
e,n
Spnng~
romMa~ '
•
.. !!a ,~ "ar
' .
' "
C
u
" ~ I
"
0 0
,~ ""
'1
apel
C n5~an Es
"~
Springi
Mall
P;i m Springs
1-ilgh School
' C
'
' " S,int Th~,
El•m""t
SCI-I
-te~quite
Co.,ntr~
C•u~
• •, • . • • • • •• • • •• •
' -•.r••······ • ••• • • •
~
•
•
~
•
•
• #
•• •
•
•
aim
rings
r
J '
-an:t""'
~O<Jth Gol1
Cou~~
'
"
C u,11;1
E .,~ntar•
' ""
C.;m,cn
CO<Jntry Club
• -·--·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-~D •
•••••• ·•. • ••
·-·-·-·-· , ,.,
'
'
•
C
c,nycn SWlh
Gol!CO(J'H
·-·-·-
',
-" o T,_,
' 0 ;
'
••
I
• '---~.l.~--~I • • •
•
•• •••• ••
, ... -
L_,_J
a o
L
• •
•• ••
,, ' ,.
"'" I' A·,
-~ Av
'
"'i" "Rd
••
s 'Ii ,,.,,. ,,·
Bl. 'Re

V A LLEY
••• •
Tllomtr,,i R~
•• •
••
••••
'
'
0 '
'
" ,
" 'C >
'
1~ t A•·
On-erl Ounu
Go~Cou ru
CO A ~ HELL A V A
•
' '
'
!
!
!
!
' "
•
,,
i t E Y
i
'
'
'
'
Ri R.s
Sandi
RV R.,~ort
QQlf CoYrff
,...,I Cle
1( ... ,
• f----~~- -
CI ,.,,
, >-------,
Ya 1 I
flal
"
' '
' '
"
0 1,1, "
'
,,
~,r I PJ
•
•
p,,o,.,_. I j

S E V E N
p
V
A
A
L
L
M
L
s
< y
-"~--------"c>c·c· ,,_. - --, §I
l";Jn,,.,, ~'
Cathedral City
•••• ••• )I" n P1
••
R -,t-
•• •
•
•
• •
•••
•
•
i .
! • • •
! •
•
"
Cathedral City
" "
C
.r1 " .,.
•••'----"""r:.ll.,c' a•~ • •

0..-;ftrt
Prlri~ss
°"n lr,Club
•
•
•
• ' '
' •
•
• • "- - ~---<
" '
;i ............ .
•
••• •
·" )
•
Ci<l lo
1---'-4 "'- "'la Elem ,,. ' 1 L School
•• ••
' '
' "
' ,,. ,,
•• 1••··············
• • •• •
' '.
n
"
ll • •,-. •• • • •1' •
•• • ••
• !
•
• • Palm Springs • • ~·• •
. ....... .
.. ..... .... .. .. .. . . ..
•
•
•• ••
:
..
•. -- .
• 't •
............. :.;
•
.i
•
• ..,,.-.... ~·
•
.,
•
t
•
•• :
.:·
<
•
•
"\ "
•••
•
...
•
.. •• • • •
......

M
J
0 s
A C
U N
A N
N
r A
T 0
N s
',,,.-
•
'
, ,, 0
. , __ _ •
• •'
•
•
•
• ti , I p·,
•
.'f--------'-== , -",-~ 0 11---H---
u
• 6
• '~ Dr
. -...,-~ •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
L;ind;,u ----1-----~---1
~m~nlar1
Sct,ool ----1----,"~"- -I
•• 't------,-->'c'-1-lt--------f----l
•
C,m•n-on G;clf Cl • .. ,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
········•~•,,1••1-s••····"'···
!
• i . -· . • I ~
••
••
1 I
;
••
=· !
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
•
•
0 "
\le a Id
'"' I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r- I
"
.......... :..t..
0 '
'
•., i
-!
"
, '
•
_,
,,
1 '
'
a erlal
i nfacrma1ion
,:.~ote~
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ
|ÿ

SUNRISE WAY

S AVENIDA CABALLEROS

ALEJO RD S PALM CANYON DR

E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
A RABY
D
R
GE

NE AUTRY TRL
CAM
N
I
O
REA L

RAMON RD

CROSSLEY RD

N PALM CANYON DR

MURRAY CANYON DR

E VISTA CHINO

SAN RAFAEL DR

FARRELL DR

TACHEVAH DR

N INDIAN CANYON DR

MESQUITE AVE

LA VERNE WAY

BARONA RD

E PALM CANYON DR

BOGE RT TRL

EL CIELO RD

PEREZ RD
SH-111

RACQUET CLUB RD HERMOSA DR

DILLON RD

DINAHSHORE
DR

BELARDO RD
20TH AVE

GOLF CLUB
DR

PALM DR

VARNER RD

GARNE T AVE

CATHEDRAL
CITY

DESERT HOT

SPRINGS

DESERT HOT

SPRINGS
10 10
62 111
111
111
111
Palm Springs City Limits
Palm Springs Sphere of Influence
Adjacent City Limits
Railroad
Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Mixed Use (Class IV)
Proposed in CVAG ATP
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Mixed Use (Class IV)
Trail_Terminus
Trails_Lines
0 0.5 1
Miles Palm Springs General Plan
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
Date: 6/20/2023
Bikeways and Recreational Trails
Figure 4-4
Item 2B - Page 145
CJ
--. ·-- CJ
--+-
-
•
,'--,.----- ~
I • ' ·1 --~~
--------------- ~ 1 -....,_ ----
~--•• --1---tl--+- I 1•,.._.1.... --•- ''n, u l---~ __.. , L~• I -+--+--!--+--+-- ··1
. •
r=~ ··7 "•~
: -,~ L___ ·~
L .. ~
••
• •
••• ••
L .. J
.
.

I
I
r1
.,_J
Item 2B - Page 146 • J -:~ . ~ '" - : .. ..
"
..
'
.
-( ~ .,
(
a r .
.
- .,,. r 0 l - )
,. -I
C
:,:,
rn
ll'I
...,
,-
• z
Item 2B - Page 147
•
...
•
EQUESTRIAN TRAl!::_L ~::-e;i7"° r _,;.._.,J
Item 2B - Page 148
z
<(
_,
C.
uJ
Ill)
UJ
>
I-
<(
0::

Iv,
~ _,
_,
..
•~; " - . • •'
.... .. ~ .. 11'"1
··~ ' ·;, •• «, J -
•
- ~ -:

Item 2B - Page 149
DD[
. : ,--
'
' .
. -
.,
p
ta l.
:r
• OJ --
• -I
;;;
"' on
-I
0 ;;:;
J;,
-I -
0 z
N
0 ~ ._
re
-:,
,-
>
z
Item 2B - Page 150
• .. . . ' . ,. . ' . .
,.---l lv'l:ll NVlclJS3nO:!
. . . ..
llv'?:U doo·1 __ - Nv'll:l1S303ri l v'clnl.'v'N
' •
• . . . . . ..... -... - • . .
. .
• . _,.._ ... _,
_,._---... -... ...
•
• .
. ·- . • . -,, .. .
• - . '-,-~.-'-
•
. . ..
• •
• • ,
' • • : ... ,-,'. ,., • • -. . . . •
•
•
• • ~ .....
•
• •
. .
•
•
•
. . ·-.. : .. •
•
' •
.
•
. ,. _:
. .. .. . --.......
. .
•
• ,. -: .. . . .
•
••
. .
. .
•
Item 2B - Page 151
U!~$v9C!C-# 1.1;1:ww O"' t-pue r,,:)ff.c u:r..c Pllll:u!irs{IP Mlli~ 1111 ~ ·-
3S ,~
l!u1111Ca 11\1110 ult'J ~ll!!~.:i&.~ IOI.I~:..~ 1.1 ·~951'1• u0 op~~ still 1~, •n:,p""! "!'U. 11~~0rN;WCt~ ~ ...... \.l~Olt .... Olt-OUI! -.i~&..~~O...b.'c6\<MO:JA11~,q~t ~l;l!llfd~AAo~I
:-n.ell"..eot hp 6111~ 1,.1odll11-" t ~ 1:N1!u .cl o;p ~ d111~ -,cu 10 :t'!S ~I J! jO ~wi:u•
~Wl<111111®;,qNO:J.._.J~tJ&IIIS1~Sil!IP1:.PUoq ~"'if. ~ u~o ~1.,~ 1¥-'P.--C axd'i u'Odo11.<~ we;)G~~ 11:!U ow ~~111 ~ ~ • 111 l!11t'.lilltl, .<.~..io.ie .-~e w.,lli('.c:.el~I! m4W!~.o>1r-~ •1u ~ (l)IRXfpc 1:,0:,:lwt JIOU 111...,t,,;ifo)t! Olli/lJIOl-4 ... :)ffflbo,J Ille"' ptO;.ilr,)OliSII!: U )MW,l,IM,IJ" ~S ~I w~ '!1V$.<I Gu!oil,,s~l!! (!C,:! ll'\HQlllOMNMCl)WII , . IN ..-io:i R'lll:t'l~.<v,) -4-'~•.JO.i wSPlS
u11111-~v1
'UllJ""lll<l'I! ~1:1 \4 i;m.r,b,,,, ,._ Gill. Ol "!l)OO$ ~ ...-:S ~OJ._,. ""A.ti S'N:~ ·!:l!:IL ~ .,_m ~Y.)'6.udS"t.itt<; ~ 10 ~ >Jfl'd. "i S,Ut _.,..l :un~OCIP~t,..$() ~
-.all It llil llnf' ~ "'-\1:Wlt &:.,,RS
From: Paul Di Leo
To: Planning
Subject: RE: Item 4 C on Planning Commission Agenda Support Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:18:08 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to you to express my support of Item 4 C on the Planning Commission Agenda: A Request by the Oswit Land Trust, for a Minor Amendment to the Planned Development District (PDD 153) to Allow the Restoration of Approximately 90 Acres of the 120-Acre Former Golf Course and Country Club Site into a Native Desert Habitat and Nature Preserve….

I do support for the staff recommendation which is for approval of this landscape plan amendment.

I ask that the Commission modify or remove some of the conditions as requested in the letter from Oswit Land Trust. These conditions will only delay the incredible improvements that are planned for Prescott Preserve.

Thank-you for your consideration in protecting nature.

Warmly,
Dr. Paul Di Leo
4970 Eichler Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
m:. 510.289.0930
Confidentiality Notice: This transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information for use only by the intended recipients. Any use, distribution, copying, or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete the transmission.

Item 2B - Page 152
From: [email protected]
To: Planning
Subject: Fw: Planning Commission Agenda Item 4.C- Oswit/Prescott PDD 153 Amendment Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:59:51 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; Edward Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 10:53:47 AM PDT
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item 4.C- Oswit/Prescott PDD 153 Amendment Good morningThe attached historical description of the Bud Furer Trail is provided for the Planning Commission. Please send this to the PC members in advance of the Wednesday meeting.

Thank you,
Doug
Item 2B - Page 153
Item 2B - Page 154 f~~/IYI - /'l{Volf1 Te. r/c/>l l$ OP V.RSJ2,e. , tfilJJ?XS 'ff, 'I ~/ /./v?,3or?KD 19 "II BUD FURER TRAIL I N APPR£ClATfON fo1• 1hc sicadfast Joyahy of a fellow l)csen Rider, the hue Bud Fu;er, members have hcen sllcccssful in hiwi.ng 1he uniqµe trail which winds 1hrough Mesquite Cou!ltt'}' Club 1lA1JlCd in his honor. Bnd '-"i'l.S a true promo1er ()f rrnil.s. With his, d:iuglue.r Heidi. he was resp()nsible for building 1he bremh• taking, precipitous Sha.m:on Trail in the Indian Canton nt the. imerscc1ion of Oarstin nnd Berns lrail:S. The U'ilil was buih in 111e.nt0r)' of Sluumon Col'liSs 1he young daugh:cr of De.sen Rider members Ray tind Bloke Col'liss. taler. when a developer wnn:ed fond Bud owned for 11 golf oc:iurse, he rc[used to sell unless the buyer wcmid ,:;mm1ntee !mil riders could have.c.ontinucd :iccess through the golf course! Portions of the beau1ifuJ U~iil thn! 1'.:.Sul!ed are pk1ured below, Bua Furci' w,,~ definitely a step t1head, both in ~ood pfo1t11ing and unselfishness. It's n-,ost appropriate lha1 this rcma.l.:<'11)/c u-aif is name,d Bud Furer,
"
·,-c-~~¥¥11
'"'\ 't•,\
~l -,, ,~ ,e,,~.. ,('po£ • l
'fl_r<•~
t·l,1>:f'l ,t .,,, !W'.l..~1-, ·••ll
91 I
11 I
II!
From: Ritchie Durdin
To: Planning
Subject: Agenda Item 4C | 7.24.2024
Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:41:20 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email is in regard to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I am an owner of a single family home in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly across from the proposed Prescott Preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to the recommendations by city staff.

Thank you,
Ritchie Durdin
Item 2B - Page 155
From: Brandon Elliott
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4C tonight"s Agenda
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:31:14 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I am an owner of a single family home in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly adjacent to the proposed Prescott Preserve. In fact, my home directly fronts the preserve.

I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust.

I am excited about Oswit's plan for this long defunct golf course.

Sincerely,
Brandon Elliott
Item 2B - Page 156
From: Frances Scott
To: Planning
Subject: 7/24 meeting re:Mesquite CC HOA
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:36:33 AM
Attachments: Planning Commission .pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I, Frances Scott, agree with Ms. Knapp’s attached letter to delay any decision on the items to be discussed today.

I have owned my home Unit O-106 since 1994 and hope to continue to enjoy my peaceful home setting, surrounded by nature and world-class views.

Respectfully submitted,
Frances E. Scott
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 157
To: Planning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10. Frustration of Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

Item 2B - Page 158

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act? Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

Item 2B - Page 159

5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances with no precedent anywhere else to guide.

Angie Fiechtner Knapp,
Mesquite Country Club Owner
Item 2B - Page 160
From: Frances Scott
To: Planning
Subject: Mesquite CC
Date: Saturday, July 20, 2024 10:21:52 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C on the Planning Commission agenda for 7/24/24.

I have owned unit O-106 since 1994 near the possibile preserve. Please approve the minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as proposed by the Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by the city.

Respectfully submitted,
Frances E. Scott
2001 E. Camino Parocelo
Unit O-106
Palm Springs 92264.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 161
From: richard fabrycki
To: Planning
Subject: Mesquite Preserve
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:48:29 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I am a owner of 2 Condo’s in Mesquite Country Club.

How can a Preserve owner or be allowed to dump construction debris all over a potential Preserve? Creating habitat for more Coyotes? Also, part of the original parcel has been carved out for building purposes.

Isn’t there a process for land division?
Dick Fabrycki
500 S Farrell Dr. Unit G-48
Palm Springs, Ca. 92264
Seasonal owner.
23945 Butteville Rd NE
Aurora, Or. 97002
Sent from my iPad
Item 2B - Page 162
From: betsy Fader
To: Planning
Subject: Mesquite.

Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 5:03:04 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I am Elizabeth Fader. I own condo I-62 in Mesquite Phase 3. I am completely in favor of our land becoming a refuge. Green spaces provide huge benefits to the people who can enjoy them where they live. Please stop spending the money in court to fight this. I have no support for a golf course or the building of more condos. None‼I and every neighbor I’ve talked to share this view. PRO REFUGE THANK YOU……Elizabeth Fader
Sent from my iPad
Item 2B - Page 163
From: Airen
To: Planning
Cc: Christopher Faiss
Subject: Prescott Preserve Planning
Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:56:34 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I am an owner of a single family home in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly adjacent to the proposed Prescott Preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to the recommendations by city staff.

As year round residents, my husband and I have been watching and waiting for the Preserve to be able to start work towards their intended vision. It is a complete shame that a few people have thrown a wrench in Oswit’s innovative plan. We hope the planning commission will see that the future of the preserve will be a huge benefit to our Coachella valley community and visitors alike.

Sincerely,
Airen and Christopher Faiss
570 S. Compadre Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
415-505-9830
Item 2B - Page 164
From: Jane Fawke
To: Planning
Subject: Prescott Preserve.

Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:56:38 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Please support the Prescott preserve and approve their landscape plan amendment.

Prescott preserve is an integral part of Palm Springs open space, it has become a haven for both locals, visitors and wildlife and needs 100% of your support.

Thank you.

Jane "Spider" Fawke
Staff naturalist, Desert Institute at Joshua Tree National Park.

California master naturalist and climate steward.

Item 2B - Page 165
From: Juan Fernandez
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission Item 4C
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:49:57 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condo in the case of The Palms in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly adjacent to the proposed Prescott Preserve.

I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust.

I am excited about Oswit's plan for this long defunct golf course.

Sincerely,
Juan Fernandez
Item 2B - Page 166
From: Karen Frane
To: Planning
Subject: Comment on Item 4C, 07-24-24
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 4:09:35 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission Members:

I write in support of the Oswit Land Trust's request to restore approximately 90 acres of a former golf course into a nature preserve.

While I live in La Quinta, I am aware that this site is already a refuge to many birds and animals. When the area is fully restored, the preserve will undoubtedly be an even greater draw to more residents and visitors to the Coachella Valley. The nature preserve will be a spectacular location in the middle of Palm Springs for wildlife and humans.

I encourage the Palm Springs Planning Commission to approve the amendment as requested by the Oswit Land Trust.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Karen Frane
Item 2B - Page 167
From: Greg Humphrey
To: Planning
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:13:57 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning commission,
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. They have illegally let the Mesquite Country Club's golf course die off AND expect the HOA to pay for the preserve.

Once the issue of them illegally obtaining the property is settled, perhaps planning can move forward.

Greg Humphrey
Mesquite Country Club Owner
D-22 , Phase 5
Item 2B - Page 168
From: gerald little
To: Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: OLT
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:17:15 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I support all the points made in Angie Knapp’s letter to you. I am a unit owner at Mesquite Country Club.

Sent from my iPad
Item 2B - Page 169
From: George Meyer
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4c planing commission July 24
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 4:42:36 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite CC directly adjacent to the proposed preserve.I strongly encourage the planning commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to planned development district 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust,subject to conditions recommended by city staff.George Meyer 2701 e mesquite ave unit ee161
Item 2B - Page 170
From: Greg Thomas
To: Planning
Subject: Comments for 6/24 Planning Commission Agenda Item 4.C.

Date: Saturday, July 20, 2024 4:06:35 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I hope it is included in Planning Commissioner packets.

My name is Greg Thomas, a fulltime Palm Springs resident and owner of a condo in the Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to Prescott Preserve.

Palm Springs is my adopted hometown.

I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city professional staff.

As a member of MCC Homeowners Association, I know many seasonal and full-time MCC residents are strident supporters of Oswit Land Trust and its mission to protect habitats and maintain public access to natural lands.

I support OLT's efforts for the ecological restoration of the former MCC golf course. It just makes sense. It's in alignment with the city's general plan and proposed zoning map changes. It respects market forces affecting golf locally, and protects the environment.

It meets the needs of Palm Springs residents for natural open space, regardless of socioeconominc status.

I and many of my MCC neighbors think Prescott Preserve will not only benefit our HOA's property values, but provide broad social, educational and environmental benefits for the entire Palm Springs community.

Greg Thomas
2701 E Mesquite Ave Unit L53
Palm Springs CA 92264
909-353-8449
[email protected]
Item 2B - Page 171
From: Galet, Vince
To: Planning
Subject: Modification to the Planned Development District - Oswit preserve Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:16:48 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you for your consideration
Vincent Galet
500 S Farrell D unit D30
This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (126 East Lincoln Ave., P.O. Box 2000, Rahway, NJ USA 07065) and/or its affiliates, that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. (Direct contact information for affiliates is available at - Contact us - MSD.)It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message.

If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system.

Item 2B - Page 172
From: Boris Geiger
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission Amendment for July 24, 2024 Date: Friday, July 19, 2024 2:49:11 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Boris Geiger
2701 E. Mesquite Ave DD159
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 173
From: mary godard
To: Planning
Subject: Mesquite Country Club Owner Item 4.C
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 4:18:33 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Mary and John Godard
Phase Four
Mesquite Golf and Country Club
Item 2B - Page 174
From: mary godard
To: Planning
Subject: Fwd: Item 4.C on the Planning Comission Agenda for July 24,2024 Date: Friday, July 19, 2024 4:50:50 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

My complete address is :

Mary and John Godard
R76
2701 E Mesquite Ave.

Palm Springs
92264
Begin forwarded message:

From: mary godard <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4.C on the Planning Comission Agenda for July 24,2024
Date: July 18, 2024 at 7:02:03 PM CDT
To: [email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

From: mary godard <[email protected]>
Subject: Mesquite Country Club Owner Item 4.C
Date: July 18, 2024 at 6:18:26 PM CDT
To: [email protected]
This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor
amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Mary and John Godard
Phase Four
Mesquite Golf and Country Club
Item 2B - Page 175
Item 2B - Page 176
From: Lars Grava
To: Planning
Subject: My support for Prescott Preserve as a Nature Preserve Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:37:29 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To the representatives of the Palm Springs Planning Commission:

As a full-time resident of the Los Compadres neighborhood in Palm Springs, a certified California Naturalist, regular hiker on Oswit Land Trust's Prescott Preserve, trail ambassador to assist people to follow trail rules, regular birder, and member of the debris clean-up crew on Prescott Preserve, I fully support the "REQUEST BY THE

OSWIT LAND TRUST, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER

GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE". This is a thoroughly researched, thoughtful submission by Oswit Land Trust.

This is a unique opportunity to put Palm Springs at the forefront of California's efforts to preserve the natural environment, combat climate change, provide a beautiful space for all residents and visitors to the entire Coachella Valley including those that are mobility challenged, and educational opportunities for students and the overall community. This initiative was recognized in a front-page article in the New York Times of March 11, 2024.

As an active member of the community, I feel very strongly about this issue and urge you to approve this request from Oswit Land Trust.

Sincerely yours,
Lars Grava
[email protected]
Item 2B - Page 177
From: Heidi Furer
To: Christopher Hadwin; Planning
Cc: Jason Mascarenas
Subject: Bud Furer Trail
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 1:50:53 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Christopher Hadwin and the planning commission,
My name is Heidi Furer. I have been riding this beautiful trail named after my father since it was build. Please Do NOT close or relocate the trail. This is one of the few trails easily accessible from Los Compadres. It is my understanding an easement was given for this trail.

This easement needs to be kept in force and maintained. “Equestrian Only” signs should be installed.

I would be at the meeting but just heard about this yesterday while horse camping in Northern California.

Very sincerely,
Heidi Furer
Sent from Heidi's iPad
Item 2B - Page 178
From: David Haag
To: Planning
Subject: July 24, 2024 Agenda Item. Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 10:32:37 AM
Attachments: Planning Commission .pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

My name is David Haag. I own a home in Mesquite Country Club, Phase 1. 500 S. Farrell Dr.

Please see the attached letter. I am in full agreement with the points noted. It is premature to approve this agenda item at this time.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Haag
[email protected]
Item 2B - Page 179
To: Planning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10. Frustration of Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

Item 2B - Page 180

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act? Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

Item 2B - Page 181

5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances with no precedent anywhere else to guide.

Angie Fiechtner Knapp,
Mesquite Country Club Owner
Item 2B - Page 182
From: David Haag
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Request, July 24, 2024 Agenda
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 10:40:35 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
I fully agree with all points below as to why it is premature to approve Oswit's request at tonight's meeting. Please do not do so tonight. Thank you for your consideration.

Dave Haag, homeowner Mesquite Country Club
Mesquite Phase 1, 500 S. Farrell #E31
[email protected]
To: Planning Commission at [email protected] Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant
application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10. Frustration of Item 2B - Page 183
Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby
homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, Item 2B - Page 184
[ii
simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act? Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

5. ManyofusbelievethecurrentconditionofthepropertyviolatesthefollowingPS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard. 11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public Item 2B - Page 185
and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae 8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances with no precedent anywhere else to guide.

Angie Fiechtner Knapp, Mesquite Country Club Owner
Item 2B - Page 186
From: Email Admin
To: Planning
Subject: Re: Item 4.C. on the Planning Commission Agenda for July 24, 2024 Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:34:03 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I am the owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Sandra E. Harding
2701 East Mesquite Avenue,
Phase 4, Unit A1
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 187
From: Karen Canup
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 10:13:46 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

We request that the Planning Commission delays the decision for Oswit’s request for a “minor amendment to PDD 153” to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve.

We are deeply concerned about the current lack of funds to support such a conversion, Oswit’s delinquent property taxes yet continuous solicitation of donations, the MOU’s clawback clause, the increase of coyotes within Mesquite Country Club property and the total disregard for code enforcement violations.

Please consider delaying your decision until these questions are resolved in a fair and legal manner.

Thank you,
The Heinrich Family
Phase 1, B 13
Sent from my iPad
Item 2B - Page 188
From: Frank Hundley
To: Planning
Subject: Agenda Item 4C - Please APPROVE! Yes to the Prescott Preserve!!!! Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:23:52 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. I am an owner of a single family home in the Little Beverly Hills neighborhood, directly adjacent to the proposed Prescott Preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to the recommendations by city staff.

Sincerely,
Frank Hundley
610 S. Compadre Rd.

Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 189
From: [email protected]
To: Planning
Subject: July 24 meeting
Date: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:38:18 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To Palm Springs planning commission, I am the owner of 6 condos in the Mesquite HOA. I would respectfully ask you to deny the request submitted by Prescott Preserve and instead request any future requests they have be to comply by going through the Golf Course Conversion Ordinance. I believe it is clearly stated in the Ordinance that it be used at any time a Golf Course is converted to any use other than a golf course that the change be approved by complying with the Golf Course Ordinance. A few years back several of us worked very hard to get this Ordinance passed. In addition the subject land is under a valid lease which is being violated.Also I believe the applicants have several code violations and is involved in a lawsuit which has not bee settled as of today. There is also the possibility of involving the city in this legal battle if this application is approved! It would also be respectful of the 600 condo owners if this hearing would be held when a larger percentage of the owners were present in Palm Springs to attend the hearing. Thank you for your consideration! Bill White Item 2B - Page 190
From: John Deely
To: Planning
Subject: YES let"s get going. I approve JOHN DEELY PHASE 3...J 65 Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:17:30 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Thank You
Item 2B - Page 191
From: jill emery
To: Planning
Subject: Prescott preserve
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 1:12:23 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Hi, I’m reaching out to let you know that I support Oswit Land Trusts recommendations of the landscaping at Prescott preserve
I have come to use this property for birdwatching as well as walking with friends This is important as an urban open space for humans as well as wildlife Thank you for your time
Jill emery
Item 2B - Page 192
From: Janet Grant
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4.C: Oswit Land Trust Minor Modification
Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:27:39 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Yours sincerely,
Janet Grant
2001 Camino Parocela (Unit H51)
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 193
From: Jody Noon
To: Planning
Subject: 7/24 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:45:53 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jody Noon Payton
Phase 4, V105
Item 2B - Page 194
From: [email protected]
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4.C. July 24
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 4:47:13 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Please approve the minor modification as shown in item 4.C. on July 24th. John Ryan 1868 Tamarisk Palm Springs
Sent from AOL on Android
Item 2B - Page 195
From: Jan Thompson
To: Planning
Subject: Prescott Preserve & Oswit Land Trust - for today’s meeting Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:43:19 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Please vote in favor for the Prescott/Oswit landscaping request(s) in order for Palm Springs to set an example of a much needed wildlife open space for all life to thrive, especially during these challenging climate times.

Respectfully,
Janice Thompson
Resident of Palm Desert, California
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 196
From: susan jacoy
To: Planning
Subject: Fwd: Bud Furer Trail
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:22:45 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Subject: Fwd: Bud Furer Trail
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: susan jacoy <[email protected]>
Date: July 23, 2024 at 1:34:58 PM MDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bud Furer Trail
The Bud Furer Trail is a very special to the Desert Riders. It honors one of our founders. Our culture goes hand-in-hand with preservation and should be respected by the Oswitt/Prescott preserve and the city of Palm Springs. Please respect the years of dedication the Desert Riders have put into trails around your city by not moving or eliminating this famous trail.

Susan Jacoy
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 197
Palm Springs Planning Commission
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Oswald/Prescott Preserve
July 23, 2024
Dear Planning Commission,
I am a fairly new member of the Desert Riders of Palm Springs, approx. 20 years now and I have enjoyed riding the Bud Furer trail.

I am very concerned that it will be relocated or closed off to not only the Desert Riders and our horses but to the public as well.

Please do not let it be relocated and I request that a condition of approval that prohibits the relocation or closing of the horse trail and a condition of approval that requires Oswitt/Prescott Preserve to grant a right of way or easement to the city and the public.

I request a condition of approval as well which requires Oswitt/Prescott Preserve to improve the trail, maintain the trail and install equestrian only signs.

Respectfully,
Jane Kent
760-401-6540
Desert Riders Member
Item 2B - Page 198
From: Yolanda Celis
To: Planning
Cc: Grace Garner; Jeffrey Bernstein; Christopher Hadwin; Scott Stiles Subject: July 24 2024 OLT/ Prescott Preserve
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 5:51:21 AM
Attachments: 7.04.2024_Planning Dept.Report to Plan Commission.pdf

7.24.2024_PS Planning Commission Agenda.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Hello,
We are homeowners of a condo at Mesquite Country Club in 2001.

We were notified that OLT/ Prescott Preserve is on the 7/24 agenda. The Planning Commission should not consider permitting the Preserve “in July when most people are not in town.” Words in quotation marks were written by Jane Garrison when she asked people to contact the City about a July agenda item she was opposed to. Attending by Zoom/phone does not have the same impact as in person.

Why the sudden rush that requires it be heard in July with no funds? It may have been the Planning Commission behind the decision that project is a landscape modification rather than a Golf Course Conversion. We still object to that decision.

Attached is the report the Planning Dept. submitted to the Commission. There are numerous factual errors. Such as the golf course being closed for 3 years, it omits that Oswit required the golf course be closed as a condition of sale, and it has incorrect dates such as date Oswit took possession. In my humble opinion this is a continuation of Oswit's false narrative to the public, the WCB and now the City, that it rescued all of us from a failed, closed, defunct golf course.

That it had no part in closing the course. Also attached is the agenda with instructions on how to attend or how to communicate with the Commission.

The Chair, Kathy Weremiuk, has been adamant that the Preserve is just a landscape modification, not a Golf Course Conversion Ordinance. Online searches show she is a very procoyote advocate.

This is a travesty and will be a black eye for the City of Palm Springs! OLT/Prescott Preserve should not be considered at all.

See attached documents.

Item 2B - Page 199
Regards,
The Sandor Family
Mesquite Country Club
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 200
From: Susan Kaiser
To: Planning
Subject: 4 c
Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:48:02 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

Sorry for the late response.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Susan and Douglas Kaiser
2701 E Mesquite Ave S84
Palm Springs
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 201
From: Angie Knapp
To: Planning
Subject: 7-24-2024 Agenda Oswit Land Trust
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:55:16 PM
Attachments: Open Records Timeline Recap_1.4.2024.pdf

07.19.2024 Preserve Pics.docx

12.2021 Photos MCC Golf Course.pdf
Letter to City_Code Enforcement 1.09.2024 Names Redacted.pdf NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

From: Mesquite PSCA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:00 PM
To: Scott Stiles <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; Jeff.Ballinger[email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Code Enforcement Issues-Former Mesquite Golf Course Dear Mr. Stiles,
In January we sent the below email with the attached letter (56 signatures) and the attached Open Records Timeline. It is over 6 months since the letter was sent and the property deteriorates more every day. Dry conditions. Noxious weeds like mustard. foxtail (toxic to dogs), and goat heads everywhere. The goat heads pierce bike tires and stick in the paws of pets who try to use the City bike path/sidewalk. Coyotes roaming into neighborhoods and going after pets because the rabbits and waterfowl are almost gone.

Attached are Dec. 2021 photos of the property, the same month the Purchase Agreement between Palms Partners and the Prescott Foundation is dated. The property was pretty and green (irrigated with recycled water from the DWA) until the sale in June 2022. It had ducks, coots, geese, and rabbits, food for coyotes. With those numbers drastically reduced, coyotes are going after pets. Everything dead on the property, from grass to mature trees and cacti, is a result of the golf course shut down. It was shut down because the Prescott Foundation required Palms Partners to close it as a condition of the Purchase Agreement between them.

We are puzzled why every complaint made by citizens to Code Enforcement, seems to be referred to the Planning Department. If and when the Preserve is permitted, it could Item 2B - Page 202
be years before the project can begin. There may be unforeseen circumstances like lack of funding. There is a MOU between the Prescott Foundation and Oswit Land Trust that gives Mr. Prescott the right to take the land back if Oswit cannot meet certain conditions.

The only certainty for the land is its existing blighted condition and that is not being addressed.

We believe the property conditions violate the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
We have lived with this blight and these safety issues for over two years now with no end in sight. We very much need the City's help!
Respectfully,
Concerned Mesquite Country Club Homeowners
From: Mesquite PSCA
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 2:21 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jeff.Ballinger[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Code Enforcement Issues-Former Mesquite Golf Course Dear David and Veronica,
We are a group of concerned Mesquite Country Club (MCC) owners. We do not represent the MCC HOA in any official capacity, nor do we represent all MCC homeowners. As a group we do not oppose or support the intended use of the former golf course by the new landowner.

Item 2B - Page 203
We are a group very concerned about life safety issues and the progressive deterioration of the former Mesquite Country Club Golf Course since it was sold and ceased operations over 19 months ago. The property has gone from a green, watered, landscaped golf course to as much of a blight as the abandoned Bel Air Greens.

Coyotes, bobcats, and the homeless are daily challenges to our personal safety.

Attached is a signed, detailed letter of our concerns. Also attached is a Timeline of Code Enforcement Issues we obtained through an Open Records Request.

We would very much appreciate a response to our letter of concerns.

Thank you for your time!
Concerned Mesquite County Club Homeowners
Item 2B - Page 204
December 2021 Photos (OLT Purchase Agreement also dated Dec. 2021)

Source: https://www.facebook.com/MesquiteGolfClub/
Item 2B - Page 205
Source: https://www.pscondos.com/palm-springs/mesquite-country-club/ Source: https://www.visitgreaterpalmsprings.com/listing/mesquite-golf-%26-country-club/6648/ Item 2B - Page 206
Item 2B - Page 207
1 FORMER MESQUITE GOLF COURSE CODE ENFORCEMENT

RECAP BASED ON OPEN RECORDS
Timeline:
• March 2, 2023: Shaun Murphy (MCC HOA Attorney) to David Recio. • April 19, 2023: Recio, Teeple, Arumendo - Responding to a resident complaint, write a Memorandum Mesquite Golf Course (Prescott Preserve). While no “hazardous or unsafe” conditions were observed, there were code violations observed (PSMC 11.72.170(b)(4)(c)(d). “Based on our inspection, we did not observe any fire hazards, but more of a property maintenance issue that the owner needs to address.” • April 25, 2023: Recio in a letter to Goedhart - Quotes two paragraphs from Garrison which include the following objections:
o “To hear the City is looking for us to comply with circa 1983/1984 “landscaping” requirements does not feel very supportive of Prescott Preserve…To ask Oswit Land Trust to comply with something that has not been enforced over the last 40 years feels discriminatory but we will make every effort to comply with reasonable requests.”
o Recio states “Based on this, I feel the Preserve will not take notice from our department seriously because they do not feel the code applies to them since they believe it is naturalized property. Please let me know how we should proceed with this.”
• April 26, 2023: Recio writes to Russ Uthe - Updates him on the complaint:
o “We will be notifying the owner of the violations we found for them to address accordingly…we give owners 14 days to come into compliance and after that, we begin the citation process.” • May 1, 2023: Recio to Goedhart – Another complaint from public about OLT “using two excavators to plant trees along the wash in Prescott Preserve,” and Recio states:
o “Planning sent a letter and email to them asking them to stop all work and submit the golf course conversion MAA not too long ago. How would you like me to proceed with this?” Item 2B - Page 208
o whom ii. may concern:

We repre,sent the Homeowners Association for Mesquite Country Club. I am subm lttlng the attached document to initiate a complaint against Oswit canyon, Inc. dlb/a Oswvl Land Truist ("Osww-1,. the own.er or lhe Mesquite Country Club property. I am reques ·ng that Code Enforcement lake immediate action to prevent and stop Oswil trom continuing lo engage in il legal development al Mesquite Country Cilub. Oswit has in liated plans lo convert the Mesquite golf course from a golf course a d to develop the pro,perty into a wilderness preserve, including ancillary buildings. Osw· 's actions violate the Pa.Im Springs Conv-eraion of GoU Courses ordiinance and the dev~lopment's governing documents. Oswil has not taken any steps to comply with lhe Conversion of Golf Courses ordinanoe .and it has initiated devetopment without a perm·t or lh~ approval of the City Council.
2 • May 17, 2023: Hadwin to Garrison – Application Remains Incomplete.

• June 6, 2023: Hadwin to Recio - Prescott Preserve. Non-Compliance to PDD-153 • June 15, 2023: Riverside County Flood Control to Garrison - Cease and Desist :
“The District is writing to formally demand that Oswit Land Trust immediately cease and desist all activities related to the dumping of boulders or any other materials into the Tahquitz Creek Channel. The District also requests that you promptly remove any boulders or debris that have been dumped into the channel and take necessary steps to restore the affected area.”
Item 2B - Page 209
Dear Ms. Garrison,
As a follow up to our letter of March 13, 2023, and subsequen correspondence, this letter is to notify you that your application for Minor Amendment to the approved Planned Development District for the above-referenced property remains Incomplete. Additional information, exhibits, plans, and technical studies are required to proceed with the review process. These requirements were first communicated to yo by email correspondence on April 19 and 20 , 2023 and in follow up discussions at the Plan ing Counter at City Hall. The following is a hst of materials yet to be submitted as of the date of this lette .

1. Site Plan to indicate e proposed changes to the site.

2. Proposed landscape plan showing the proposed changes.

3. Landscape legend with plant types, sizes, and quantities.

4. Grading Plan1•

5. Drainage Plan2.

6. CEQA documents ion.

7. Public Heanng labels (2 Sets))_
Understanding this is a unique project, we note that Planning has offered to work directly with your consunant team to ensure that the required materials balance your specific proposal with he City's application requireme ts. As of today, we have not received the required material, nor have we been put into touch with your consultant team. As we have staled In prior communication, these are standard items required of planning entitlements throughout the C y, and the entitlement process cannot advance until they have been provided to our office.

HI David -
We highlighted the non-comp ance and approval process in lhe attached - They are non-compliant witll U1e approved Final F' larme(l IDev-rsllopmenl District (F'DD-1 53), specifically the assoc[ated lardscaping plans.

Per Section 64.03 . CIO(G)(1 >, we determined they are reqvired lo obl.iin a Minor Mod'ificatioo to lhe landsc<lpe pans prior to undertaking any modi7carons of the slte, ioouding it's landscaping. Tlis would ililClude placerm~nt of boulders or other fill, altering gradillQ or drainage in any way.

Based on the evlde.nce of oo;oln;J site-worl<, we wlll need 10 evaruat.e lhe site's grading and dr n~e as part of lhat min.or modification process.

Hope this hefps!
Chris
3 • June 26, 2023: Garrison to Riverside County Flood Control – Denies Wrongdoing, Blames MCC Resident.

Garrison states the information contained in Uhley’s letter is “inaccurate” and “we certainly would not dump any debris in a critical habitat such as the creek.” Blames the complaint on a resident from Mesquite Country Club, involved in the lawsuit against OLT:
• June 21, 2023: Recio to Oswit - Public Nuisance Code Violation: Case ZV-0623-0005. This is a Courtesy Notice, not a Citation.

Item 2B - Page 210
It's important for you to know that there is an active law ·uit from a neigbb rhood that i n~t to th reserve. We are certain thi complaint came from one of these residents who i upset to see the failing golf course turn i ato a preserve:. Th ·c: few residen are writmg lO everyone they can to try :ind di credit us and create rief for us.

I. The violatJons exist on the following property:

Slree Address; 2700 E MESQUITE AVE E, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 APN: 502570008
II. A description of the conditlonsNiolatlons that were found on your property are lllsted below:

Ms. Garrison, you were instructed by the City of Palm Spri gs on March 13, 2023, ot to under1ake any further modifications to the property and subsequentty instructed again on May 17, 2023, until an application for Minor Modification to the Planned Development Di$triet is a,pp,oved. On May 11, 2023, an in$peetion wa$ conductbd on the property Just west of the Farrell ID rive rea where 1he roek piles were pl ced !here before being approved to do so. A follow-up Inspection was conducted on J,une 1, 2023, and 5 new rook piles were discovered du ring that inspection.

In violation of PSMC 94.03.00(G)(1)
Property so maintained is in violation of I e Palm Springs Municipa Code, PSMC, and constitutes a public nuisance. These conditions must be corrected by 07/05(2023, in the following manner:

Please do nl)t make any ru rther modificatil)ns to lhe property until lhe Mino1 Modi icalion application is approved.

Additionally, you must coordtnalo witti ltle City's Engineering Dopartrn I regarding any mquir rnents portainirig lo lhe evaluation or impacts to gradirng. drainage, and stormwater management that may have occurred as a result or the unauthorized placement or material oo site.

I are·
PSMC 11. 72.080 • Zoning Ord1nanc11 Violi!!llons • Z0nln9 A y violl!l llon ol thi!I zonln9 0rdlnanc11 of tho, c,ty Is a public nuisaMe.

As the owner of the property at issue or as the lndlvidua1 or entity responsible for the violation, you are Individually responsible for correcting the violation.

Should the violation not be corrected within the time period specified in lhis notice, the violation may be abated by the City through further administrative proceedings, includlng1 but not limited lo added inspections and direotions to remediate the vio a!"on, judicial process or by entry upon the property by city employees or contractors for purposes of effeciing tiose actions necessary lo co rrect the violation.

If suet, further action by ttie City Is necessary, yoo will be chal'fled a lee equal to the actual costs incurred by the City in obtaining compliance with this notice, inclu ding but not limited to subsequent inspection costs, staff lime, overhead, and lege.l expenses lncludin9 attorney's fees.

PSJO
4 • June 21, 2023: Leider (Oswit) to Recio Regarding Notice - He mentions boulders, but does not comment on the instructions to stop making modifications to the property.

• June 22, 2023: Recio to Leider regarding explanation of “5 small piles of stones.” No response is given to the part of the Notice regarding making changes without Minor Modification Approval, nor discussion of failure to maintain the property – or agreeing to remove these “5 small piles of stones.” • July 6, 2023: Hadwin to Garrison - Incomplete Application

• July 6, 2023: Garrison to Robertson (Planning) – Approval Before Submitting Required Documents Garrison requests the Planning Commission approve the project without the required documents for the engineering being submitted, reviewed or approved. Garrison is trying to obtain Minor Modification approval before the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) meeting in August. She says the “state,” has asked OLT to have the Minor Modification approved before the $8.7 Million grant application is placed on August agenda. Per the WCB, in July OLT pulled its app off the August WCB meeting agenda because it still needed to have a CEQA study done.

Item 2B - Page 211
David,
a pl9asu~ m Ing you loda.y. I did soffiQ ms ch ill regards to oo~c you hal'lded m today. tiacls of t>oulders w~ clewerecl o.n Marth 1 ~, of 2023_ o commerctal delivery of any ltlim was cl9 afrer· lhlat Tte 5 s mall plies o-C slones ware placed by o ur lancs.capera wilooul. o,ur lkoowled913 as lhay lloouglii ·they "'ere he! -ng IJ$ o • lf!ey were !old riol lO lbnng al'l)'fflOre $1.0rle$ ror rl:l'flam he has ool I oope I • s the sit IMm
IReG II ly,
Aaron Leid'f!t
easurerOlT
Aaron,
It was nice meeting, you as well. Thank you lor the background on lhis. This does clarify lihe situation, Respeclful ly,
David Recio I Code Compliance Supervisor
Dear Ms. Garrison,
This letter is a follow-up to the previous correspondences sent to you rega.rding your application for Minor Amendment to the approved Planned Development District for the above-referenced property.

This letter is also a follow-up to the meeting you had wlth the City's Engineering staff to discuss the outstanding required technical studies and plans required to process your application. As of the time of writing this letter, the applicati:on remains incomplete and as such, the project will not be presented to the Planning Commission as previously scheduled for July 12, 2023. As a reminder, below Is the list of materials requested by the Engineering Department that are yet to be submitted as of the date of this letter:
• Grading Plans required when moving more than 50cuyd (City Muni code). • An approved PM-10 and bond required when disturbing more than 5000 sq ft of surface area (AQMD and City Muni Code) ($2000.00 per acre of disturbed area). • An approved SWPPP required when disturbing more than an acre (NPDES and Muni code). • Surveying will most likely be needed to establ ish the limits of RCFC boundaries. 5 September – October 2023 Illegal Landscaping Modifications Continue:

Item 2B - Page 212
Thank you so much for that lcUcr. Yes, we had a vcry infonnative meeting with the engineering staff 11nd we arc working d.il igc.ntly on gcll.ing all the required documents for them. Howeve r, they indicated Lhat lhcy could tell the Planning Commission that they are proc ssing thos d cuments even if they haven't be 11 completdy reviewed and appl'O ed by them pl'ior 10 ~h mee.ting. Did we misunderstand them? ls it po rble to get to ihe >[arming Commission iil July with the goa l of the Planning Commissi n appro ing the projt t contingem oo submitting the n .. -quired documents lo the enginecrin.!:l deparimcnl and them approving th~m'? If po.sstblc, we would greatly appreciate: that as the ·tatc has asked that we have the minor modifiC11tion to the landscape phm comple ted prior lo the state board meeting in Au1rust
e a ppreda re all your as.i. rn nee with th L applicati n.

Ia ne Garrison
January 9, 2024
Mr. David Recio, Code Compliance Supervisor
Ms. Veronica Goedhart, Director of Special Program Compliance City of Palm Springs
Re: Code Enforcement Issues-Former Mesquite Country Club Golf Course Dear David and Veronica,
We are a group of concerned Mesquite Country Club (MCC) owners. We do not represent the MCC HOA in any official capacity, nor do we represent all MCC homeowners. As a group we do not oppose or support the intended use of the former golf course by the new landowner.

We are a group very concerned about life safety issues and the progressive deterioration of the former Mesquite Country Club Golf Course since it was sold and ceased operations over 19 months ago. The property has gone from a green, watered, landscaped golf course to as much of a blight as the abandoned Bel Air Greens. Coyotes, bobcats, and the homeless are daily challenges to our personal safety.

Since MCC HOA Attorney, Mr. Murphy, wrote a letter to the City on March 2, 2023, much has transpired. Oswit Land Trust (OLT) has been making changes to the landscape, despite having an incomplete Minor Modification Application for 9 months now, and despite receiving repeated orders to stop work, notice of code violations, and cease and desist orders.

After reviewing documents obtained through open records requests, we do not understand why the City of Palm Springs has not taken any meaningful action to address the code enforcement issues. Based on those documents, we are concerned that the new landowner may be receiving preferential treatment. We cannot imagine that if any of us individually were out of compliance, refused to mitigate, and defied City orders to stop making modifications, the City would not employ all remedies available. It doesn’t appear that even one citation has been issued.

This week a young coyote pup was seen walking through the Mesquite condos near the old clubhouse. A Coyote attacked several leashed dogs while protecting its pup den near the City easement for the sidewalk and bike path. Coyote numbers remain unchecked and keep increasing. Palm Springs residents no longer feel safe walking their dogs on the City path.

Residents from the neighborhoods on the former golf course, don’t feel safe having their pets outside on their patios. The Desert Chapel elementary school is one of those neighbors. Young children are walking to and from school and we know coyotes can jump fences. The rabbit population has declined due to increased numbers of coyotes.

New large stone borders and signs were just installed in September/October 2023. Picture verification is attached. New signs along Farrell have appeared for cars to know it is a “wildlife crossing.” Did landowner have a permit to install solar panels on one of the buildings on the former course?
We have attached a timeline and recap of the open records that were available to us.

We respectfully request:
• The City address code violations by this landowner, in the same manner and within the same timelines, as it would for any other individual or organization.
• The City utilizes all available remedies to enforce code whether it be citations, fines, cease and desist orders, chargebacks for work City has to do to undertake to remedy, etc.

Item 2B - Page 213
• The 84 truckloads of boulders be removed in accordance with the County’s Cease and Desist Order due to drainage/flooding concern. They are also an eyesore. There be consequences for landowner dumping illegally and refusing to remedy be addressed.
• Landowner has consequences for planting over 200 trees after the City said no more modifications should be made.
• Address the recent modifications done in September/October 2023 without City permission. Said modifications in defiance again of the City letter that no more modifications should be made.

While Mesquite is governed by an HOA Board, we ask the City to remember that we are individuals and families that are first and foremost residents, citizens, and taxpayers in the City of Palm Springs. Only the City has the authority to enforce code compliance. We have to rely on the City to impartially enforce codes to protect our health and life safety issues.

We would very much appreciate a response to our letter of concern.

Sincerely,

REDACTED
Names of
56 owners
Enclosure: Open Records Timeline Recap
CC: Scott Stiles, City Manager
Jeffrey Ballinger, City Attorney
Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services
Joel Montalvo, City Engineer
Grace Garner, Council Member

Item 2B - Page 214

Dead trees, containers falling apart. Brush intentionally placed along paths.

Dead brush piles throughout. Palm fronds intentionally placed on paths.

Item 2B - Page 215
Dead branches piled.

Item 2B - Page 216
To: Planning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10. Frustration of Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

Item 2B - Page 217

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act? Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

Item 2B - Page 218

5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances with no precedent anywhere else to guide.

Angie Fiechtner Knapp,
Mesquite Country Club Owner
Item 2B - Page 219
From: CRAIG KORTHASE
To: Planning
Subject: Upcoming Planning Commission Mtg
Date: Friday, July 19, 2024 7:07:30 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I am an owner of a condo in the Mesquite Country Club Condominium Homeowners Association. I have owned this condo since 2001. I have served on the Board of Directors in the past and am very familiar with the current issues between the HOA and Oswit Land Trust, the current owner of the former Mesquite Golf and Country Club. As you should know there is an outstanding lawsuit between the two entities as to the use of the former golf course property. Negotiations between the two parties have failed to produce a satisfactory solution and therefore scheduling for the court date is imminent.

It is my understanding that Oswit has requested what they claim is a "minor" change in the properties zoning designation. They would like, and it appears that your staff agrees, to change the status to "NATIVE DESERT HABITAT
AND NATURE PRESERVE." Please know that this is a disguised ploy to influence the Courts to take their side in the pending case, regardless of the contract issues at hand.

Please table your decision on this matter until the lawsuit is finalized. An affirmative decision now would be deemed as support for an uncontrolled wildlife preserve in the middle of our city and HOA complex.

Thank you,
Craig Korthase
2701 E. Mesquite, Unit M-57
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 220
From: Kurt Kosek
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4 C on Planning Commission Agenda Support Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:10:36 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to you to express my support of Item 4 C on the Planning Commission Agenda:

A Request by the Oswit Land Trust, for a Minor Amendment to the Planned Development District (PDD 153) to Allow the Restoration of Approximately 90 Acres of the 120-Acre Former Golf Course and Country Club Site into a Native Desert Habitat and Nature Preserve….

I do support for the staff recommendation which is for approval of this landscape plan amendment.

I ask that the Commission modify or remove some of the conditions as requested in the letter from Oswit Land Trust. These conditions will only delay the incredible improvements that are planned for Prescott Preserve.

Do it for the birds!
Thank-you for the opportunity to express my support.

Regards
Kurt Kosek
4970 Eichler Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
Item 2B - Page 221
From: Donna E Krause
To: Planning
Subject: Item 4C Prescott Preserve 7/24/2024
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:38:46 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

As a homeowner in Palm Springs since 1986, I am strongly in favor of the Planning Commission approving the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, Since the purchase of this neglected property by Brad Prescott, I and numerous other volunteers have cleared out huge amounts of garbage, invasive species and dead vegetation. This property is loved by many in our community.

Our wildlife deserves a place to call home since they are pushed out and killed daily to build more and more houses.

It is vital to the health of our community and future generations to preserve green space with native vegetation.

Thank you for your support.

Donna E. Krause, RN
2796 N Cardillo Avenue
Palm Springs, CA 92262
760-831-1121
Item 2B - Page 222
From: louann.hart
To: Planning
Subject: Prescott preserve
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:42:36 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Phoenix regrets their error of making their downtown a hot, unwelcoming concrete jungle.

Palm Springs can learn from their mistake. We have very similar climates.

Please don't turn Palm Spings into another concrete jungle.

Lou Ann Hart
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 2B - Page 223
From: Laurel Morrow
To: Planning
Subject: Tonight’s Planning Commission meeting
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 10:15:13 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club which is directly adjacent to the proposed preserve.

Please do NOT approve Oswit Land Trust’s proposed amendment to Planned Development District that is being presented tonight.

Regards,
Laurel Morrow
2001 E. Camino Parocela
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Sent from my iPad
Item 2B - Page 224
From: David Lahti
To: Planning
Subject: Prescott Preserve minor modification of the landscape plan Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 2:31:35 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

My name is David Lahti and a board member of Oswit Land Trust and am writing in support of the minor modification of the landscape plan for Prescott Preserve. I am also a certified UCCE Master Gardener and recognize the incredible benefit of returning 90 acres to become an incredibly beautiful nature preserve minutes away from my home in Los Compadres.

Oswit Land Trust has also written a letter detailing our request to change some specific staff recommendations on the plan. I won't repeat those here other than to state that many of these conditions are not applicable to converting a former golf course to a nature preserve, so serve no purpose here.

First and foremost, there are strong health and wellness benefits to this urban nature preserve.

As we get older, hiking our local mountains gets more challenging and having walking trails available that are level with no elevation changes are incredibly accessible to all people, from the very young to the very old. The birding group has already identified 183 species of birds at Prescott Preserve such that it is already the #2 birding center in the Coachella Valley.

Second, eco-tourism needs to play an increasingly larger role in city planning and Prescott Preserve fills a niche that otherwise does not exist (except out at the Coachella Valley Preserve perhaps). Proximity to downtown Palm Springs and a majority of residents and visitors make Prescott Preserve superior to the Coachella Valley Preserve, which requires a car to access.

Third, the planting of native trees and plants will have an incredibly valuable impact on the city of Palm Springs. Residents will be able to see first hand the beauty of native plants and how this successfully ties to a healthy ecosystem. Hopefully, it will encourage more residents to tear out their lawns and replace them with low or no water native plants. They'll also experience first hand the value that trees play in urban cooling.

Thank you in advance for approving this permit modification and for lessening the administrative burden on our non-profit Oswit Land Trust.

Item 2B - Page 225
From: Ann Larson
To: Planning
Subject: Prescott Preserve
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 6:12:15 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I have been a volunteer at the Prescott Preserve for almost 2 years. This is a most beneficial project to the community and deserves all of our support. Hundreds of visitors and regular users have seen wonderful changes thus far to the preservation of the property. Please change the land designation to help this project go forward.

Ann Larson
168 Balboa Dr.

Palm Springs
Item 2B - Page 226
From: Robert Laudy
To: Planning
Subject: Public Comment July 24, 2024 Agenda
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 1:17:11 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Council Chamber
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California Wednesday, July 24, 2024
New Business Agenda
Item C. A REQUEST BY THE OSWIT LAND TRUST, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE; THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN SUNRISE WAY; AND EL CIELO ROAD; NORTH OF MESQUITE AVENUE; ZONE PDD 153/W, SECTION 24 (CASE

5.0303-PD 153) (ER).

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT A CATEGORICAL EXEMPT PER CEQA GUIDELINES AND APPROVE

THE PROPOSED MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

Dear Planning Commission,
I would like to convey my support for above request by the Oswit Land Trust (Oswit).

Oswit has done an exemplary job in acquiring, converting, maintaining, and planning the Prescott Preserve -- they should be allowed to fully restore it to a native desert habitat preserve.

I have enjoyed this preserve ever since it was opened to the public. I love walking and bird-watching there whenever I get the chance. I have seen the wildlife return and make this preserve their home thanks to the efforts of Oswit staff and volunteers. Tree planting, rock placement and habitat restoration has already achieved huge success and I hope it continues.

Prescott Preserve is a jewel for the City of Palm Springs and is enjoyed by folks from the surrounding area and from all over the country. It allows for residents to have a local place to walk and enjoy nature. It also is good for tourism and will Item 2B - Page 227
continue to attract visitors.

I hope that your commission will adopt this categorical exemption and allow Prescott to thrive.

Sincerely,
Robert Laudy
49191 Paradise Ave
Morongo Valley, CA 92256
Item 2B - Page 228
From: Thomas Ledwith
To: Planning; Scott Stiles; Grace Garner; Christy Holstege; Jeffrey Bernstein; City Clerk; Lisa Middleton; Ron deHarte Cc: Christopher Hadwin
Subject: Subject: Item 4.C on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. Thursday Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 5:53:26 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To All ,
I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly discourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Sincerely,
Thomas Ledwith
2701 E Mesquite Ave
Item 2B - Page 229
From: Sue Lefevre
To: [email protected]
Cc: Planning; Sue Lefevre
Subject: Bud Furer Dedicated Trail and Equestrian Easement Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:21:33 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To: Chair Weremiuk and Members of the Planning Commission Please be advised that as a long time member of The Desert Riders who has ridden my horse on the existing Bud Furer Trail for decades, I respectfully request a condition of approval that prohibits the relocation or closing of the existing Bud Furer trail.

Also requested is to add a condition of approval that requires Oswitt/Prescott Preserve to grant a right of way or easement to the city and public.

And finally, I respectfully request a condition of approval which requires Oswitt/Prescott Preserve to improve the trail, maintain the trail, and install equestrian only signs.

Thank you for your attention to these very important matters, Sue Lefevre
760*272*0649
Item 2B - Page 230
From: Claudette Lerma
To: Planning
Subject: Re: Mesquite Urgent -7.24.2024 Agenda Item Oswit Land Trust Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:29:35 PM
Importance: High
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

My name is Claudette Lerma. Together with my husband Jesse Lerma, we share ownership of condo G44 that immediately fronts onto the former Mesquite Golf Course. Since the golf course was sold to Oswit two years we have seen the land grow fallow, unsightly and dangerous because of predators that now have free reign to roam throughout the landscape.

Per Oswit's own website (https://oswitlandtrust.org/prescott-preserve-the-restoration-plan-news/) "From the beginning our goal is to keep the Preserve open during restoration. Sometimes trails may change, sometimes areas may be closed off and sometimes it will be prettier than other times, but in the end, it will be spectacular!" None of these promises have yet to be fulfilled.

Further and to the point of Qswit's request for a "minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve.... This is a massive project" contravening their claim of minor alterations. It is totally premature to permit permanent changes to the landscape until such time as all legal and contractual matters have been settled.

Claudette and Jesse Lerma
From: [email protected]
To:

Sent: 7/24/2024 7:12:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: Mesquite Urgent -7.24.2024 Agenda Item Oswit Land Trust It is URGENT if you want to give input on the Oswit agenda item tonight where Planning Comm will consider approving Oswit Land Trust Minor Landscape Modification, that you email Planning prior to 5:30 pm CA time. Email Address is [email protected]
ACT has sent around 40 letters supporting approval tonight according to the Planning website. I believe it is premature due to reasons I cited in my letter to City which I have attached. I did PDF due to length of my comments. If you agree with anything I have written, feel free to use it in your own email. If you had a chance to review the email attachment sent by the Board yesterday, The Planning Dept. report, you will see 26 outstanding items for Engineering alone. Some are minor, but many are costly and time consuming, not to mention the nearly $200,000 cash bond required.

Best,
Item 2B - Page 231
Angie Knapp
Phase 1
Item 2B - Page 232
From: Kurt Leuschner
To: Planning
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 2:45:13 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Planning commission meeting Item 4C
Dear PS Planning Commission
I wish to express my support for item 4C on your agenda regarding the establishment of the Prescott Preserve and the ongoing effort to restore this habitat. This is a wonderful addition to the city of Palm Springs that is already being enjoyed by countless individuals for birdwatching, exercise, and beautiful open space. By approving the plans submitted by Oswit, it will be even better and will become the Central Park of Palm Springs.

You are lucky to have such a relatively unspoiled and natural habitat in the heart of your city.

I hope that you can keep it that way and the place to start is to approve Item 4C at your next meeting. Generations to come will thank you as well.

Sincerely
Kurt Leuschner
Professor of Natural Resources
College of the Desert
Item 2B - Page 233
From: Charles Lincoln
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 7:23:02 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To: Planning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10. Frustration of Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly Item 2B - Page 234
posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act? Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances with no precedent anywhere else to guide.

Sincerely,
Charles Lincoln
500 S Farrell Dr
D23
Palm Springs CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 235
From: kristen lincoln
To: Planning
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting July 24th item 4C
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:53:35 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
> This email pertains to item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024. >
>
> I am an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club, directly adjacent to the proposed preserve. I strongly discourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you, Kristen and Charlie Lincoln
Item 2B - Page 236
From: Michael Azzarella
To: Planning
Subject: To: Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:31:53 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To: Planning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor
amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I
suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also
commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is
very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant
application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve
in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and
open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the
following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company,
is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10.

Frustration of
Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater?
Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to
close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public
Item 2B - Page 237
believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale
and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with
housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year
Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose
housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up
several rental apartments.

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that
parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be
simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban
area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby
homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with
painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly
posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes,
simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are
documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path
easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act?
Item 2B - Page 238
Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary
school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from
Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified
first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has
actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies
don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90
year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you, Michael Azzarella 505 S. Farrell #G-39 Palm Springs 760-333-9599 Item 2B - Page 239
From: Mary Lou Halfon
To: Planning; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Oswit land trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 1:52:49 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear planning commission,
I would like to sign onto the letter below written by Angie Knapp. She has listed all the issues that are pertinent to the situation with the land that is now owned by Oswit and Palm partners.

My husband and I lived in Mesquite for 24 years. For years our association paid lease payments the the owners of the land that was Mesquite Golf Club. The lease was created when our condos were built. Open land was required by the city at the time because of the density of our community . There are 600 units. The lease spelled out what the land could be used for and how the land was to be maintained. Our lease protected us from many attempts by developers to turn the land into more apartments. Our lease had stood up in court. Nothing can change the terms of the lease without a majority vote of the owners. Oswit bought the land on a silent sale and gave back part of the land to the seller. They immediately expected the 250,000.00 per year lease payments . They did not adhere to the terms of the lease nor did they try, before or after, to negotiate a new lease. They just proceeded to do as they intended with no regard to the owners of the 600 units that surround the land.

They attempted to attend our HOA meetings to have a voice in our association. When that did not work Prescott bought 2 units in order to attend board meeting and influence owners. He lives in neither unit. He is not a member of our community.

They have shown disregard to home owners, the city, and the county. They ignored permitting rules, dumped rocks and debris in a flood plain, ignored letters from the city as to the need for the rocks to be removed. They just do as they please.

In light of all of that and the steady deterioration of the land as well as to the loss of value of our condo, we put our unit on the market. We saw owners, both Jane and Mr. Prescott, and Palm partners, who was paid 3 times the market value for the land and able to retain 10 acres, with deep pockets and major influence in the city and the failure of the city to enforce any regulations as a battle to hard to fight. Money and influence are hard competition and that is what we have been facing since the purchase of the land.

We so love Palm Springs so we bought another lovely place and are very happy with it. However, it continues to sadden me to see the land become such an eyesore.

Many others would like to move but many can not afford to do so. The land itself is a blight on all the surrounding neighborhoods. It has become less safe from animals and people as well. It is frustrating to see the city so powerless to enforce its own regulations. Letter after letter were ignored by Oswit and no consequences put forward in the letter were ever put into effect. This is a very sad situation for the owners in Mesquite as well as other surrounding communities.

Mary Lou Halfon
Item 2B - Page 240
former owner of unit F37 phase 5 of MCCHOA
---------- Original Message ----------
Angie Knapp
Date: 07/24/2024 1:02 PM PDT
Subject:
nning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area nonprofits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation.

However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned. I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers. Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10.

Frustration of Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3.

Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West. Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

Item 2B - Page 241

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, simply be a minor landscape modification? A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act?
Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center? Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances.

Item 2B - Page 242
Angie Fiechtner Knapp,
Mesquite Country Club Owner
Item 2B - Page 243
To: Planning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10. Frustration of Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Item 2B - Page 244
Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act? Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

Item 2B - Page 245

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances with no precedent anywhere else to guide.

Mark Stevens
Mesquite Country Club Home Owner
Item 2B - Page 246
From: Michael Taylor
To: Planning
Subject: ITEM 4C Preserve Prescott for July 24 meeting
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 4:05:07 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission members,
I am a full-time resident of the Los Compadres neighborhood in Palm Springs.

I have read the 40-page report and attachments for ITEM 4C Prescott Preserve for your July 24 meeting, and I wholeheartedly support what Oswit Land Trust plans to do with the restoration of land into native desert habitat.

You should know that this preserve is wildly popular with members of the community, including myself. In fact, I have friends from Dallas, Texas, who are planning to move to Palm Springs and they told their Palm Springs-based realtor that they want to live as close to the preserve as possible because they strongly believe in the vision for the project as described by Oswit Land Trust.

Palm Springs can -- and should -- be a leader and example to other cities looking to transform failed golf courses.

Palm Springs has a goal to be a “net neutral” carbon community by 2030. Well, Prescott Preserve helps us get there.

Palm Springs wants to support public health and wellbeing of residents, and Prescott Preserve will provide an excellent place for walking, bird watching and more.

Palm Springs needs more open space for people and for wildlife. The native species that call the Coachella Valley home need more native desert habitat. The existing parks and preserves are not enough to meet their survival needs as climate change continues to impact our environment.

Please support the plans of Oswit Land Trust for Prescott Preserve. This will benefit people and wildlife.

Kind regards,
Michael Taylor
Item 2B - Page 247
•
•
•
•
Item 2B - Page 248
Anita Fields
Subject: FW: P.C. 7/24/2024 Oswit agenda item
Get BlueMail for Android
On Jul 20, 2024, at 7:31 AM, Michael Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:

Wayne,
On July 24, 2024, the Planning Commission will be considering a request from Oswit for a minor P.D.D change to native landscape and native reserve.

Our development team opposes this item.

The Oswit 120 acres is currently involved in a legal dispute with the H.O.A. over their lease agreement violation. It appears by the judges remarks that the H.O.A will most likely prevail.

Accordingly, we feel that any action should be continued until the litigation and status of the property are determined.

We have a legitimate interest in the entire 120 acres as part of our vision and master plan.

Thank you,
Michael Wilson
Get BlueMail for Android
1 From: Steve MacArthur
To: Planning
Subject: Prescott Preserve
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:51:17 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I am a resident of Palm Springs.

I am emailing you because I very much hope that the Planning Commission will support the efforts of Oswit Land Trust to restore and establish Prescott Preserve as a nature sanctuary in our city. I am glad that your staff have recommended approval of the Preserve. I hope that you will not make this approval needlessly onerous for Oswit Land Trust.

I enjoy hiking and birding in the Preserve which is just over a mile from my residence. I am baffled by opposition to this Preserve from certain HOA nearby residents, as a tended nature preserve seems clearly preferable to a dilapidated golf course. The Preserve already provides the best birding in the Coachella Valley.

Palm Springs seems to me (I retired here in 2019) a bit too focussed on development. As an avid hiker and birder, I appreciate how Oswit Canyon Trust has saved the Goat Trails and Oswit Canyon itself from unnecessary development. Prescott Preserve serves residents and visitors to our city by providing an easily accessible and freer venue for exercising and enjoying nature.

Please support Oswit Land Trust and Prescott Preserve!
Steve MacArthur
449 E Arenas Rd #812
913-787-2367
[email protected]
Item 2B - Page 249
From: Kathy Madore
To: Planning
Subject: In Support of Oswit Land Trust
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 7:00:17 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
This email concerns item 4.C. on the Planning Commission agenda for July 24, 2024.

As a condominium owner in Mesquite Country Club, which is directly adjacent to the proposed preserve, I strongly urge the Planning Commission to approve the requested minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 by Oswit Land Trust, permitting the former Mesquite golf course land to be used as a preserve and ensuring the land remains open space without any development, with the conditions recommended by city staff.

Thank you,
Kathy & Carl Madore
2001 E Camino Parocela Unit D28
Palm Springs CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 250
From: Robert McCann
To: Planning
Subject: Agenda Item: OLT Landscaping Plan for Prescott Preserve Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:23:55 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission:

One of the items on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is to consider approving the modification of the landscape plan for Prescott Preserve submitted by Oswit Land Trust. I am writing this letter to urge you to approve the modified plan. In addition, I ask that you further approve Oswit Land Trust’s request to modify the Staff Recommendations for the project by removing the following Conditions from the Recommendations:

ADM 5.

ADM 9.

ENV 1.

ENV 2.

PLN 1.

ENG 2.

ENG 13.

ENG 14.

ENG 22.

FID 10
Upon review, it became clear that these conditions are completely unnecessary, as they are more applicable to construction projects than restoration projects. ENV 2 is an obvious example. Construction projects usually entail destruction of open space land that is home to indigenous species. On the contrary, OLT’s plan is to add habitat for wildlife. Thus, there is no need for analyses to determine whether OLT’s project entitles California Fish and Wildlife to financial compensation for destruction of habitat.

I thank you for your consideration of these requests.

Robert McCann, Ph.D.
2105 E Calle Lileta
Palm Springs CA 92262
650 283-5444
Item 2B - Page 251
From: Karen Moceri
To: Planning
Subject: Planned Development District 153 Minor Amendment Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 4:35:22 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Hello,
I’m writing to you as an owner of a condominium in Mesquite Country Club Phase 5 adjacent to the proposed preserve. I support the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 as requested by Oswit Land Trust, subject to conditions recommended by city staff.

Karen Moceri
2700 E. Mesquite Ave
Unit A5
Item 2B - Page 252
From: Susan Myrland
To: Planning
Subject: Support for Prescott Preserve, Item 4c on meeting agenda Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 5:56:04 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Hello Planning Commission members, I’m writing in support of Oswit Land Trust’s request for an amendment in order to go forward with restoration of approximately 90 acres of land on the former Mesquite Country Club golf course. Although I’m a resident of Palm Desert, I often go hiking and birdwatching at Prescott Preserve. I know that the staff and volunteers of OLT are working hard to clean up and restore areas that are blighted, transforming the land into environmentally sustainable and beautiful desert habitat. This change will benefit the entire Coachella Valley — wildlife, visitors, and residents — while serving as a model for other cities. The transition period has unquestionably been tough. Moving forward will help convey the vision, provide proof of concept, and put doubts to rest.

I’m pleased to see that staff recommend this progress, and I hope you will support it.

Thank you for all you do.

Susan Myrland
47121 El Menara Circle
Palm Desert CA 92260
(619) 316-6022
Item 2B - Page 253
From: Jill Olkoski
To: Planning
Subject: Approve & Mitigate Large Predator Hazard
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:02:19 AM
Attachments: HWNM0hIB2XBiCGJ4.png
mHdBrqziQ5mB407N.png
VMjhqNtH0JDEYVdQ.png
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Regarding: Item 4 C on the Planning Commission Agenda for July 24, 2024 This is an extraordinarily unique project, and to my knowledge, establishing a wildlife corridor within a well-established neighborhood has not been attempted before. It will present novel challenges to surrounding residents, including but not limited to, large predator hazards, such as coyotes and bobcats, intruding into neighboring property.

I have encountered both types of these large predators while walking my dog, well within the property boundary of my condo complex, Mesquite Country Club, Phase 2. When I wrote to OLT last summer with my concerns, my email was met with condescension, sarcasm, and frankly I found OLT's reply insulting. I was subsequently banned from commenting on the Prescott Preserve Facebook Page, and publicly called out by name for contacting the Department of Fish and Wildlife for help. It seemed to me that OLT's only focus was on the safety of the predators, not the safety of the people, and their companion animals who live adjacent to the preserve.

I therefore request that the Planning Department add additional requirements related to large predator hazard mitigation:

Require OLT to consult with independent wildlife experts who do not have any affiliation or financial conflict of interest with OLT. For example, PSWA receives funding from OLT, and PSWA's Founder was on OLT's board and is currently listed as Land Acquisition Project Manager, therefore PSWA should not be the primary source of large predator hazard mitigation consultation.

Fill in the dry pond next to the public sidewalk that is on APN 502570007 to prevent coyotes from establishing a den in this area again.

Shut off the water supply to the above dry pond, that coyotes have been documented drinking from, and where OLT has placed bowls. This location is close to the public sidewalk and encourage coyotes to remain in this location, adding to the hazard.

Develop a method for notifying the future full time ranger of large predator encounters, and tracking them, and immediately notifying residents via a text alert system.

I therefore join many of my neighbors in strongly encouraging the Planning Commission to approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 (PD 153) proposed by Oswit Land Trust, subject to ALL of the conditions recommended by the Department of Planning Services in the Planning Commission Staff Report. I also request an additional requirement(s) be added regarding the intrusion of large predators into neighborhoods that border the preserve.

Regards,
Item 2B - Page 254
•
•
•
•
Jill Olkoski
505 S Farrell Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 255
Jlane Garrison
July 16, 2023 · 0
11No paparazzi please!11 Ha ha. We love our wildlife cameras and plan to start sharing photos and video.

Item 2B - Page 256
Jane Garrison
October 4, 2023 · 0
On many o our properti,es we put out bird baths as a way to document dif may notioe bird feeders and bird baths at other nature preserves such as\ birdbaths sometimes capture other wiildlifre residents of our prop,erties. Wa share for a good laugh! #oswitlandtrust
Item 2B - Page 257
Jane Garrison
July 17, 2023 · 0
Oswit Land Trust now owns 4 properties. Each one was sllated for development but each · important for w1ildlife and humans to enjoy. When I s,ee these videos from our wiildll ife cam it's a reminder of how tragic it would have be-en to hav,e these habitats destroyed.

Enjoy .. . another baby on one of our properties. #saveland From: Don Olness
To: Planning
Subject: Oswit Preserve
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:21:28 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

I recall that Oswit was given a list of tasks that needed to be done before the license could be applied for and I believe many of the requested items are still outstanding. How can the Palm Springs Planning Commision not hold Oswit to the same standards that other businesses and groups are held to. Oswit has continually flouted the rules set down by the City and State of California and done as they pleased since taking over the Golf Course from the previous land developer and now you are rewarding them with a license to continue. No matter how you slice it, this is a golf course conversion and should follow the rules set down in the Golf Course Conversion Ordinance the the City of Palm Springs spent much time and money building and this is not a minor change to existing conditions.

Don Olness
Owner of Mesquite Country Club Condominium
Item 2B - Page 258
From: [email protected]
To: Planning
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 2:15:10 PM
Attachments: Planning Commission .pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

To whom it may concern,
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area nonprofits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation.

However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support the concept of a preserve, but believe its premature and agree with the concerns outlined by Angie Knapp, another of the Mesquite Country Club owners.

Kind regards,
Prue Knight
Mesquite Country Club Owner
Item 2B - Page 259
To: Planning Commission at [email protected]
Subject: July 24 Agenda, Oswit Land Trust
I strongly encourage the Planning Commission delay a decision on Oswit’s request for a minor amendment to PDD 153 to convert the former Mesquite Golf Course to a nature preserve. I suggest it is premature.

I commend Brad Prescott for his extraordinary financial contributions to area non-profits. I also commend Oswit for its efforts and commitment to land preservation. However, the Oswit entity is very new and has no proven experience for what it has planned. According to Oswit’s grant application and media statements, no one does because no one has put a nature/wildlife preserve in the middle of a decades old, high density, urban area.

I believe with the City, surrounding neighborhoods and Oswit working together with flexibility and open minds, obstacles can be overcome so the final outcome is win-win for all parties concerned.

I support a preserve in concept, but I believe it is premature and have concerns for the following reasons:

1. Original Intent. Purchase Agreement was originally between two real estate developers.

Seller-Palms Partners, is a real estate developer. Buyer, a Prescott Apartment Company, is owned by Brad Prescott, a real estate developer.

2. MOU between Prescott and Oswit has a clawback clause under Article 10. Frustration of Purpose. Prescott can take property back. What if he does for good reason, sells to a real estate developer and donates the money to another project like the Plaza Theater? Golf Course Conversion Ordinance would be unenforceable by then.

3. Golf Course was open and golfers playing it until Buyer contractually required Seller to close the golf course just days before sale. Sale closed 2 years ago, not 3. Most of public believes the false information that the course was closed and abandoned long before sale and the sale rescued it.

4. When Oswit announced the acquisition, it told the public it would be Central Park West.

Much public support comes from people believing it will be a green grass park like Demuth.

5. Contrary to what the public believes, the property was not rescued from being filled with housing. PDD 153, Golf Course Conversion Ordinance, and Mesquite Country Club 90 year Lease Agreement prevent.

6. Prescott and Oswit contractually agreed as condition of sale that neither would oppose housing plans by Seller for the parcel he retained. Seller already in discussions to put up several rental apartments.

Item 2B - Page 260

7. Puzzled that a permit can be granted for an entire parcel when Seller retained portion of that parcel, it has not been subdivided and Seller is applying for a housing permit.

I respectfully disagree this is a simple Minor Landscape Modification.

1. Can a project that requires at least $7 million dollars to come to fruition realistically be simply a minor landscape modification?

2. Can a project never implemented anywhere in the middle of a densely populated urban area be simply be a minor landscape modification?

3. Can a project that has the potential to negatively impact the property values of 1800 nearby homes simply be a minor landscape modification?

4. Can a project that has already brought in numerous truckloads of boulder piles filled with painted concrete debris, without a permit, that people connected to Oswit have publicly posted are for the purpose of giving coyotes hiding places just a few feet away from homes, simply be a minor landscape modification?
A minor modification doesn’t address life/safety issues of the plan.

1. Has an independent wildlife expert been consulted to ensure the design minimizes potential for human-coyote interaction for the benefit of humans AND coyotes? There are documented incidents of hungry coyotes attacking dogs near/on the City bike path easement.

2. What is the City’s liability if a child gets attacked walking on the City bike/walking path easement?

3. Has design been evaluated for neighborhood protections under the federal Clean Air Act? Humans with COPD, asthma, valley fever concerns.

4. Has City considered impact of increasing traffic through the Desert Chapel elementary school property with the new Information Center?
Finance/Compliance Questions and Concerns:

1. The County just filed a tax lien against Oswit for the preserve parcel it subleases from Sunshine Villas. The Dec. and May real estate taxes are also past due with penalties accruing on all the other parcels except New Mesquite leased parcel.

2. Oswit has been delinquent with the CA Attorney General since Nov 15, 2023. It was notified first by form postcard and reminded by letter May 2024, it is not to solicit funds while delinquent. However, the Oswit website has remained open for donations and Oswit has actively solicited donations in its newsletters.

3. No grant money to restore appears to be on the horizon for restoration and grant agencies don’t generally fund operating expenses.

4. Oswit expected the MCC HOA to continue $250,000+ annual payments under the HOAs 90 year lease related to a golf course. MCC proceeded to litigation.

Item 2B - Page 261

5. Many of us believe the current condition of the property violates the following PS Municipal Codes:

11.72.170 - Property Maintenance

11.72.170(a) - Economic Welfare, Residential Attractiveness, Community Character

11.72.170(b)(5) - Irrigation systems for planted area.

11.72.170(c) - Dead, decayed trees etc. Harbor rats/vermin. Fire hazard.

11.72.170(d) - Substantial lack of maintenance...viewable from by the public and neighboring properties.

11.72.060 - Polluted Water...Algae

8.80.120 (2)(4)(5) - Blight
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate the difficult position the City staff and Planning Commission are facing. I thank all for the time and thought they have approached the project with. This is a very unique set of circumstances with no precedent anywhere else to guide.

Angie Fiechtner Knapp,
Mesquite Country Club Owner
Item 2B - Page 262

ATTACHMENT J
Item 2B - Page 263
Prescott Preserve – Palm Springs Golf Course Restoration Site Map
Item 2B - Page 264
Scale: 1” = 360’-0” N
0’ 180’ 360’ 720’

I L L U S T R AT I V E S I T E P L A N

MULTI-USE CONCRETE PATH
(CYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS,

LEASHED DOGS, WHEELCHAIR USERS)

FUTURE BIKE RACKS

BARISTO FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

UNKNOWN CHANNEL

TAHQUITZ CREEK

TAHQUITZ CREEK TAHQUITZ CREEK

SOUTH SUNRISE WAY

FARRELL ROAD

EL CIELO ROAD

FUTURE NATURE
CENTER

EXISTING

EUCALYPTUS GROVE

EXISTING

CROSSWALK

EXISTING BRIDGE
TO REMAIN, TYP.

EXISTING BRIDGE
TO REMAIN, TYP.

NATURAL PEDESTRIAN

LOOP TRAIL

EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
Item 2B - Page 265
APrescott
9Preserve BrightView ~ LS A

HABITAT RESTORATION LEGEND

SONORAN CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB

HABITAT TYPE RESTORATION

49.2 ACRES

39.4 ACRES
0 ACRES
0 ACRES
0 ACRES
0 SF 0 SF 19,575 SF
12,498 SF
92,132 SF
0 SF
0 SF
0 SF
0 SF

PRESERVED
0 ACRES
0 ACRES

15.8 ACRES
0 ACRES
0 ACRES

ENHANCED
0 ACRES
0 ACRES
0 ACRES

1.5 ACRES

8.2 ACRES

DESERT DRY WASH WOODLAND

WASH / POND - PROTECT IN PLACE

DESERT FAN PALM OASIS

PERIMETER SCREENING BUFFER
(NON-NATIVE)

EXISTING CONCRETE PATH

NATURAL TRAIL WITH EDGING

NATURAL TRAIL

EXISTING BRIDGE TO REMAIN
Scale: 1” = 360’-0” N
0’ 180’ 360’ 720’

HABITAT RESTORATION ZONE PLAN

BARISTO FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

TAHQUITZ CREEK

TAHQUITZ CREEK TAHQUITZ CREEK

MULTI-USE CONCRETE PATH
(CYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS,

LEASHED DOGS, WHEELCHAIR USERS)

FUTURE BIKE RACKS

UNKNOWN CHANNEL

SOUTH SUNRISE WAY

FARRELL ROAD

EL CIELO ROAD

FUTURE NATURE
CENTER

EXISTING

EUCALYPTUS GROVE

EXISTING

NATURAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK

LOOP TRAIL

EXISTING BRIDGE
TO REMAIN, TYP.

EQUESTRIAN TRAIL

EXISTING BRIDGE
TO REMAIN, TYP.

Item 2B - Page 266
APrescott
9Preserve
•
•
• c:::::::J
c:::::::J
c:::::::J
-
... - .. ~.•_:• ... -·:·. --.. .',••:.·.,.·.: .. : ... . . ..:. . . . . . : · .. :: : . . . · .. ·: .: : _. · ... ·-.-:: :-.. :: :--: ·.· .. ·.·~· BrightView ~ LS A

SITE FEATURES LEGEND

LEARNING / GATHERING AREAS

ROCK OUTCROPPINGS

BURROWING OWL DEN

PHOTO OPPORTUNITIES
Scale: 1” = 360’-0” N
0’ 180’ 360’ 720’

SITE FEATURES PLAN

UNKNOWN CHANNEL

MULTI-USE CONCRETE PATH
(CYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS,

LEASHED DOGS, WHEELCHAIR USERS)

FUTURE BIKE RACKS

BARISTO FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

UNKNOWN CHANNEL

TAHQUITZ CREEK

TAHQUITZ CREEK TAHQUITZ CREEK

SOUTH SUNRISE WAY

FARRELL ROAD

EL CIELO ROAD

FUTURE NATURE
CENTER

EXISTING

EUCALYPTUS GROVE

EXISTING

CROSSWALK

EXISTING BRIDGE
TO REMAIN, TYP.

NATURAL PEDESTRIAN

LOOP TRAIL

EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
Item 2B - Page 267
APrescott
9Preserve
• • • •
BrightView ~ LS A
SC
Scale: 1” = 360’-0” N
0’ 180’ 360’ 720’
Canopy Canopy Canopy

DENSE DAPPLE OPEN
Dense pockets of overhead canopy to canopy coverage and large understory planting creating shade rich microclimate zones.

Medium level of overhead canopy with bands of open space broken by dense pockets of understory planting. These areas create great wildlife habitat and diversity within the landscape.

Minimal overhead tree canopy. Areas characterized by large swaths of open space with small to medium understory and grasses leading to open views of the mountains beyond.

EXISTING TREE CANOPY AND LARGE UNDERSTORY VEGETATION PLAN Scale: NTS

EXISTING EUCALYPTUS
GROVE

OPEN TURF AREA
ROCK + DEBRIS HABITAT

MESQUITE AVE

TAHQUITZ CREEK

EXISTING

EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
FUTURE
NATURE
CENTER

TAHQUITZ CREEK TAHQUITZ CREEK

BARISTO FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

UNNAMED CHANNEL

FARRELL DRIVE

EL CIELO ROAD

SUNRISE WAY

MICROCLIMATE
Item 2B - Page 268
..

APrescott
9Preserve
•· • • •
BrightView ~ LS A

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE REFINANCING OF SUCCESSOR AGENCY 2014 TAX

ALLOCATION BONDS
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Department of Finance and Treasury
SUMMARY:

The Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency’s 2014 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (2014 Bonds) are now eligible to be refinanced. If approved, the resolution would authorize the refunding of the 2014 Bonds, with an expected total savings of $600,000 over the remaining 10 years (8.2% reduction in payments). Approximately $138,000 of the savings will be distributed to the City in the form of additional residual Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund payments.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ACTING SOLELY IN ITS CAPACITY

AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF 2024 TAX

ALLOCATION REFUNDING PARITY BONDS TO REFUND CERTAIN

OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM

SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, APPROVING THE

EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A THIRD SUPPLEMENT TO INDENTURE OF

TRUST, ESCROW AGREEMENT, BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A

PRELIMINARY AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND PROVIDING OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE REFUNDING BONDS.” BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

The Public Integrity Disclosure Form for Hilltop Securities, is included as Attachment B.

BACKGROUND:

When the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in 2012, there Item 3A - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2024 -- Page 2
Refinancing Successor Agency 2014 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds were 6 series of tax allocation bonds previously issued and outstanding. The Dissolution Act permits successor agencies to refinance outstanding bonds or other obligations of a former redevelopment agency under certain circumstances. Five of the six series of bonds have been refinanced by the issuance of refunding bonds by the Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency in 2014 and in 2017.

In 2014, the Successor Agency issued the 2014 Bonds to refinance the former Redevelopment Agency’s 2001 Housing Tax Allocation Bonds, 2004 Series A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds and 2004 Series B Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, reducing debt service by $6.8 million over the remaining 20 years. The 2014 Bonds are now eligible to be refinanced on a tax-exempt basis. There are 10 years remaining until maturity of the 2014 Bonds. The debt service due in Fiscal Year 2024-25 has already been funded as part of the approval 24-25 ROPS.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The interest rate on the outstanding 2014 Bonds is 5% and the 2014 Bonds have a final maturity of 2034.

The Successor Agency’s Financial Advisor estimates that refinancing of the 2014 Bonds will be at an effective rate of 2.92%. The repayment is scheduled to occur over the same term as the existing bonds.

The total debt service savings over the remaining 10 years that the 2014 Bonds are outstanding is approximately $600,000, which will increase the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) residual available to be distributed to all taxing agencies. This represents a reduction in payments of 8.2%. The City’s refinancing policy requires a minimum savings of 5%.

The City currently receives approximately 23% of the residual RPTTF. The City’s share of the additional residual property tax generated by the debt service savings would be average of $15,400 annually for the 9 years starting in Fiscal 2025-26, for a total $138,600. The debt service for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is already funded through the approved 24-25 ROPS, so there are no savings in the first year. The remainder of the savings would be distributed to the County, the School District, the College District and other taxing agencies through the regular RPTTF distribution process.

Between the time that the refinancing is approved by the Successor Agency and the time that the Successor Agency can actually enter the market to sell the refunding bonds based on the Health & Safety Code (HSC) requirements (discussed below), interest rates could increase or decrease, and debt service savings may be reduced or may improve.

Therefore, the current estimate of $600,000 savings to be shared among taxing agencies over the next 10 years is an estimate at this time. For every ¼ percent decrease in the bonds interest rate, the total savings will be increased by $90,000, or an average annual savings increase of $10,000, of which $2,300 is the General Fund’s share. If rates Item 3A - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2024 -- Page 3
Refinancing Successor Agency 2014 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds decrease by ¼ percent, the reduction in total payments increases from 8.2% to 9.5%.

Bond Consultants
In order to prepare the Refunding Bond documents for Successor Agency approval, the Successor Agency needs to engage a bond counsel, a municipal advisor, a disclosure counsel and an underwriter. The City already has a contract with Best Best & Krieger (BBK) to provide bond counsel services and with Harrell & Company Advisors to provide financial advisory services for the Refunding Bonds.

Bond counsel services provided by BBK would include drafting all of the basic financing documents, including a Supplement to the existing Trust Indenture, as well as all documentation required for the approval of the transaction by the Successor Agency and Countywide Oversight Board, and all documentation required for the sale of the issue on a negotiated basis as well as for the closing of the issue. The services would include rendering a standard bond counsel opinion as to the validity of the proceedings by the Successor Agency, as well as to the tax exemption of interest on the Refunding Bonds.

Under the BBK contract, the firm may also provide disclosure counsel services. Staff is recommending using BBK to provide disclosure counsel services for the Refunding Bonds. Three fee quotes were received for these services, one from BBK for $8,000, one from Jones Hall for $12,000 and one from Norton Rose Fulbright for $20,000. Jones Hall and Norton Rose Fulbright were selected to provide a quote because Jones Hall had served as the City’s bond counsel from 2005 to 2019, prior to BBK. Norton Rose Fulbright had acted as the City’s disclosure counsel since 2005.

The disclosure counsel services would include reviewing the Official Statement, participating in the due diligence process for the issuance of the Refunding Bonds and rendering a standard disclosure counsel opinion regarding the content of the Official Statement.

An underwriter (Underwriter) is required to purchase the Refunding Bonds from the Successor Agency and sell the Refunding Bonds to investors. Quotes for the underwriting were received from 3 firms. These firms are the most active underwriters of tax allocation bonds in California, are familiar with the RPTTF revenue pledge, limitations and risks associated with RPTTF to pay bonds. Staff would like to designate Hilltop Securities, Inc. (HTS) to underwrite the Refunding Bonds, as they proposed the lowest fee for this service.

The Underwriter’s discount is similar in concept to a commission, in that it is not fixed, but based on the size of the issue. Hilltop Securities proposed an Underwriter’s discount equal to approximately 0.476% of the par amount of Refunding Bonds issued. Based on a $5.9 million par amount the fee would be approximately $28,000. Stifel Nicolaus proposed an Underwriter’s discount equal to approximately 0.93% of the par amount of Refunding Bonds issued, and Piper Sandler proposed an Underwriter’s discount equal to Item 3A - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2024 -- Page 4
Refinancing Successor Agency 2014 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds approximately 0.67% of the par amount of Refunding Bonds issued. A bond purchase agreement (Attachment E) with Hilltop Securities has been submitted to the City Council for approval with other financing documents described under the heading “Authorization Process” below.

The Municipal Advisor services provided by Harrell & Company include structuring and sizing the Refunding Bonds, preparing the Official Statement and working closely with the disclosure counsel to make sure all relevant financial information on the Successor Agency’s Project Areas and the RPTTF is included in the Official Statement, reviewing and commenting on all legal documents prepared by bond counsel to ensure conformance with the financing structure, preparation of the rating agency presentation, and conducting the sale of the Refunding Bonds. The Municipal Advisor also prepares the projections of RPTTF required by the rating agencies and bond investors. The fees for Municipal Advisor services are fixed at $10,000 to prepare the Official Statement and $40,000 for all other services.

Authorization Process
The Dissolution Act has added a number of steps to the traditional refinancing process and requires more time to actually get the bonds to market. If the City Council (acting as the Successor Agency) takes the recommended action and adopts the resolution authorizing the refinancing of the 2014 Bonds, the Oversight Board will be presented with a companion resolution approving the action taken by your Board. This Oversight Board action must be submitted to and approved by the DOF for conformity with the provisions of HSC §34177.5(a)(1). DOF can take up to 60 days from the time the Oversight Board resolution is submitted to approve the financing.

The Resolution presented for Successor Agency approval authorizes the issuance of the Refunding Bonds and approved the forms of the following documents: Third Supplement to Indenture of Trust (Attachment C); Escrow Agreement (Attachment D); Bond Purchase Agreement; and Preliminary Official Statement (Attachment F).

The Resolution also approves the distribution of the preliminary official statement for the bonds, entering into the Bond Purchase Agreement with HTS to underwrite the bonds and authorize any other actions needed in connection with the bonds. The Preliminary Official Statement is included with this report for the City Council review, as are the forms of the other documents listed. The resolution authorizes the City Manager, as the chief administrative officer of the Successor Agency, to enter into the Bond Purchase Agreement so long as the principal amount of the Bonds does not exceed $6,200,000, the underwriters’ compensation is not more than 0.5% of the principal amount of the Bonds and the debt service savings meet the requirements of 34177.5(a)(1) of the Dissolution Act.

The bonds are expected to be sold in late November after DOF approval is received. Staff has prepared a resolution for consideration by the Oversight Board to direct the Item 3A - Page 4
City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2024 -- Page 5
Refinancing Successor Agency 2014 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Successor Agency to refinance the 2014 Series A Bonds. If the City Council adopts the resolution approving the refinancing, the oversight Board resolution will be presented to the Oversight Board at their next meeting on September 19, 2024.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

This item aligns with the City Council identified major theme/principal of Forward-Thinking Governance.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The increase in the residual property tax (or former tax increment) that gets distributed to all the taxing entities (including the City) will increase by approximately $500,000 over 10 years. To the extent the incremental residual property tax is not used for other Successor Agency enforceable obligations, it will be distributed to taxing agencies, including the City, through the regular RPTTF distribution process. The City’s share of the increased residual is approximately $115,000 based on today’s interest rates.

The total savings, and therefore the City’s share, are calculated net of the cost of issuing the Refunding Bonds. The fixed costs of issuance, including the underwriter compensation, are summarized below. The costs are contingent and are payable from the proceeds of the Bonds. The Dissolution Act also provides that staff costs related to refunding proceedings can be recovered as authorized by HSC §34177.5(f).

Bond Counsel $35,000
Disclosure Counsel 8,000
Municipal Advisory Services 40,000
Official Statement Preparation 10,000
Trustee 11,000
Printing 2,000
Rating Agency 18,000
Staff Cost Reimbursement* 3,000
Other Expenses 2,000
Surety Bond Premium 16,000
Underwriter Discount 28,000
Total $173,000
__________________
*The City will be reimbursed for any staff time associated with the issuance of the Refunding Bonds.

California Government Code §5852.1 requires the disclosure of certain good faith estimates relating to the Refunding Bonds. The following good faith estimates have been provided by the Municipal Advisor.

Item 3A - Page 5
City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2024 -- Page 6
Refinancing Successor Agency 2014 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds For the purpose of the estimates:

Principal Amount means the aggregate principal amount of the Refunding Bonds to be sold.

True Interest Cost means the rate necessary to discount the amounts payable on the respective principal and interest payment dates to the purchase price received for the Refunding Bonds.

Finance Charge means the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties (or costs associated with the Refunding Bonds), including capitalized interest.

Amount of Proceeds to be Received means the amount of proceeds expected to be received from the sale of the Refunding Bonds, including original issue premium, less the finance charge of the Refunding Bonds as described above, paid or funded with proceeds of the Refunding Bonds, less capitalized interest on the Refunding Bonds.

Total Payment Amount means the sum total of all payment the Successor Agency will make to pay debt service on the Refunding Bonds, plus the finance charge for the Refunding Bonds, as described above, not paid with the respective proceeds of the Refunding Bonds, calculated to the final maturity of the Refunding Bonds, together with the sum of annual ongoing costs to administer the Refunding Bonds not paid with proceeds of the Refunding Bonds (such as trustee fees).

The foregoing estimates constitute good faith estimates only and are based on market conditions prevailing at the time of preparation of such estimates on August 15, 2024.

The actual principal amounts of the Refunding Bonds issued and sold, the true interest cost thereof the finance charges thereof, the amount of proceeds received therefrom and total payment amount with respect thereto may differ from such good faith estimates.

Market interest rates are affected by economic and other factors beyond the control of the Successor Agency.

Item 3A - Page 6
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Estimated True Estimated Amount of Total
Principal Interest Finance Proceeds to Payment
Amount Cost Charge be Received Amount
$5 860 000 2.92% $173 000 $6 316 000 $7 533 000
City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2024 -- Page 7
Refinancing Successor Agency 2014 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Kristopher J. Mooney
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution
B. Public Integrity Disclosure Form – Hilltop Securities C. Third Supplement to Indenture of Trust
D. Escrow Agreement
E. Bond Purchase Agreement
F. Preliminary Official Statement
G. Debt Service Savings Analysis
Item 3A - Page 7

ATTACHMENT A

Item 3A - Page 8
55575.70009\42514998.4
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ACTING SOLELY IN ITS

CAPACITY AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM

SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF 2024 TAX ALLOCATION

REFUNDING PARITY BONDS TO REFUND CERTAIN

OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS OF THE SUCCESSOR

AGENCY, APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY

OF A THIRD SUPPLEMENT TO INDENTURE OF TRUST,

ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, BOND

PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A PRELIMINARY AND

FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND PROVIDING OTHER

MATTERS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
REFUNDING BONDS.

WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs (the ‘Former Agency”) was a public body, corporate and politic, duly established and authorized to transact business and exercise powers under and pursuant to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State (the “Redevelopment Law”); and WHEREAS, redevelopment plan for the redevelopment project areas designated “Palm Springs Merged Redevelopment Project No. 1” and “Palm Springs Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2” in the City of Palm Springs, California were adopted in compliance with all requirements of the Redevelopment Law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 34172(a) of the California Health and Safety Code (unless otherwise noted, all Section references hereinafter being to such Code), the Former Agency has been dissolved and no longer exists as a public body, corporate and politic, and pursuant to Section 34173, the City of Palm Springs has become the successor entity to the Former Agency (the “Successor Agency”); and WHEREAS, Section 34177.5(a)(1) authorizes the Successor Agency to undertake proceedings for the refunding of outstanding bonds and other obligations of the Successor Agency in order to achieve debt service savings within the parameters set forth in Section 34177.5(a)(1) (the “Savings Parameters”), and to issue bonds for such purpose pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 53580) of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code (the “Refunding Law”); and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has previously issued its Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency 2014 Subordinate Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (the “2014 Prior Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $15,635,000, which refunded prior bonds of the Former Agency on a current basis; and Item 3A - Page 9
55575.70009\42514998.4
Resolution No. ______