Agenda packet — Palm Springs City Council, October 10, 2024 (part 5 of 5)

AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.

SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION, 2024.

Related Relevant City Actions by HSPB, Planning, Fire, Building, etc.

August, 2024 Site inspection by members of the HSPB and City Staff.

Ownership Status
April, 2013 Purchased by the current owner.

Item 2A - Page 100
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report September 3, 2024 HSPB-159 – The Burnham-Wells Residence

Page 3 of 9 ends

Historic Context Statement “Between the Wars (1919-1941)” The transformation of Palm Springs into a tourist/resort town was evident during this time with the presence of celebrities and the wealthy elite during the winter months. The architectural identity was mainly Spanish and Mediterranean Revival with renewed interest in the rustic ranches. Developers like Mac Blankenhorn recognized this unique opportunity and developed Smoke Tree Ranch as a “dude ranch” that appealed to those seeking a working ranch experience with hotel-like amenities1.

Context: Palm Springs Between the Wars (1919-1941)
Theme: Single-Family Residential Development (1919-1941) Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme, a property must:
 Date from the period of significance; and
 Represent important patterns and trends in residential development from this period, including representing 1920s and 1930s development and settlement patterns; an association with an important developer; an association with Palm Springs as an artists’ enclave; an association with tourism in Palm Springs; or
 Represent an excellent, rare, or influential example of an architectural style, property type, or method of construction; or be associated with a significant architect or designer; and
 Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and
 Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Context: Architectural Styles & Local Practitioners
Theme: Modern Styles of the Post-World War II Era
Sub-theme: Rustic Style Ranch2
Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme as an excellent example of its architectural style, a property must:
 Retain most – though not necessarily all – of the character-defining features of the style, and continue to exhibit its historic appearance  If important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique, must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.

ANALYSIS:

A historic resources report (“the report”), site visit, and city documents and forms are the basis of this staff report. The rustic style ranch home is a one-story structure designed by architect John Porter Clark. The home has a low-pitched roof with an L-shaped building footprint that was integrated into the natural desert setting at Smoke Tree Ranch. The home was completed in 1936 but alterations to exterior elements occurred between 1991- 1995 and between 2013-2016. These changes include the addition of porches, additions 1 City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement and Survey Findings: Context: Palm Springs between the Wars (1919-1941).

Item 2A - Page 101
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report September 3, 2024 HSPB-159 – The Burnham-Wells Residence

Page 4 of 9 ends

and new openings. While the changes do not significantly alter the character of the original design, they have no historic merit.

Historic Preservation activities in Palm Springs are regulated under Municipal Code Section 8.05 (“Historic Preservation”). The purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is:
“…to stabilize and improve buildings, structures or areas which are considered to be of historical, architectural, archaeological or ecological value, to foster civic beauty, to strengthen the local economy and to promote the use of historic resources for the education and welfare of the citizens.” Conditions that apply to Class 1 historic sites or resources:

1. It shall meet the definition of a historic site as outlined in Municipal Code Section

8.05.020.

2. An archival file shall be maintained on the property by the City.

3. It may be qualified as ‘historic’ at the federal, state, and/or county level.

4. A marker explaining the historic nature of the site may be installed in a location viewable from the public way.

5. Compliance with all rules and regulations for Historic Resources and Historic Districts under Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code.

6. If designated, the findings in support of designation shall be stated in a resolution of the City Council that shall be recorded with the County Recorders’ office within 90 days of the effective date of the Council’s resolution.

Evaluation of the Application. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.070 (C,1,a), the HSPB shall evaluate the application and make findings in conformance with the following criteria:

Criteria for the Designation of Class 1 Historic Resources. A site, structure, building or object may be designated as a Class 1 historic resource, provided both of the following findings (“a” and “b”) are met:
a. The site, structure, building or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:

The Burnham-Wells Residence is an example of a rustic ranch home in a development that started out as a “dude ranch” resort. This style of architecture and living started to gain popularity in the 1930s based on a renewed interest of the old west and outdoor living. The home retains a low-pitched roof, wood shake shingles, board-and-batten siding and L-shaped plan. The following is a detailed analysis of the criterion and integrity findings.
(Criterion i) The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or community; Item 2A - Page 102
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report September 3, 2024 HSPB-159 – The Burnham-Wells Residence

Page 5 of 9 ends

Based on the historic resources report, there are no events of significance associated with this site. The site does not qualify under Criterion i. (Criterion ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state or local history; The first owner, Ralph French Burnham, owned the property from 1936 to 1944 and Gertrude Alice Wells was the second and fifth owner of the home. According to the research provided in the report, none of the people associated with the home are individuals whose activities/achievements rise to the level of significance within the local, state of national context, therefore, Criterion ii is not met. (Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local history;
A home on a working ranch would typically be a one-story structure constructed with cost efficient materials using simple methods of construction. In Southern California, ranch style homes are closely related to the southwestern adobe, hacienda, or wood vernacular styles3. The “rustic style” ranch home is one that harkens back to simplicity and harmony with the natural outdoor setting. Smoke Tree Ranch was a “dude ranch” that catered to this trend and the residential design standards were based on this rustic aesthetic. The Burnham-Wells residence embodies many of these characteristics. It is a one-story home with a L-shaped plan that has a low-pitched roof that is a combination of gable and leanto roofs forms. The exterior materials consist of wood shake shingles and board-andbatten siding. Covered porches are found on the front and rear elevations of the home.

This home not only exemplifies the renewed interest in the rustic ranch-style, but it also reflects the tourism trends of that period and the development of “dude ranches”. The Burnham-Wells home qualifies under Criterion iii.
(Criterion iv) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;
Unlike the National Register criterion concerning construction, the Palm Springs evaluation of construction addresses the type (of construction), the period (of construction) and the method (of construction). It appears that the building was constructed using standard construction methods and materials. While the applicant develops finds that Criterion 4 is met through the use of board-and-batten construction, this was not considered a technique, method, or material that was unique or distinctive to that period, thus does not qualify for this criterion.
(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;
3 City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement and Survey Findings: Architectural Styles: Ranch.

Item 2A - Page 103
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report September 3, 2024 HSPB-159 – The Burnham-Wells Residence

Page 6 of 9 ends

According to the research presented in this application, the Burnham-Wells Residence was designed by master architect John Porter Clark. Considered one of the founders of “Desert Modern” architecture, Clark is recognized locally and internationally for his projects and contributions to the field. In Palm Springs some of his most celebrated projects include the Palm Springs Woman’s Club and the Welwood Murray Library.

During his successful career as an architect, he also collaborated with other significant practitioners like Albert Frey and Robson Chambers on a variety of projects. The design of the Burnham-Wells residence adheres to the aesthetic requirements of Smoke Tree Ranch that includes attention to scale, materials, and site planning. The architectural detailing is consistent throughout the home and the home that is sited harmoniously in the natural desert landscape.

Research shows that Albert Frey also worked on changes to the home dating to the early 1990s; however, unlike the Blankenhorn/Gilmore Residence where he was in charge of a consistent evolution of the home over a prolonged period of time, Frey was hired to add a small porch along the north side of the home and propose maintenance related upgrades. The alterations were done in character with the existing home and does not impair the integrity of the original design, but the alterations are not recognized as historic.

The Burnham-Wells Residence is an intact example of a rustic style ranch home thoughtfully executed by John Porter Clark, an architect of significance, early in his prolific career. Criterion v is met.
(Criterion vi) The resource represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, as used in evaluating applications for designation of historic districts, for parcels on which more than one entity exists; or
The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi. (Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.

No information is available on any pre-historic significance of the site.

Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C,1,b). The site, structure, building or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.

The Burnham-Wells Residence is evaluated based on the following topics of integrity based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:

Item 2A - Page 104
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report September 3, 2024 HSPB-159 – The Burnham-Wells Residence

Page 7 of 9 ends

Location.

The location of the residence remains in its original location; therefore, the integrity of location is met.

Design.

The home has an L-shaped floor plan that is asymmetrical but the forms and overall features of the home like the roofline and the locations of the entry and the porches appear consistent with the original design. The rustic simplicity and harmony with the surroundings were key design features, as well as the indoor-outdoor living which remain intact. The bedroom addition from 2016 is consistent with the architectural language of the existing home but the massing of the addition extends vertically behind the shed-roof massing of the original home. The exterior materials and the fenestration patterns match the original design but during one of the remodels, the direction of the siding panels was altered, and the louver style shutters were replaced with board-style shutter design. The addition of a swimming pool and hardscape around the pool is towards the rear of the home. The changes made to the home do not compromise or overshadow the design elements by Clark; therefore, the overall integrity of the design remains intact.

Setting.

The setting within the Smoke Tree Ranch development maintains the natural desert setting and development density. The home remains harmoniously placed on the site and the indoor-outdoor relationship remains a prominent feature, thus integrity remains intact.

Materials.

The home has wooden shake shingles and board-and-batten siding. Windows and doors appear to match the original appearance but have been replaced with modern materials that match in kind. The exterior materials are in conformance with the rustic characteristics of the home. The integrity of materials remains intact.

Workmanship.

Conventional construction methods were used to build this home, and it appears that the board-and-batten siding was replaced along with the fenestration. Due to recent alterations, the integrity of the original workmanship may be limited.

Feeling.

The existing home is preserved in the rural desert setting and reflects the original design intent of the ranch home. While hardscaping around the new swimming pool was added, it is restricted to an area with little visibility. The integrity of feeling is met.

Association.

The rustic, ranch-style home captures the image of the original dude ranch established in the 1930s. The rustic atmosphere and the original design concepts for the home by John Porter Clark are clearly maintained and recognizable. The integrity of association is met.

Item 2A - Page 105
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report September 3, 2024 HSPB-159 – The Burnham-Wells Residence

Page 8 of 9 ends

DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS:

In considering a recommendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that contribute to the resource’s historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character-defining features from non-original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.

On page 32, the report identifies the physical character-defining historic features of this site as follows:
• Site placement in the desert landscape.
• One-story rustic, ranch-style home.
• Simple low pitched hipped, gable and shed roof with open overhanging eaves and wood shake shingles.
• Sprawling L-shaped plan.
• Covered and open rear porch on the south elevation with three prong wooden posts.
• Board-and-batten siding and louver-style wooden shutters. • Divided sash windows.
• Original hitching post.
• Original light post.

Non-contributing elements:
• Bedroom addition on the west elevation (2016).
• Porch extension on the north (front) elevation (1993). • Wide sliding door and fixed picture window on the south elevation. • Main entrance door with side lites.
• Modern exterior light fixtures.
• Perimeter wall and equipment enclosure wall.
• Swimming pool and spa.
• Hardscaped walkways, patios and driveway.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly.

Item 2A - Page 106
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report September 3, 2024 HSPB-159 – The Burnham-Wells Residence

Page 9 of 9 ends

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to section 8.05.140 of the Municipal Code of Palm Springs, all residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property have been notified and notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation.

CONCLUSION:

The Burnham-Wells Residence meets the definition of a historic resource based on Criterion 3 and 5 of the Palm Springs Historic Preservation Ordinance and meets the necessary integrity findings; therefore, staff recommends Class 1 Designation as a historic landmark property.

PREPARED BY: Sarah Yoon, Associate Planner/Historic Preservation Officer REVIEWED BY: David Newell, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning Attachments:

A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft Resolution
C. Application, related background materials, photos.

Item 2A - Page 107

EXCERPTS OF MINUTES
At the Historic Site Preservation Board meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held September 3, 2024, the Historic Site Preservation Board took the following action:

2.A. APPLICATION BY CHARLES E. BENTALL AND JULIE BENTALL FOR HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION OF “THE BURNHAM-WELLS
RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 1850 SMOKE TREE LANE, ROCK 6, 4 LEFT (APN 510-172-001) CASE HSPB #159 (SY).

Associate Planner and Historic Preservation Officer Yoon presented the staff report and answered questions of the Board.

Tracy Conrad, Chief Operating Officer of Smoke Tree Ranch, spoke on behalf, and in favor of, the applicant.

Motion by Member Hansen, seconded by Chair Nelson to adopt the findings and recommend that the City Council designate the “Burnham-Wells Residence” (HSPB 159) as a Class 1 historic landmark site, subject to conditions.

AYES: Nelson, Bachman, Hansen, Herr, Moruzzi.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Rosenow, Mischka Hitchcock.

Item 2A - Page 108

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

CITY COUNCIL

MEMORANDUM
Date: October 10, 2024
To: City Council
From: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
Subject: APPEALS BY THE NEW MESQUITE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION

AND DESERT CHAPEL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION

TO APPROVE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER MESQUITE

GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT
HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE (CASE 5.0303-PD 153).

On September 12, 2024, the City Council continued the appeals hearings filed by the New Mesquite Homeowners’ Association (NMHOA) and Desert Chapel to October 10, 2024. The hearing was continued in part to allow additional time to review and respond to new documents received questioning property ownership and the terms of leases governing the various properties included in this application.

In response, OLT has provided the attached letter and supporting documentation from their attorney discussing their legal interest in the various parcels subject to this application.

The original staff report and appendices from September 12, 2024 are also included for review.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Response from Oswit Land Trust
B. Original City Council Staff Report and Attachments (09/12/2024) Item 2B - Page 1

ATTACHMENT A
Item 2B - Page 2
4867-9663-3578 v1
Direct No.: 949.265.3410
Our File No.: 08338-0003
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 18300 Von Karman Avenue - Suite 650
Irvine, California 92612-1032
voice 949.863.3363 - fax 949.863.3350
www.bwslaw.com
September 26, 2024
Christopher Hadwin
Director of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Oswit Land Trust and Appeal from Planning Commission Approval of Minor Modification to PDD 153
Dear Mr. Hadwin:

This office represents Save Oswit Canyon dba Oswit Land Trust (OLT). This letter is intended to respond to some of the unfounded allegations that have been raised in connection with the Appeals by the New Mesquite Homeowners Association and Desert Chapel to the Planning Commission Decision to Approve the Minor Amendment to Planned Development District (PDD 153) to Allow Restoration of Approximately 90 Acres of the Former Mesquite Golf Course and Country Club into a Nature Preserve with Native Desert Habitat.

OLT’s goal and intent with its planned project is to create a destination nature preserve for the benefit of the greater Palm Springs community from the blighted and failing former Mesquite golf course. The restoration will establish approximately 40 acres of desert dry wash woodland, 50 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, and 2 acres of desert fan palm oasis. The restoration project is expected to expand habitat availability and connectivity, support climate change resilience, improve natural floodplain functions and water quality, and refocus and consolidate the existing public access to help conserve and protect the habitat. The restoration and the preserve will remain open space and provide recreational opportunities to hikers, photographers, bird watchers and members of the community alike.

The proposed restoration use is consistent with the original PDD 153, which contemplated recreation or open space use. The proposed restoration of the site to a nature preserve will enhance the original intent and provide much greater public access by the community compared with a failing former golf course operation. The proposed Item 2B - Page 3
Christopher Hadlin
September 26, 2024

Page 2 ends

4867-9663-3578 v1
restoration does not include any new development, while retaining some existing features for habitat purposes. For example, the existing water ponds that support bird and wildlife use will be preserved. Some of the existing pedestrian loop trail and associated bridges will remain for designated public access. OLT intends to install interpretive signs to educate users on the ecological value of desert habitats and species. OLT is engaged in ongoing discussions with its neighbors regarding landscape in buffer areas separating the preserve from adjacent and nearby building structures.

After it acquired the property, OLT corrected a number of deferred maintenance issues and improved the horse trail and walking/jogging path. OLT also removed years of accumulated downed trees and branches collected in the wash that were both a fire and flood hazard. OLT commissioned a fire safety inspection of the entire property and performed maintenance and recommended fire safety measures. OLT has worked closely with City Code Enforcement and City Law Enforcement to prevent loitering, illegal dumping, and homeless encampments on the property, as well as the associated fire dangers.

Please find enclosed as Exhibit A --map of parcels delineating the OLT purchase of a major part of the former Mesquite Golf Course in order to more clearly explain OLT’s purchase of property in fee and purchase of lengthy leasehold interests. As you can imagine, this was a complicated transaction using title experts from Lawyers Title and Orange Coast Title with title insurance issued upon the close of escrow. The attached parcel map will be helpful to both the City Council and City staff to help visualize and understand the scope of the transaction.

OLT purchased in fee Parcel 4, 5, 6, and 7 with APN: 502-570-008.

OLT purchased in fee Parcel 8 with APN: 502-580-003.

OLT purchased in fee Parcels 2 and 3 with APN: 502-560-020.

OLT purchased in fee Parcel 1 and 1B of APN: 502-590-011.

Importantly, the Seller (Palms Partners) kept the approximate 11-acre “Retained Parcel” from APN: 502-590-011. The Retained Parcel is the area south of Parcel 1 and south of the Tahquitz Creek Storm Channel which includes the Clubhouse and parking lot area. Please find enclosed as Exhibit B the Second Amendment to Standard Offer, Agreement and Escrow Instructions for Purchase of Real Estate which identifies the Retained Parcel as an 11-acre portion of APN: 502-590-011.

Item 2B - Page 4
Christopher Hadlin
September 26, 2024

Page 3 ends

4867-9663-3578 v1
OLT acquired a leasehold interest in Parcel 9 with APN 502-570-007 which was part of Business Lease PSL-220 administered under the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). This leasehold interest runs through September 30, 2041. This was a sublease of the lease from Jean Yvonne Miguel Nelson, Hale Industries and Sunshine Villas Homeowners Association to James Temple which was approved by the BIA, a true and correct copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit C. OLT has timely made all of the required monthly lease payments to Jean Nelson, Hale Industries and Sunshine Villas under this leasehold interest. The assignment of this leasehold interest was presented to the BIA as a condition of closing escrow. All of the parties consented to this assignment of the James Temple sublease and the BIA consented on July 20, 2022. The Assignment and Assumption of Sunshine Villas Sublease and Consent to Assignment was recorded on July 22, 2022 as Instrument No. 2022-0326401, a true and correct copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit D.

OLT acquired a leasehold interest in Parcel 10 with APN 502-560-03 along with an appurtenant easement interest in Parcel 11 with APNs 502-562-074 and 502-562- 075 from New Mesquite Homeowners Association (New Mesquite HOA). This leasehold interest runs through March 8, 2043. In 2012, New Mesquite HOA purchased its land in fee subject to the existing leasehold interest through 2043 provided to James Temple. The BIA consents to the fee sale to New Mesquite HOA can be provided if desired by the City. In terms of the OLT acquisition of the leasehold interest through March 8, 2043, New Mesquite HOA consented to the assignment of the James Temple leasehold interest to OLT. OLT has timely paid its monthly lease payments to New Mesquite HOA. The Assignment and Assumption of New Mesquite Sublease and Easement was recorded on July 22, 2022 as Instrument No. 2022- 0326400, a true and correct copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit E.

OLT has been advised that New Mesquite HOA and Desert Chapel filed appeals of the Planning Commission approval of the minor modification to PDD 153. City staff and the City Council should be aware that OLT has had ongoing discussions with New Mesquite HOA in an effort to purchase the fee interest underlying its lengthy leasehold interest. OLT has also requested that New Mesquite HOA defend its leasehold interest from trespass and encroachments by Desert Chapel on the lands acquired by OLT. During these negotiations, OLT learned that New Mesquite HOA was taking competing offers from Desert Chapel. OLT recently became informed and believes that New Mesquite HOA and Desert Chapel have entered into a purchase contract for the leasehold interest and underlying fee of the Parcel 10 leasehold interest acquired by OLT. This breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing will be the subject of civil litigation between OLT and New Mesquite HOA, as will be the encroachment and Item 2B - Page 5
Christopher Hadlin
September 26, 2024

Page 4 ends

4867-9663-3578 v1
trespass by Desert Chapel on OLT’s leasehold interests. Additionally, OLT’s planned uses for Parcels 10 and 11 include the use of interpretive signs to provide youth (and other users) with the educational background on historic uses of the former golf course property, including preservation of some of the existing golf course amenities to provide an interactive golf/putting experience using the existing features on this leased portion of the property for the duration of the leasehold interest through 2043.

It is our hope that this additional information will resolve any questions that City staff and the City Council have regarding OLT’s purchase of the former golf course property from Palms Partners, regarding the minor modification of PDD 153, and regarding the appeals of New Mesquite HOA and Desert Chapel.

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Mark J. Mulkerin
MJM:dfk
Item 2B - Page 6

EXHIBIT A
Item 2B - Page 7
Parcel 2 Parcel 3
502-560-020
502-560-018
In PSA and
Trustee's
Deed, but not
owned. Parcel 4
Parcel 5 Parcel 6
Parcel 7 502-570-008
Parcel 8
502-580-003
Parcel 9 (Lease)
502-570-007 009-610-173
Lot L 502-560-033
G Lot G
Lot F Lot F
Lot 1 Lot1
502-560-034
009-610-835
Parcel 10
(Lease)
Lot 2
502-560-039
009-613-311
Lot 2
Parcel 11
(Easement) 502-562-074
502-562-075
Parcel 1 Parcel 1B
502-590-011
Item 2B - Page 8

EXHIBIT B
Item 2B - Page 9
1 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO STANDARD OFFER, AGREEMENT AND

ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
This Second Amendment (“2
nd Amendment”) is dated as of April 4, 2022 and is hereby entered into by and between The Prescott Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation (“Buyer”) and Palms Partners Capital, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Seller”) and shall serve as an amendment to that certain Amendment to Standard Offer, Agreement and Escrow Instructions for Purchase of Real Estate, dated for reference purposes only as of January 18, 2022 (“1
st Amendment”) and further as an amendment to that certain Standard Offer, Agreement and Escrow Instructions for Purchase of Real Estate, dated for reference purposes only as of December 27, 2021 (“Initial Agreement”) from Huntington & Clay Apartments, L.P., a California Limited Partnership [erroneously referenced as Huntington & Clay, L.P. in the Agreement”] (“Huntington & Clay”), on the one hand, and Seller, on the other hand, in connection with the purchase of the real property located at 2700 E. Mesquite Ave, Palm Springs, CA 92264, with the legal description and APNs to be provided by Lawyer’s Title (reference: File No. 621650538; APNs: 502310049, 502560018, 502560033, 502560034, 502560039, 502562074, 502562075, 502570007, 502570008, 502580003, and 502590004) (the “Property”). Said Initial Agreement, 1st Amendment and this 2nd Amendment shall at times hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Agreement.”

1. The terms and provisions of the 2nd Amendment hereby modify and supersede the terms and provisions of the 1
st Amendment and of the Initial Agreement, and in the event of any ambiguity, conflict, or inconsistency(ies) between the terms and provisions of this 2 nd Amendment
and the terms and provisions of either or both of the 1 st Amendment and/or the Initial Agreement,
the terms and provisions of this 2
nd Amendment shall unequivocally be deemed superseding and controlling over the terms and provisions of the 1
st Amendment and of the Initial Agreement.

2. Pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated April 1, 2022, Huntington & Clay assigned all of the rights, title, interests, and obligations in and to the Initial Agreement, 1st Amendment, 2nd Agreement, and Agreement to The Prescott Foundation (hereinafter “Buyer”), a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation, and The Prescott Foundation assumed the same. Through the purchase and sale of the Property, Buyer seeks to promote the important work of advancing and preserving the ecology and nature within the Coachella Valley, saving and preserving undeveloped land and ecosystems from destruction, and conserving open space lands and ecosystems for wildlife and nature. These goals may be accomplished through the protective land acquisition of the Property by Buyer and/or Buyer’s successor or assignee for eventual transfer to a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation and/or nonprofit land trust such as the Oswit Land Trust. Buyer intends to facilitate the natural conservation of the Property in a manner that will best serve the surrounding residents and communities.

Time Extensions

3. Consistent with the Extension of Time Addendum(s) executed by the Parties on March 4, 2022 and March 16, 2022, and notwithstanding any other contrary provisions of the Initial Agreement (including ¶ 9.1 thereof) and/or the 1st Amendment (including ¶¶ 6, 10, and 12 thereof), as amended and supplemented herein, the Parties agree to the following time extensions:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 10
2 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
(a) the period to execute this 2nd Amendment, expressly including the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, shall be extended to April 4, 2022; (b) the Contingency Period to waive, satisfy or remove all Buyer’s Contingencies (subparagraphs (a) through (m) of ¶ 9.1) shall be extended to April 15, 2022; and (c) Close of Escrow is extended to April 29, 2022.

4. The terms and provisions of the Indemnification Agreement, to the extent described below, shall survive the Close of Escrow, subject to the limitations stated herein.

Clarification Regarding Retained Parcel (APN: 502-590-011)

5. ¶ 26.2 of the Initial Agreement and ¶ 3 of the 1st Amendment are deleted in their entirety. To clarify, Seller shall not withhold 20 acres from the total acreage of the parcel to remain in Seller’s name. Instead, Seller shall retain that certain 11–acre parcel known as parcel 9 bearing APN number 502-590-011 (the “Retained Parcel”). The Retained Parcel and all improvements and structures thereon shall be retained by Seller and excluded from sale of the Property to the Buyer, as notwithstanding any contrary provisions of this 2nd Amendment, the HOA, as defined below, or any ground leases or other instruments, Seller intends to cease all current operations at the Retained Parcel and pursue a future development and construction of improvements thereon which future development and construction shall not constitute a breach of this 2nd Amendment.

The definition of “Property” shall not include the Retained Parcel. To the extent any lot line adjustment needs to be performed by the parties to demark the boundaries of the Retained Parcel, or to change zoning to Open Land Zone conservation use, the Parties agree to cooperate with one another, and Buyer agrees to cooperate with Seller’s efforts, including executing those documents required for such a lot line adjustment and Seller shall bear all costs and expenses of such lot line adjustment and planned development, and Seller will cooperate with Buyer’s efforts to change zoning of the Property to accommodate the future conservation use and Buyer shall bear all costs and expenses of such. Effective as of close of business on June 30, 2022, Buyer intends to and shall cease all golf course operations at the Property, whether directly or indirectly (through the Seller, pursuant to the Leaseback Agreement, as defined below), and Seller intends to and shall cease all activities on the clubhouse grounds, racquetball courts, meeting rooms, and clubhouse on the Retained Parcel, all of which Seller intends to replace by an intended future residential development or other commercial uses as determined by Seller.

6. Seller entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation in the action titled Coachella Valley Association of Governments v. Palms Partners Capital, LLC with Riverside Superior Court Case No. PSC1906175 (the “Eminent Domain Judgment”) which encumbered the Retained Parcel with 2 perpetual exclusive easement interests --Easement 1: 920 sf or 0.021 acres in Tahquitz Creek Channel described in detail A; and Easement 2: 4,567 sf or 0/105 acres off El Cielo Road, south of E. Mesquite Ave. -- as part of the construction and operation of a multi-modal transportation project identified as the CV Link Project, including riding, walking, jogging, running, biking, electronic vehicles and similar uses.

Buyer acknowledges that Seller shall retain any compensation received for the Eminent Domain Judgment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 11
3 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
Continued Golf Course and Tennis Court Operations

7. Except as otherwise excluded herein, the term “Property” in the Agreement shall include all golf and related operations conducted on the Property and commonly referred to as Mesquite Country Club, except for those golf course and country club operations on the Retained Parcel. Seller shall use its best efforts to comply with all agreements with the Mesquite Country Club Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and all ground leases that affect the Retained Parcel and that may indirectly affect the Property through the Closing Date. Excepting Buyer’s cessation of all golf course operations at the Property effective June 30, 2022 which shall not be considered to constitute a breach of the Agreement, Buyer shall use its best efforts to comply with all agreements with HOA and all ground leases that affect the Property and that may indirectly affect the Retained Parcel after the Closing Date. Following the Closing Date, Seller shall use its best efforts to continue to manage and operate the improvements on the Retained Parcel, including but not limited to the clubhouse grounds, racquetball courts, tennis courts, meeting rooms, and clubhouse until June 30, 2022, at which time Seller shall cease all such operations at the Retained Parcel. Seller shall use its best efforts to obtain and maintain a minimum of $3,000,000 in general liability insurance coverage in connection with Seller’s operations at the Retained Parcel and the Property (under the terms of the Leaseback Agreement), including naming Buyer, its successor and/or assignee as a named additional insured under such insurance. Seller’s agreement to maintain any such insurance, as described above, shall unconditionally terminate upon Seller’s cessation of all operations on June 30, 2022, as described above.

8. Buyer shall provide to Seller a Leaseback Agreement to authorize and allow Seller’s continued operation of the Mesquite Country Club on the Property, in the same manner as before the Closing Date, for the period of time from the Close of Escrow to June 30, 2022 (“Leaseback Period”). During the Leaseback Period, Seller shall pay all costs and expenses (exclusive of property taxes and any rents due under any ground leases which shall remain Buyer’s obligations) associated with the operation of the Mesquite Country Club, in an amount that shall in no event exceed the average cost of such operations as experienced by Seller during the 6 months prior to the Closing Date. The Leaseback Agreement shall provide Seller with a temporary leasehold interest for the possession, use, maintenance, and occupancy of the Property in a manner consistent with Seller’s previous operations, without any duty to pay for any upgrades or replacement of any structure, improvement, furniture, fixtures or equipment located thereon; however, Seller shall use its best efforts to maintain and avoid damaging the structures, improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment located thereon, normal wear and tear excepted.

The general form of the Leaseback Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

9. Seller acknowledges that following the expiration of the Leaseback Agreement Buyer intends to wind down all golf course operations on the Property which will be replaced by an intended future open space natural conservancy use. The HOA is currently paying rent of $20,000 per month for non-exclusive use of the racquetball courts, tennis courts, bridle path, jogging/bicycle path, meeting rooms, clubhouse, and general grounds of the Mesquite Country Club on the Property and Retained Parcel (the “HOA Rent”). Following the Closing Date, Buyer shall be entitled to receive the HOA Rent.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 12
4 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
Indemnification Agreement

10. Notwithstanding any other contrary provisions of the Initial Agreement (including § 12 thereof) and/or the 1st Amendment (including ¶ 14 thereof), as amended and supplemented herein, Seller, for itself and on behalf of its heirs, assigns and successors in interest, agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by law, and make Buyer and its heirs, assigns and successors in interest whole (including without limitation any and all attorneys’ fees, and costs), from and against any and all from any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, claims, worker’s compensation claims, suits, debts, sums of money, demands, obligations, costs, expenses, debts, controversies, damages, accounts, reckonings and liens of every kind or nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which in any way or manner could at any time be asserted, are set forth in, arise out of, concern, are based upon or relate to the (1) intentionally deleted (2) any claims or actions by the HOA that relate to the intended or actual development of the Retained Parcel, or the condition and/or use of the Property prior to the Close of Escrow; (3) Seller’s operations on Retained Parcel after Close of Escrow; and (4) employment relationships with Seller’s and/or Ivy Palm Management’s existing and former employees, and any potential, existing or future employee claims that arise from Seller’s and/or Ivy Palm Management’s operations at the Property, Seller’s and/or Ivy Palm Management’s operations at the Retained Property, and/or the purchase/sale of the Property that arose or accrued prior to the later of the Closing Date or any operations on the Property pursuant to the Leaseback Agreement (the “Indemnification”). With respect to this Indemnification, (1) Seller shall provide a joint defense for Seller and Buyer (and its successor/assign) with counsel of Seller’s choosing absent an actual conflict and be responsible for all costs of defense; (2) Intentionally deleted; and (3) Seller’s Indemnification obligation to provide Buyer (and/or its successor/assign) with a defense, and settlements/judgments shall be capped at the aggregate sum of $500,000, inclusive of all matters and claims (“General Cap Amount”) regardless of whether such claims or actions are based in contact, tort, equity or law, except for those claims arising from Seller’s and/or Ivy Palm Management’s employment relationships. Additionally, with respect to any claims arising from Seller’s and/or Ivy Palm Management’s employment relationships, Seller’s Indemnification obligation to provide Buyer (and/or its successor/assign) with a defense, and settlements/judgments shall be capped at the aggregate sum of $500,000, inclusive of all matters and claims asserted by such employees (“Employment Cap Amount”), which cap amount shall be separate and apart from the General Cap Amount. The Seller’s Indemnification provisions of this Section 10 shall expire eighteen (18) months from the later of the of the Closing Date and the Leaseback Period. To the extent any claims accrue during the mentioned eight (18) month period but are not asserted within such period they shall be deemed as time barred, relinquished and waived and may not be asserted following the expiration of said eighteen (18) month period.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer, for itself and on behalf of its heirs, assigns and successors in interest, agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by law, and make Seller and its heirs, assigns and successors in interest whole (including without limitation any and all attorneys’ fees, and costs), from and against any and all from any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, claims, suits, debts, sums of money, demands, obligations, costs, expenses, debts, controversies, damages, accounts, reckonings and liens of every kind or nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which in any way or manner could at any time be asserted, are set forth in, arise out of, concern, DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 13
5 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
are based upon or relate to the Buyer’s use and operation of the Property or any portion thereof following the later of the Closing Date and the Leaseback Period; this provision shall expire eighteen (18) months from the later of the 2 dates mentioned. To the extent any claims accrue during the mentioned eight (18) month period but are not asserted within such period they shall be deemed as time barred relinquished and waived and may not be asserted following the expiration of said eighteen (18) month period.

11. Seller acknowledges that the Indemnification is expressly excluded from any waiver or release language contained in the Initial Agreement (including but not limited to § 12 thereof) and/or the 1st Amendment (including but not limited to ¶ 14 thereof) provided that Seller’s Indemnification obligation shall survive for a period of eighteen (18) months after the later of the Closing Date and the Leaseback Period.

12. Seller shall fund an escrow deposit in the amount of $200,000 to serve as a reserve to cover (a) attorney’s fees and defense costs to provide a joint defense with counsel of Seller’s choosing; (b) judgment, actual or contingent, with interest and costs, in any action instituted against Seller and/or Buyer with respect to the Property and/or Retained Parcel, but only to the extent such action falls within the express provisions of § 10 above; and (c) dispute with any current or former employees of Seller or of Ivy Palm Management; (d) disputes with the HOA that relate to the Property or to the Retained Parcel, but only to the extent such action falls within the express provisions of § 10 above; or (e) dispute concerning Seller’s past or future operations on the Property and/or Retained Parcel, but only to the extent such action falls within the express provisions of § 10 above. All unused portions of this escrow shall revert to Seller after a period of eighteen (18) from the later of Close of Escrow or cessation of operations on the Property under the Leaseback Agreement.
[SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 14
6 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
BUYER:

The Prescott Foundation,
a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation
By:

Name: Brad Robert Prescott
Its: Chief Executive Officer
SELLER:

Palms Partners Capital, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:

Name: Ramin Saghian
Its: Managing Partner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 15

EXHIBIT C
Item 2B - Page 16
Item 2B - Page 17
Item 2B - Page 18
Item 2B - Page 19
Item 2B - Page 20
Item 2B - Page 21
Item 2B - Page 22

EXHIBIT D
Item 2B - Page 23
Item 2B - Page 24
Item 2B - Page 25
Item 2B - Page 26
Item 2B - Page 27
Item 2B - Page 28
Item 2B - Page 29
Item 2B - Page 30
Item 2B - Page 31
Item 2B - Page 32
Item 2B - Page 33
Item 2B - Page 34
Item 2B - Page 35
Item 2B - Page 36
Item 2B - Page 37
Item 2B - Page 38
Item 2B - Page 39
Item 2B - Page 40
Item 2B - Page 41
Item 2B - Page 42

EXHIBIT E
Item 2B - Page 43
Item 2B - Page 44
Item 2B - Page 45
Item 2B - Page 46
Item 2B - Page 47
Item 2B - Page 48
Item 2B - Page 49
Item 2B - Page 50
Item 2B - Page 51
Item 2B - Page 52
Item 2B - Page 53
Item 2B - Page 54
Item 2B - Page 55
1 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO STANDARD OFFER, AGREEMENT AND

Time Extensions

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 56
2 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
(a) the period to execute this 2nd Amendment, expressly including the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, shall be extended to April 4, 2022; (b) the Contingency Period to waive, satisfy or remove all Buyer’s Contingencies (subparagraphs (a) through (m) of ¶ 9.1) shall be extended to April 15, 2022; and (c) Close of Escrow is extended to April 29, 2022.

4. The terms and provisions of the Indemnification Agreement, to the extent described below, shall survive the Close of Escrow, subject to the limitations stated herein.

Clarification Regarding Retained Parcel (APN: 502-590-011)

Buyer acknowledges that Seller shall retain any compensation received for the Eminent Domain Judgment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 57
3 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
Continued Golf Course and Tennis Court Operations

The general form of the Leaseback Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 58
4 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
Indemnification Agreement

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer, for itself and on behalf of its heirs, assigns and successors in interest, agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by law, and make Seller and its heirs, assigns and successors in interest whole (including without limitation any and all attorneys’ fees, and costs), from and against any and all from any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, claims, suits, debts, sums of money, demands, obligations, costs, expenses, debts, controversies, damages, accounts, reckonings and liens of every kind or nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which in any way or manner could at any time be asserted, are set forth in, arise out of, concern, DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 59
5 IRV #4869-8870-6838 v1
are based upon or relate to the Buyer’s use and operation of the Property or any portion thereof following the later of the Closing Date and the Leaseback Period; this provision shall expire eighteen (18) months from the later of the 2 dates mentioned. To the extent any claims accrue during the mentioned eight (18) month period but are not asserted within such period they shall be deemed as time barred relinquished and waived and may not be asserted following the expiration of said eighteen (18) month period.

The Prescott Foundation,
a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation
By:

Name: Brad Robert Prescott
Its: Chief Executive Officer
SELLER:

Palms Partners Capital, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:

Name: Ramin Saghian
Its: Managing Partner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4509912B-1BEC-451C-903C-B847FC059C57 Item 2B - Page 61

ATTACHMENT B
Item 2B - Page 62

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: APPEALS BY THE NEW MESQUITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

AND DESERT CHAPEL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION

TO APPROVE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (PDD 153) TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER MESQUITE

GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A NATIVE DESERT
HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE (CASE 5.0303-PD 153)
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY:

This is a request for the City Council to consider appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District 153 (PD 153). The proposal by the Oswit Land Trust would amend the approved landscape plan to allow restoration of approximately 90 acres of the 120 acres of a former golf course known as the Mesquite Golf and Country Club. Specifically, the amendment includes the following:
• Convert landscape of approximately 90 of the 120-acre site to a native desert habitat and nature preserve.
• Removal of dried vegetation, deceased trees, and debris from the former golf course, and replacement with new native vegetation.
• Installation of public access along designated hiking and biking trails.

The Planning Commission considered the application at their meeting of July 24, 2024, and voted 5-0-2 to approve the proposed minor amendment with added conditions. The action has been appealed by the New Mesquite Homeowners Association and Desert Chapel.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Open the appeal hearing and receive testimony; and
Item 2B - Page 63
2) Reject the appeals and accept the Planning Commission’s decision by adopting a Resolution entitled, “ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEALS BY THE NEW

MESQUITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DESERT CHAPEL AND

UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE

A PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 153 (PDD-153) BY THE OSWIT LAND TRUST 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 FOR THE SITE LOCATED BETWEEN SUNRISE WAY AND EL CIELO ROAD, NORTH OF MESQUITE AVENUE, ZONE PDD 153, SECTION 24 (CASE 5.0303-PDD-153).”
BACKGROUND:

On December 21, 1983, the City Council approved Preliminary Planned Development District 153 and Tentative Tract Map 18370 (TTM 18370), under resolution No. 14814 for the development of a 600-unit condominium complex, a clubhouse and an 18-hole public golf course. On December 19, 1984, the City Council approved final development plans for the golf course portion of the Planned Development District under Council Resolution No. 15540; and on September 18, 1985, the City Council accepted a grant of open space easement from the developer of Mesquite Country Club under Resolution No. 15648. As designed, the golf course incorporated native and arid weather landscaping and also preserved existing trees at the site. Water features consisting of up to five (5) lakes were also part of the golf course design. The residential use and the golf course were developed in the 1980s but the 18-hole public golf course has since been turned fallow by the current owner. The Planned Development District indicated that the land use for the golf course portion of the site was intended to remain as recreational open space uses.

Related Relevant City Actions
12/21/83
The City Council approved a Planned Development District (PDD 153) for residential uses and an 18-hole golf course development under Council Resolution No. 14814.
12/19/84 The City Council approved Final PDD plans for the golf course portion of the PDD under Council Resolution No. 15540;
09/18/85 The City Council accepted a grant of open space easement from the developer of Mesquite Country Club under Resolution No. 15648. 05/02/23
An application for a Minor Amendment to the existing PDD 153 was submitted to the Department of Planning Services by Ms. Garrison, representing the Oswit Land Trust.

Item 2B - Page 64
Related Relevant City Actions
07/24/24
The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at its public meeting and after taking reports from staff, testimony from the applicant and members of the public, deliberated on the request and by a vote of 5-0-2, approved the proposed amendment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Oswit Land Trust (OLT) has proposed to convert approximately 90 acres of the 120- acre former golf course to a native desert habitat and nature preserve. Specifically, the proposed minor modification to the landscape will include removal of existing Bermuda grass and non-native plants, and planting of native vegetation species, application of native seed, and placement of boulders. The project will also include demolition and decommissioning of abandoned golf cart pathways, and modification of existing irrigation water supplies. The anticipated restoration will establish 39 acres of desert dry wash woodland, 49 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, and two acres of desert fan palm oasis. According to the applicant, the restoration project is expected to expand habitat availability and connectivity, support climate change resilience, improve natural floodplain functions and water quality, and refocus and consolidate the existing public access to help conserve and protect the habitat.

Proposed Amendment:

The proposed use is consistent with the original PDD, which contemplated recreation or open space use. The proposed restoration of the site to a nature preserve will include changes to the originally approved landscape plans. Under the provisions of Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) Section 94.03.00(G), the proposed amendment is a minor amendment since it only involves modifications to the approved landscape plan. The proposed amendment will not include any new development on the approximately 120- acre former golf course site. Some remnant features on the property will be retained and redesigned for habitat purposes. Existing ponds onsite that already support bird and wildlife use will be preserved. Some of the existing pedestrian loop trail and associated bridges will remain for designated public access. Interpretive signs will be installed to educate users on the ecological value of desert habitats and special-status species and deter trampling and illicit use of the restored habitat.

Pursuant to Section 94.03.00(G)(1) of the Code, minor modifications to an approved preliminary development plan or final development plan may be approved by the Director of Planning Services or may be referred to the planning commission for approval at the discretion of the director. Section 94.03.00(G)(e), further states that minor amendments include minor adjustments to landscape, buffer areas or open space areas, provided lot coverage and open space requirements are maintained. In this case, the Director of Planning Services has referred this request to the Planning Commission for these reasons; first, the size and scope of the proposed amendment, and second, the interest of the public and most especially members of the immediate residential community Item 2B - Page 65
surrounding the site. As for the amendment, if approved by the City Council, there will be an operational difference from the original use; the site will now become a nature preserve compared to the original use as a public golf course. Overall, the site will remain as an open space for which it was originally intended.

The applicant was cited by the City’s Code Enforcement Department for carrying out unpermitted activities that include installations of landscaping and removal of dried vegetation at the site without prior approvals by the City. The Code issues will be resolved with the approval of the amendment. The lingering maintenance and security issues at the site will be addressed with the attached conditions of approval and by Code Enforcement when it is required. The civil disputes between Oswit and the surrounding neighbors of the site are outside the scope of the entitlement process as those are civil disputes between property owners.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

On July 24, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the proposed PDD Amendment at a regularly scheduled public meeting and voted 5-0-2 to approve the application; Chair Weremiuk and Commissioner Rotman were absent from the meeting. In response to the comments and concerns raised at the meeting, including almost two hundred (200) letters and emails addressed to the Planning Commission, the Commission added project specific conditions of approval to the project as follows:

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.

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.

4. Access to 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.

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.

Item 2B - Page 66

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 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 six (6) months of this approval and demonstrate on-going progress toward implementation of the entire restoration and landscape plan.

10. 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
Appeals and Staff Responses:

On August 1, 2024, two separate appeals were filed; the first appeal was by the New Mesquite Homeowners Association, and the second appeal was filed by Desert Chapel.

The two appeals were filed separately and on different grounds, and as a result, each of the appeals will be analyzed separately. The offices of Schlecht, Shevlin, and Shoenberger, ALC, filed the first appeal on behalf of the New Mesquite Homeowners Association (NMHOA), and will be representing the HOA in the appeal process.

In their letter of appeal to the Council, the NMHOA is appealing the Planning Commission approval on the following reasons as identified in their justification letter:

1. A portion of the land covered by PDD 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.

Staff Response: The application consisted of eleven (11) Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), associated with the affected proposed minor modification Item 2B - Page 67
proposal. The applicant submitted two Grant Deed documents to the City showing Oswit Land Trust as ownership for majority of the property. The grant deeds and other documents submitted as part of the application submittal provided confirmation that there is a lease agreement for parcels not in Oswit’s ownership, which enables them to submit the application for the City’s consideration. Any dispute between the parties over the terms of that lease are a civil matter between those parties.

2. NMHOA did not make application for any amendment to the plan (PDD 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.

Staff Response: The applicant provided required confirmation that there is a lease agreement to process the Minor PDD Modification and therefore, could submit applications for the PDD Modification.

3. OLT 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 filed 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 has no right to use the NMHOA Land as a preserve under the terms of the Sublease or Easement.

Staff Response: The applicant provided sufficient information confirming the right to file an application for the Minor Amendment. The information provided included in the application were two grant deeds and a sublease between New Mesquite Development Associates, Limited, and sublessee identified as James T.

Temple. According to the document, the term of the lease commenced on November 1, 1983, and will terminate on March 8, 2043.

4. 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.

Staff Response: On September 18, 1985, the City Council accepted a grant of Open Space easement from the developer of Mesquite Country Club under Resolution No. 15648; the minor amendment of the underlying Planned Development District 153 (PDD 153) will not change the current use of Open Item 2B - Page 68
Space. The former Mesquite Golf Course ceased operation about three years ago.

The approved amendment will restore the landscape and the property will remain as Open Space as previously entitled.

5. 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.

Staff Response: According to Section 94.03.00(G)(1) of the Zoning Code, minor modifications to an approved preliminary development plan or final development plan may be approved by the director or may be referred to the planning commission for approval at the discretion of the director. Section

94.03.00(G)(e) further states that minor amendments include adjustments to landscape, buffer areas or open space areas, provided lot coverage and open space requirements are maintained. In this case, the Director of Planning Services decided to refer this request to the Planning Commission for these reasons; first, the size and scope of the proposed amendment and second, the interest of the public and most especially members of the immediate residential community surrounding the site. On July 15, 2024, in accordance with Code requirements, a notice of the meeting was mailed to neighborhood organizations within one mile of the project site. The applicant spoke with members of the HOA on several occasions by appearing at the HOA meetings and also conducted zoom meetings; there was adequate knowledge of the meeting. A minor PDD amendment does not require a public hearing notice.

6. 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.

Staff Response: The PDD amendment proposes to convert approximately 90 acres of the approximately 120-acre former golf course to a native desert habitat and nature preserve and has provided necessary documents enabling them to do so. The remainder of the PDD area will remain unchanged. The granting/amendment of land use entitlements cannot legally be made subject to the consent/approval of other private parties.

Desert Chapel (Appellant) Grounds for Appeals and Staff Responses:

Desert Chapel is the second appellant of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Minor PDD request for the following reasons:

1. Oswit is in a lawsuit with the MCC HOA that has a determining factor in use Item 2B - Page 69
depending on ruling. HOA requires that area to be a golf course not a preserve.

Staff Response: Staff is aware of the ongoing litigation between the HOA and the Oswit Land Trust; however, it is a civil matter that is not related to the consideration of the PDD Minor Amendment process.

2. 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.

Staff Response: Pursuant to Section 94.03.00(G)(1e), adjustments to landscape buffer areas or open space areas are processed as minor amendments, provided lot coverage and open space requirements are unchanged. The use of the former golf course remains as previously entitled open space.

3. The extensive conditions of approval belie that this is a minor landscape plan amendment.

Staff Response: There are standard conditions of approval on every application for consideration by the Planning Department and the number of conditions does not correlate to whether a project is minor or major. In this case, the standard conditions of approval also included project specific conditions due to the unique nature of the project and to address the concerns of the neighboring residents.

4. 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.

Staff Response: The proposal is to convert approximately 90 acres of the 120- acre former golf course to a native desert habitat and nature preserve; this request is minor as regulated by the zoning code. For this reason, a public hearing is not required by the City’s zoning ordinance. However, notices were sent to all the neighborhood organizations within one mile of the property, and this appeal is being conducted as a public hearing.

5. The disposition of the entirety of the original PDD boundary should be included in any application and not piecemeal the POD.

Staff Response: There is no requirement in the Zoning Code to amend the other portions of the PDD.

6. It's being done in the middle of summer with most of the adjacent residence away.

Item 2B - Page 70
Staff Response: All City Boards and Commissions, including the City Council, meet and conduct business in July. This appeal is being heard in September. So, no action was taken in the middle of summer.

7. We request that the City Council remand this application back to the Planning Commission to amend the PDD completely and thoroughly include public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

Staff Response: There is no requirement to do so in the Code, and per current regulations, this is a minor amendment that has been processed appropriately per the requirements of the Zoning Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The project was deemed exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15304(b) – (Minor Alterations of Land) of CEQA Guidelines (Class 4 Minor public or private alterations of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees, except for forestry or agricultural purposes).

Class 4 also include new gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resistant landscaping.

CONCLUSION:

The original PDD approval contemplated the Mesquite Golf Course and Country Club as Open Space; the approved amendment will retain that original concept, the open space easement, and the overall development of Planned Development District 153. The amended project does not include new construction but will include the removal of dried and dead vegetation, demolition and repairs of existing but broken concrete pathways, limited grading activities involving movement and placement of boulders, installation of new landscape plantings to include new trees and shrubs, new irrigation system and general maintenance of the abandoned golf course that will now be restored to a native desert habitat and nature preserve and a gathering space. The site was previously envisioned and approved by the City Council as open space; following the amendment, the site will remain as open space. There are no specific required findings for minor amendments to a PDD; however, in this case, the intent of the original PDD remains as was originally approved. The attached conditions of approval will ensure issues of maintenance and security are addressed by the property ownership. Based on the determinations above, Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeals filed the New Mesquite Homeowners Association and Desert Chapel.

Item 2B - Page 71
REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Christopher Hadwin
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft Resolution
C. Conditions of Approval
D. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting dated July 24, 2024 E. Copies of Grant Deeds provided by the applicant
F. Lease Agreements provided by the applicant.

G. Appeal Letter from New Mesquite HOA
H. Appeal Letter from Desert Chapel
I. Public Correspondence Letter(s)
J. Exhibits/Site Plan/Renderings
Item 2B - Page 72

ATTACHMENT A
Item 2B - Page 73
~ "''!);
~Site
c:::J 500 Ft. Radius
[==1 Pa,cels
Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map
• --
I
!
...

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Prescott Preserve
w••
~
=•·
.
·•
s
Item 2B - Page 74

ATTACHMENT B
Item 2B - Page 75
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM

SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEALS BY THE NEW

MESQUITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DESERT

CHAPEL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION TO APPROVE A PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENT
TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 153 (PDD-153) BY THE

OSWIT LAND TRUST TO ALLOW THE RESTORATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF THE 120-ACRE FORMER

MESQUITE GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB SITE INTO A

NATIVE DESERT HABITAT AND NATURE PRESERVE FOR THE

SITE LOCATED BETWEEN SUNRISE WAY AND EL CIELO ROAD,
NORTH OF MESQUITE AVENUE, ZONE PDD 153, SECTION 24
(CASE 5.0303-PDD-153).

THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETRMINES AS FOLLOWS:

A. The Oswit Land Trust, (the “Applicant”) has filed an application with the City to amend the previously approved Planned Development District 153 pursuant to the provisions of Section 94.02.00 (B) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for the restoration of approximately 90 acres of the 120-acre former Mesquite Golf Course and Country Club referenced herein as the “Project”.

B. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs last approved Planned Development District 153 (PDD 153), on December 21, 1983, for a for residential uses and golf course and Country Club.

C. On July 15, 2024, a notice of the public meeting of the Planning Commission was sent to all the Neighborhood Organizations within one mile of the site.

D. On July 24, 2024, a public meeting on the Amended Project was held by the Planning Commission; carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence in connection with the meeting on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, materials provided by the Applicant and all written and oral testimony presented, and voted 5-0-2, to conditionally approve the Project.

E. The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the Amended Project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.

F. The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the Amended Project, including but not limited to the staff report and all written and oral testimony presented.

G. On August 1, 2024, the appellants filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve the Minor Amendment request of PDD 153.

Item 2B - Page 76
H. On September 12, 2024, a public meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, was held in accordance with applicable law.

I. The City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the public meeting on the Minor Modification to PDD 153, but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

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

SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby rejects the appeals filed by the New Mesquite Homeowners Association and Desert Chapel and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Minor Modification of PDD 153 associated with the Case Nos. 5.0303-PDD 153.

SECTION 3. That this action is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines.

ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.

SCOTT STILES, CITY MANAGER
City of Palm Springs, California
ATTEST:

BRENDA PREE, MMC

CITY CLERK
Item 2B - Page 77

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, Brenda Pree, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. ____ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on _______________________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.

BRENDA PREE, MMC

CITY CLERK
Item 2B - Page 78

ATTACHMENT C
Item 2B - Page 79
RESOLUTION NO._______

EXHIBIT A

5.0303-PDD 153 AMND - PRESCOTT PRESERVE
September 12, 2024

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Director of Building and Safety, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition.

Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

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.

Conditions Added by PC on July 29, 2024:

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 Item 2B - Page 80
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.

This requirement shall remain in effect until such time that all restoration work is complete unless extended by the Planning Commission.

10. 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

ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
ADM 1. Project Description. This approval is for the project described per Case No.

5.0303-PD 153-AMND; except as modified with the conditions below.

ADM 2. Reference Documents. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans, date stamped 7.24.24, including site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Division except as modified by the conditions below.

ADM 3. Conform to all Codes and Regulations. The project shall conform to the conditions contained herein, all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and any other City County, State and Federal Codes, ordinances, resolutions and laws that may apply.

ADM 4. Minor Deviations. The Director of Planning or designee may approve minor deviations to the project description and approved plans in accordance with the provisions of the Palm Springs Zoning Code.

ADM 5. The owner/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its elected officials, agents, officers, and employees Item 2B - Page 81
(“Indemnitees”) from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or any Indemnitee(s), arising, in any way, out of the activities authorized by this Land Use Permit. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the Indemnitees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.

ADM 6. Maintenance and Repair. The property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation all structures, sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, walls, and fences that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner’s sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City.

ADM 7. Time Limit on Approval. Approval of the Planned Development District Amendment shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the effective date of the approval. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause.

ADM 8. Right to Appeal. Decisions of an administrative officer or agency of the City of Palm Springs may be appealed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 2.05.00. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS
ENV 1. Notice of Exemption Filing Fee. The project is exempt from further evaluation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant is responsible for payment to the City of the fee for electronic filing of the exemption determination with the County Clerk within two business days of the Commission’s final action on the project. Coordinate this payment with the project planner.

ENV 2. California Fish & Game Filing Fee. The project is required to pay a fish and game impact fee as defined in Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Item 2B - Page 82
Code. The applicant is responsible for payment to the City of the CFG impact fee. Coordinate this payment with the project planner. The project may be eligible for exemption or refund of this fee by the California Department of Fish & Game. Applicants may apply for a refund by the CFG at www.dfg.ca.gov for more information.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
PLN 1. Water Efficient Landscaping Conformance. The project is subject to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 8.60.00) of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and all other water efficient landscape ordinances. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. Prior to submittal to the City, landscape plans shall also be certified by the local water agency that they are in conformance with the water agency’s and the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinances.

PLN 2. Outside Storage Prohibited. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

All Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, Required Studies and Documents listed below, must be submitted to Engineering Services Department for review and approval.

STREETS
ENG 1. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. All improvements are subject to inspection and a 48-hour inspection notification is required.

ENG 2. All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall be repaired or replaced.

GRADING
ENG 3. Submit a Rough Grading Plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval.

A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Services Department Item 2B - Page 83
for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code and shall be required to utilize one or more “Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures” as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards are met. The applicant’s or its contractor’s Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Services Department with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and related “PM10” Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (866) 861-3878, or at http://www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to approval of the Grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit.
a. The first submittal of the Rough Grading Plan shall include the following information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of Approval; a copy of a final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; and a copy of a current Title Report.

ENG 4. Prior to approval of a Grading Plan (or issuance of a Grading Permit), the applicant shall obtain written approval to proceed with construction from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist (a copy of the written approval must be provided to the City). The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Archaeologist at ACBCI[email protected] to determine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring.

ENG 5. In accordance with an approved PM-10 Dust Control Plan, temporary dust control perimeter fencing shall be installed at the limits of grading and/or disturbed areas. Fencing shall have screening that is tan in color; green screening will not be allowed. Temporary dust control perimeter fencing shall be installed after issuance of Grading Permit, and immediately prior to commencement of grading operations.

Item 2B - Page 84
ENG 6. Temporary dust control perimeter fence screening shall be appropriately maintained, as required by the City Engineer. Cuts (vents) made into the perimeter fence screening shall not be allowed. Perimeter fencing shall be adequately anchored into the ground to resist wind loading.

ENG 7. Within 10 days of ceasing all construction activity and when construction activities are not scheduled to occur for at least 30 days, the disturbed areas on-site shall be permanently stabilized, in accordance with Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 8.50.022. Following stabilization of all disturbed areas, perimeter fencing shall be removed, as required by the City Engineer.

ENG 8. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the California General Construction Stormwater Permit (Water Quality Order 2022-0057-DWQ as adopted September 8, 2022) is required for the proposed development via the California Regional Water Quality Control Board online SMARTS system.

A copy of the executed letter issuing a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.

ENG 9. This project requires preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As of September 4, 2012, all SWPPPs shall include a post-construction management plan (including Best Management Practices) in accordance with the current Construction General Permit. Where applicable, the approved final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be incorporated by reference or attached to the SWPPP as the Post-Construction Management Plan. A copy of the up-to-date SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon request.

ENG 10. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.022 (h), the applicant shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per disturbed acre at the time of issuance of grading permit for mitigation measures for erosion/blowsand relating to this property and development.

ENG 11. In cooperation with the California Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved “Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties” (Revised - RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture Item 2B - Page 85
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 86
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 87
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 88
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 89

ATTACHMENT D
Item 2B - Page 90
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:

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 91
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2024
City of Palm Springs

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.

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 92
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 Item 2B - Page 93

ATTACHMENT E
Item 2B - Page 94
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 95
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
~~~T~~F 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 96
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 97
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 98
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 99
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 100
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 101
~
,_ 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 102 '
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

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

Page 1 of 3 ends

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 103
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 104
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 Item 2B - Page 105

ATTACHMENT F
Item 2B - Page 106
...

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 107
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 108
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 109

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 110
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 111
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 112
. . 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 113
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
Item 2B - Page 114

ATTACHMENT G
Item 2B - Page 115
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 116
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 117

SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & SHOENBERGER

A LAW CORPORATION

LAWYERS
Palm Springs City Council
August 2, 2024

Page 2 ends

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
Item 2B - Page 118

ATTACHMENT H
Item 2B - Page 119

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 120
<'\ ~.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 121
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 122
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
Item 2B - Page 123

ATTACHMENT I
Item 2B - Page 124
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 125
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 126
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 127
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 128
(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 129
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 130
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 PARï¿½ 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 131
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 132
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 133
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 134
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:

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.

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

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 135
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.

Thank you,
Abby Winston
505 S Farrell Dr N83
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 136
The Demise of The Environmental Trust

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

Item 2B - Page 137
(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.

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 138
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.

Item 2B - Page 139
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.

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 140
fiscal year. It appears TET never obtained a formal annual opinion letter from any auditor.

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.

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 141
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.

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 142
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.

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 143
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.

Thank you,
Karolyn Anderson
Owner at Mesquite Country Club
Item 2B - Page 144
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 145
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.

Joe and Lorenzo Atkinson
2001 E Camino Parocella Unit Q124
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 146
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.

Michael Azzarella 505 S. Farrell DR. #G39 Palm Springs
Item 2B - Page 147
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 148
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 149
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 150
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 151
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 152
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 153
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 154
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 155
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 156
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.

Thank you,
Edward Bobbett
2001 Camino Paroclo, J67, Palm Springs
Edward
Edward Bobbett
C: 714-310-9447
WhatsApp: 714-310-9447
Item 2B - Page 157
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.

Thank you,
Karolyn Anderson
Owner at Mesquite Country Club
Item 2B - Page 158
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.

Thank you,
Ilona Arsoni
2001 Camino Parocela E34
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 159
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.

Joe and Lorenzo Atkinson
2001 E Camino Parocella Unit Q124
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 160
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.

Michael Azzarella 505 S. Farrell DR. #G39 Palm Springs
Item 2B - Page 161
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.

Respectfully,
Beth Christopher
Mesquite Country Club homeowner
Item 2B - Page 162
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.

Sincerely,
Brian Ramos
Item 2B - Page 163
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.

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.

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 164
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 165
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 166
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.

Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Item 2B - Page 167
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.

Respectfully submitted,
Donald Benegas
Property Owner/Member
Mesquite HOA - Phase One
Sent from my iPhone
Item 2B - Page 168
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:

Environmental Advantages:

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.

Community Enrichment:

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 169
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 170
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.

Thank you,
Edward Bobbett
2001 Camino Paroclo, J67, Palm Springs
Edward
Edward Bobbett
C: 714-310-9447
WhatsApp: 714-310-9447
Item 2B - Page 171
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 172
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 173
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 174
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 175
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 176
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 177
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 178
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 179
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 180
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 181
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 182
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 183
'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 184
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
Item 2B - Page 185
%&'(
%&'(
|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
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 186
• J -:~ . ~ '" - : .. ..
"
..
'
.
-( ~ .,
(
a r .
.
- .,,. r 0 l - )
,. -I
C
:,:,
rn
ll'I
...,
,-
• z
Item 2B - Page 187
•
...
•
EQUESTRIAN TRAl!::_L ~::-e;i7"° r _,;.._.,J
Item 2B - Page 188
z
<(
_,
C.
uJ
Ill)
UJ
>
I-
<(
0::

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

Item 2B - Page 189
DD[
. : ,--
'
' .
. -
.,
p
ta l.
:r
• OJ --
• -I
;;;
"' on
-I
0 ;;:;
J;,
-I -
0 z
N
0 ~ ._
re
-:,
,-
>
z
Item 2B - Page 190
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 191
•• ••
-.. ••••
'
. • ·•"''
~<>·!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
>
Item 2B - Page 192
·|}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
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~
Item 2B - Page 193
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 194
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 195
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

Page 1 ends

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 196
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 197
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 198
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
DAV IS SPO"TS •
L~~Tlh\1/~INM[Nl
--------------
Item 2B - Page 199
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 200
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.

Rocklen DeHoog
2701 E. Mesquite Ave., H42
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 201
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 202
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 203
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 204
•• ••
-.. ••••
'
. • ·•"''
~<>·!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
>
Item 2B - Page 205
·|}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:

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

Data Sources:

City of Palm Springs

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

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:

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

I
I
r1
.,_J
Item 2B - Page 207
• J -:~ . ~ '" - : .. ..
"
..
'
.
-( ~ .,
(
a r .
.
- .,,. r 0 l - )
,. -I
C
:,:,
rn
ll'I
...,
,-
• z
Item 2B - Page 208
•
...
•
EQUESTRIAN TRAl!::_L ~::-e;i7"° r _,;.._.,J
Item 2B - Page 209
z
<(
_,
C.
uJ
Ill)
UJ
>
I-
<(
0::

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

Item 2B - Page 210
DD[
. : ,--
'
' .
. -
.,
p
ta l.
:r
• OJ --
• -I
;;;
"' on
-I
0 ;;:;
J;,
-I -
0 z
N
0 ~ ._
re
-:,
,-
>
z
Item 2B - Page 211
• .. . . ' . ,. . ' . .
,.---l lv'l:ll NVlclJS3nO:!
. . . ..
llv'?:U doo·1 __ - Nv'll:l1S303ri l v'clnl.'v'N
' •
• . . . . . ..... -... - • . .
. .
• . _,.._ ... _,
_,._---... -... ...
•
• .
. ·- . • . -,, .. .
• - . '-,-~.-'-
•
. . ..
• •
• • ,
' • • : ... ,-,'. ,., • • -. . . . •
•
•
• • ~ .....
•
• •
. .
•
•
•
. . ·-.. : .. •
•
' •
.
•
. ,. _:
. .. .. . --.......
. .
•
• ,. -: .. . . .
•
••
. .
. .
•
Item 2B - Page 212
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 213
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 214
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 215
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!
Item 2B - Page 216
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 217
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.

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 218
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 219
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 220

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 221

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 222
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 223
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 224
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 225
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.

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 226
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 227
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 228
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 229
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 230
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 231
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 232
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 233
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.

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 234
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.

Boris Geiger
2701 E. Mesquite Ave DD159
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2B - Page 235
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.

Mary and John Godard
Phase Four
Mesquite Golf and Country Club
Item 2B - Page 236
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 237
Item 2B - Page 238
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 239
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 240
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 241
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 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.

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.

Item 2B - Page 242