Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1207 MINUTES tow PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - DECEMBER 7, 2004 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Memhers Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the November 16, 2004 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the November 16, 2004 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Ong V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell had no items to report for the November 18, 2004 City Council meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PATRICIA BELL, P-csident of ;he Indian Springs Homeowners Association, addressed the commission. She said she was to speak to the Planning Commission on this item as a hearing item, but they were informed at 4:45 p.m. that the hearing was canceled. Chairperson Jonathan explained that this was the time for items not on the agenda or non-public hearing items. Ms. Bell stated that as far as she was concerned, it had been taken off the agenda. i Chairperson Jonathan stated that the commission would hear her ., comments at the appropriate time and thanked her. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 04-22 - BRAVA DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND GERHARD BEFELD, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust Parcel "A" 30 feet to the north to facilitate the land plan for the Brava Development, TT 32420. B. Case No. PMW 04-23 - BERNARD DEBONNE, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots on Village Court to facilitate building construction. 2 moo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7 2004 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN advised the audience that Public Hearing Item F, Case No. PM 31862, Indian Springs Ltd., Applicant, when the Commission got to that item on the agenda in all likelihood, in part because of all the correspondence received and staff needed time to analyze those comments and respond and possibly modify its recommendation to the Planning Commission, in all likelihood it appeared that matter would in fact be continued to the second meeting in January, January 18, 2005. `w The matter was publicly noticed; therefore, public testimony would be heard if people chose to speak in spite of the fact that it would be continued, and anyone who wished to speak would have an opportunity to do so. The public hearing would be opened, however, it was likely the matter would be continued; therefor--, there wou!d be un opportunity for public testimony at the second meeting in January (January 18, 2005) and in that event there would be no decisions taking place tonight or discussion by the Planning Commission. He just wanted to advise those in the audience out of fairness, because he didn't want anyone waiting an hour, or two hours, or however long it took to get to that item and then have them finding out they were intending to continue the matter. He asked if the commission had any comments on that. There were no comments. A. Case No. PP 04-30 - DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council of approval of a precise plan of design for a 52,164 square foot warehouse/showroom building and height exception on Lot 35 of PM 23255, 73-550 Dinah Shore Drive. `. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Mr. Smith reviewed the salient points of the staff report, explaining that this matter was a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the requested height exception. He recommended approval, subject to the conditions of approval contained within the Draft Resolution. Commissioner Lopez asked about the condition regarding the sidewalk running along Dinah Shore. For another case on the agenda, the requirement called for a meandering sidewalk. On the plans, it appeared to just be a straight sidewalk along the curb. He asked for clarification. Mr. Joy believed the sidewalk would be installed as part of the subdivision itself. This was just another case where it would be installed by this project. On this type of street they were calling for a meandering sidewalk; not so much meandering, what they were trying to achieve was no so much the curve, but the gap between the sidewalk and the curb itself so there was a little bit of break for landscaping. Commissioner Lopez noted that the landscaping did have a bit of a meandering sidewalk, but the actual plan just had it straight and in the condition it didn't specify meandering, it just said eight-foot sidewalk. Mr. Joy thought he was talking about a curbside sidewalk and they could make sure it wasn't curbside and a little more decorative with a little more landscaping. He said they could add that condition in there. Commissioner Lopez suggested adding an Cight-foci meandering sidewalk meandering along Dinah Shore. Chairperson Jonathan stated that would be Public Works Condition No. 12 and they would just insert the word meandering. Commissioner Lopez concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that the driveway access on each end of the project was designed to be a future shared driveway access with the adjacent projects to the west and east. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BROCK GRAYSON, with Ware Malcolm Architects, informed commission that they were the architects of record for the project, said he was asked by Larry Bedrosian of Bedrosian Tile to 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7 2004 r.. represent him, and was present to answer any questions. He indicated that Mr. Bedrosian reviewed the conditions of approval and accepted all the conditions with the exception of two. The first was a clarification in the Coachella Valley Water District letter dated October 18, the third paragraph, in discussion of the drainage from this area to the Mid Valley Storm Water Project, it said the City shall require mitigation measures to be incorporated i^to the de` c!cpment to prevent flooding of this site or downstream properties. These measures shall include on-site retention of water from the 100-year storm, dedication of right-of- way for regional flood control facilities, or other participation in the financing of regional flood control facilities. He said it was the owner's understanding that flood control is handled throughout the park and they would be draining to that back area, so it wasn't on-site, but was within the business park. So it wasn't technically draining on-site. He just wanted that clarification. Mr. Smith stated that was what the channel on the north end of the property would serve. Mr. Grayson concurred. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think there was a formal condition of approval that required that. Mr. Grayson indicated that the second item he wanted to address was Public Works Condition No. 15. That addressed the depth of the throat of the two drive entrances into the project. Public Works asked them to provide a 75-foot throat to the drive entry. Their current site plan showed a 50-foot throat. He thought the 75 feet would make sure that cars didn't stack in the driveways. The owner of this property would have a dozen employees working there and anticipated no more than six to eight people there at anyone time in the showroom. They weren't anticipating a high traffic, usA in thiG hi iildincg, so he wanted to see if it was possible to have that 50-foot throat instead of 75 feet. A 75-foot throat 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 caused problems, because they would have to extend the landscape fingers and the radius around those fingers to create an "S" because they would have to go back down to the parking stalls adjacent to the street. Mr. Joy said this was discussed quite thoroughly between Public Works and Planning and they envisioned that this could be accomplished by extending those fingers a little bit. The applicant originally requested a 100-foot throat and they compromised with 75-feet. Mr. Drell stated that it was his understanding that originally these projects didn't have all shared driveways and when the design of the shared driveways came out, that was the design approved by the Public Works Department. He wasn't sure if this condition dated back before that redesign occurred. He recommended adding to the condition "or as approved by the City Engineer." They could work this out with the City Engineer. He thought the project had been redesigned after that condition was first developed and the shared design made that throat kind of difficult to achieve. 3 Mr. Grayson thought there was a discussion about the deceleration r„ lane that also came in after. He said they accepted putting in that deceleration lane and that might also accommodate any stacking that could occur on the site. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the language suggested by Mr. Drell would accommodate Mr. Grayson's requirements. He replied yes and said they were willing to work with staff to come to an agreement. Mr. Drell stated that if for some reason there was an impasse, the matter would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grayson concurred. Regarding the meandering sidewalk, it was their understanding that all that sidewalk is part of the off-street improvement plans and weren't typically part of their project. Mr. Drell said those sidewalks were being installed right now, probably by Mr. Noble. So that plan was already approved by Public Works. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Mr. Grayson noted that the architectural plan was inaccurate by showing the straight sidewalk. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the entire building would be occupied by Bedrosian Tile. Mr. Grayson said yes. Originally they anticipated having another tenant, but because the business was doing so well, he a.^.ticipster+ being the only occupant. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought it looked like a great project and moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Commissioner Finerty indicated that would include amendment to Public Works .. Condition No. 12 inserting the word "meandering"; and to Condition No.15 adding "or as approved by the City Engineer." Chairperson Jonathan asked if the motion reflected those amendments. Commissioners Campbell and Tschopp concurred. Chairperson Jonathan added that he really appreciated the creative decign. !t be on a very visible thoroughfare, Dinah Shore, and he thought they continued to set the bar for service industrial buildings at a standard that they wanted. He thanked the applicant and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2311 , recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-30, subject to conditions as amended (Public Works Condition Nos. 12 and 15). Motion carried 5-0. `r 7 MINUTES x PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 B. Case No. PP 04-16 - NEDRAC INC./DAVID C. CARDEN, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a 6,935 square foot industrial warehouse building located at 77-621 Enfield Lane. Mr. Bagato reviewed the salient points of the staff report, noting that this item was previously before the Commission on October 19, 2004. The Fire Marshal had concerns about fire access and building design which had been resolved by requiring the removal of a parking space and not allowing any future offices above Warehouse 1 and Warehouse 2. There was a proposed office above Warehouse 3 and that was acceptable to the Fire Marshal with the removal of that parking space. The architect indicated that was agreeable to the applicant. At ARC, he said the project came back the first time around and they flipped the office space so that the doors and windows would face Enfield Lane, providing more of a front and providing a wider and deeper glass window area with the new door and architectural eyebrows to match. After discussion on the height, the office was lowered to 21 feet, providing some architectural interest, and received ARC approval. Staff recommended approval of the project. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commigcinn Resolution No. 2312, approving Case No. PP 04-16, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. j 8 " MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7 2004 tow C. Case No. PP 04-28 - URRUTIA ARCHITECTS FOR STONECREST MARBLE & GRANITE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 43,446 square foot office/ warehouse complex on Lot 34 of PM 24255, 73-500 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report, noting that Buildings B and C would be processed through ARC at a later date, and recommended approval. Chairperson Jonathan asked if when Buildings B and C are processed through ARC, if the Planning Commission would see them. Mr. Smith said not necessarily; however, he had discussions with the applicant and they might be changing the concept for the front buildings and then it would come back to Commission as an amendment to this precise plan. Chairperson Jonathan asked if either way they could build in a request, �. either through a condition or just informally, so if nothing else the Planning Commission could see them. He asked if that was something staff could accommodate. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Jonathan gpened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. FRANK URRUTIA, Urrutia Architects, addressed the commission. He stated that he went through the conditions of approval and there were a couple he wanted to discuss. The first condition was Fire Department Condition No. 13 on page 7 requiring a second access. He was puzzled by it. They have access all around the site, so he wasn't sure what they were referring to. Mr. Drell asked for confirmation that there are two driveways. Mr. Urrutia concurred that they have two driveways, so he wanted that condition deleted. i.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 two Chairperson Jonathan noted that the condition said this could be accomplished by having two main access points to a main roadway. It appeared they did have that. Mr. Drell said they were in compliance with that condition. Mr. Urrutia concurred. Mr. Drell didn't t`link it ^ceded to be deleted. They were in compliance. Mr. Urrutia said the last question he had was the same as their neighboring project (Public Hearing Item A, Bedrosian Tile). It had to do with the CVWD comment about on-site retention. They had the same question. They were utilizing the drainage channel to the north for all of their site drainage. Chairperson Jonathan thought it was the same answer; it wasn't applicable to this project. Mr. Urrutia said all the other conditions didn't seem to be a �. problem and asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Urrutia anticipated that the front two buildings •,r✓ould tak;; or, the some architectural integrity as Building A. He said they would be definitely be complementary and similar. They hadn't yet determined what type of occupant would be in these buildings. They were thinking they might join the two buildings into one, but they had no problem with coming back and presenting that solution to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. BATTALION CHIEF DAVID AVILA, the City's Fire Marshal, addressed the commission. With respect to the second access, he asked the applicant if both of the access points would be available when the first building was completed. And if so, they could delete that as a condition. That was the question. He noted that 10 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7 2004 the condition read that this could be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or emergency gate from an adjoining development. If in fact that was going to be installed at the completion of the first building, that was a non-issue. Mr. Urrutia said yes, very definitely both accesses off of Dinah Shore would be done at the same time because they needed the access for vehicle access to the back of the building. Chairperson Jonathan thought they should leave Condition No. 13 in there, recognizing that it is met by the current design. Mr. Urrutia agreed. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the commission regarding this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval. She thought the two buildings would complement each other and with Mr. Urrutia, there were no questions on his buildings. Commissioner Finerty concurred and seconded the motion, noting that Buildings B and C would be coming back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. He thought it was a gorgeous looking building and the samples that were passed to the Commission were quite attractive. He congratulated them on a great building. Commissioner Tschopp added that when seeing these elevations and plans coming before them, they had to remind themselves that this is an industrial area. A lot of cities would give a lot to have these in their main downtown. He thought it was very beautiful and very nicely done. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the motion and second was with the inclusion of Fire Department Condition No. 13, recognizing that the project was in compliance with those two access points. He added his compliments. He said he has yet to be disappointed by a Frank Urrutia design. He thanked him for being so creative and for adding to the beauty �'" 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 of our city. He also concurred with Commission Tschopp. When they set the bar this high for service industrial zone, it elevated the bar for everything else. It had a very positive ripple effect. He then called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2313, approving Case No. PP 04-28, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. TT 30795 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 20.44 acres into 108 single-family lots (4,750 square foot minimum lot size) and one 2.52-acre parcel for 26 senior citizen one-story apartments. The project site is located north of Merle Drive, south of Avenue 42, and west of Hovley Gardens Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the salient points of the staff report, noting changes to the setbacks in Department of Community Development Condition No. 12: Front Setbacks from garages to front property lines located at rear of wedge-shaped concrete curb would be changed from 26 feet 6 inches to 25 feet 0 inches; and Rear Setbacks would be changed from 15 feet 6 inches to 20 feet 0 inches from the living area. He explained that the objective in allowing reduced front yard setbacks was to create larger, more usable rear yards. Mr. Urbina recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions as amended. Chairperson Jonathan noted that in the staff report it was indicated that in 2003 an ad hoc committee of the City's housing commission met and recommended that the master plan of development be amended to allow 108 single family homes and 26 one-story senior citizen apartments. He 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7 2004 asked if that was in place of something else that was previously approved. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Previously there were 117 single family homes. The ad hoc committee, which included two council members, felt there was a need to provide affordable rental housing to seniors; therefore, they allocated the two and a half acres at the westerly end of the site for 26 senior citizen apartments. For the 108 single family homes and thic 26 one-story senior citizen apartments, Chairperson Jonathan asked which of the components listed above they replaced. Mr. Urbina said B, 117 single family homes. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that both the 108 single family homes and the 26 one-story senior citizen apartments replaced the 117 single family homes and nothing else. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that component would require full Council approval, since it is the master plan of development. Mr. Urbina said this tentative tract map effectively amended that master plan of development. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that required separate Council approval. Mr. Drell said he didn't believe so. They would be reviewing it in their capacity as the Housing Authority and to a certain degree, this was their project. He said they could also call it up. Chairperson Jonathan opened the pubko hoari;g and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID YRIGOYEN, Director of Redevelopment and Housing for the City of Palm Desert, informed commission that they have been working on the project for a long time and were present to answer any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were comments on what had been presented and if he was comfortable with the conditions of approval. Mr. Yrigoyen explained that it has been through various committees and commissions and this was the outcome they were all happy with. '�"" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. ROBERT P. DEVER, 74-564 Azurite, said his property was the lot at the end. His question was where the eight-foot wall/fence would go. It was up in the air and he received all kinds of stories that it would be in the center of Rebecca, which was an old access road which was not going to be completed and it would be open area. He got the impression that it would be like the grand canyon in the middle between the new development and his property. Mr. Urbina explained that the perimeter wall would be built on the westerly property line, which would be at about the center of the half cul-de-sac for Rebecca. Mr. Drell said that right now there is a 10 to 15- foot no man's land that is outside the wall at Portola Country Club. The City owns the right-of-way for that half cul-de-sac of Rebecca, which is inside Portola Country Club. It was his understanding that there would be a trade. The City would vacate that half cul-de-sac to the park and the park could utilize it any way they decide. In exchange for that, the strip of land would be given to the project and, therefore, the question was how that wall related to Mr. Dever's property. What happens to that real estate or how that real Estate is used that the City is giving back to the park would be a discussion between Mr. Dever and the Homeowner's Association. He didn't know if they wanted to put in a community garden or what their plans were for it. Mr. Dever said he would be looking down at an eight-foot wall. From his level it was pretty low. That was pretty deep there. From his property line to the new development line, it would probably be four to five feet below the property line, so it wasn't practical to put an eight-foot wall in a canyon. He would like it on his property line. Mr. Drell said unfortunately, that property would be owned by Mr. Dever's association. There was interest by the Association to gain control and acquire title tc the city right-of-way and perhaps they wanted to give 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7 2004 `r• Mr. Dever that property. There was probably 20 to 30 feet of open ground. Mr. Dever said that would add 1 ,850 square feet to him. As long as he could close that wall off, he would like that. Mr. Drell said that as far as the City was concerned, he could. Our wall would be on our property line. He believed that last spot would be a CVWD well site, so there wouldn't be a house there. How that real estate is dealt with between the well site and the homes would be a discussion between the park homeowner's association and those property owners because it was their property. Mr. Dever reiterated that he would have to deal with Portola and see what could be negotiated. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Dever would have to see what their plans are for that real estate. Right now it was broken up asphalt. �.r Mr. Dever said there was a barbed wire fence, which was fine, but there were some terrible trees. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that all we could answer tonight was what the applicant was doing on their property. The rest would be between Mr. Dever and Portola Country Club. Mr. Dever thanked Commission. There was no other public testimony and Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp thought this project would meet an unmet need of the community and was in favor of the project as presented. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was pleased with the quality. She really liked the colors presented to the Commission and thought that Ms. Hansen did an exce;lent job. "` 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Commissioner Campbell concurred. She liked the architecture and coloring. Like Desert Rose, this would also be a beautiful project. Commissioner Lopez agreed. He said it would be nice to see that section of land right in the middle of residential filled in and occupied. He concurred and was in support. Chairperson Jonathan also concurred and added that this project would strike a nice balance between the need for affordable housing and the need for aesthetic quality, circulation, appropriate location, etc. He thought it was a job well done. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2314, approving Case No. TT 30795, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried V0 5-0. E. Case No. PP 04-23 - JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council of approval of a precise plan of design for a community center facility on an 8.5-acre site at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Julie Lane, 1600 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith clarified that Julie Lane until three weeks ago was known as Shepherd Lane. The northerly extension that runs east-west from Portola to Shepherd Lane was renamed to Julie Lane. He highlighted the salient points of the staff report, emphasizing the height exception being requested for the gym and "welcome" parapet. Architectural review commission felt it ccG!d be reduced by four or five feet, still be visible, and not have quite the impact it would otherwise. He stated that matter 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 would be considered by the City Council in that this was a recommendation the Commission would be making to them if Commission chose to weigh in on which direction Council should go. ARC also had concern relative to the color scheme proposed by the applicant and chose to be involved in the color that ends up being used by meeting at the site when the color was applied. In conclusion, Mr. Smith recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City council approval of Case No. PP 04-23 and asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Smith envisioned in the future a stop light at the corner of Julie Lane and Portola. Mr. Smith deferred to Public Works. Mr. Drell said he believed it would be signalized. Julie Lane aligns with the spine road which runs through University Village, so it was his understanding there would be a signal there. Commissioner Tschopp asked for and received confirmation that that should alleviate problems of people going in and out and during special events and high traffic times. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the current recommendation from staff for the 30-foot high welcome wall was to be modified pursuant to the ARC recommendation of 25 or 26 feet. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Smith mentioned in his report that Public Works Condition No. 15 limited the use of the driveway to emergency personnel, but that the Commission could allow its use associated with special events, yet still require the access to be gated. Mr. Smith said yes, for the service area at the southeast corner. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was also an emergency access on the west. Mr. Smith stated that would be emergency access only. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was staff's suggestion, to only allow the use for special events and keeping it gated. He asked if that was something staff felt could work. Mr. Smith said yes, staff felt it could work. It could conceivably become an enforcement issue, but management could lock it and cooperate. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would be accomplished by modifying public ..�c��� Condition �!o. 13. Mr. Smith said yes and Community/ Development conditions would implement it with the Commission's r' 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 indication that it was their wish for the applicant to be able to use it for special events, plus emergency access. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. Mr. Smith indicated in the staff report on the south limit of Phase 1 that there would be a temporary six-foot chain link fence. He asked staff to point out where that would be located. Mr. Smith did so, explaining that it tucks up onto the six-foot split face wall. Commissioner Lopez asked if it would be seen from a major artery. Mr. Smith said it would not be seen. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was also a condition in the event that for any reason Phase 2 didn't begin construction within five years. Mr. Smith said the fence would then be converted to an approved fencing material, such as masonry, slump stone, wrought iron, etc. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. t MR. RON GOLDMAN, the Architect, 24-955 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, addressed the Commission. Regarding the design of the project, he stated that they are quite excited about the plan in front of the Commission. They felt both the first and second phases were making a positive statement in both tho larger community, as well as in the new surrounding neighborhood. They intentionally designed this as an open campus plan in order to create an environment that is welcoming, stimulating, colorful and a lot of fun in contrast to a series of what could have been larger institutional buildings within long interior corridors. They chose buildings that turn into courtyard walls that have passageways that create a sense of discovery on the site. Yet at the same time there was a clarity about the plan with its three distinct villages or neighborhoods that are connected by the shaded walkways and passages. As well, there was a clarity and simplicity to the circulation and the parking system. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 V In creating the three clusters instead of buildings, they wanted to be more organic and really have it grow out of the desert. A diagonal entrance, which they could start to see on the plans, with its tower which historically would mark the entrance to the city, would focus on the views of the San Jacinto Mountains and lead them to the central square inside the project. The second story walkways and patio would further reinforce the building character. In terms of the parking, all the parking areas would be accessible from Julie Lane. The simple loop circulation would be easy for the public to understand and the evening auditorium access would be located away from the residential. The parking near Portola would be screened with a higher curved wall. The balance of the parking areas would be broken down with screened walls that would be periodically placed within the parking area along with groves of varying landscape. In terms of the landscape, both the climate and latitude were very similar to Eastern Mediterranean environments. The landscape would include biblical gardens and incorporate most of the materials from the Garden of the Seven Species: olive trees, acacias, fig trees, pomegranates, vines, and date palms. He noted that Ron Gragory, their lay idscape arc iter tt, vias present to answer any questions in that regard. Some of the facts not mentioned in the report, in terms of the site coverage, were the ratio of the building to site area which was 20%, the ratio to parking to overall site area was 30%, and the ratio of open space including landscaped and paved walkways was 50%. One-story buildings on the site represented 80% of the building footprint, or 60% if they consider that the higher roof areas of the gym and auditorium are really two-story elements. One and two story heights vary from 11 feet to 22.5 feet with two exceptions. The gym reaches a high point of 27 feet, but it really starts at 22 feet and it's a barrel vault with only the ridge being at the 27-feet height. He thc::-ht the n:�hibits on display showed the area in excess of the height limit, which was a �.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 relatively smaller portion of the total roof area. The welcome tower was at 30 feet, which he would further address. He said they also feel they minimized the grading on the site. They have 3,000 cubic yards of export on Phase 1 and 9,000 yards in Phase 2. That meant they were moving an average of only eight inches over the entire site. In terms of the staff report, they were in agreement with all the conditions with one exception and one clarification. Condition No. 2 stated that the project shall commence within one year. He said they would request that it be extended to two years. Condition No. 12 asks for the full improvement of Shepherd Lane and they asked that it be clarified to require the full improvement of Julie Lane to the north in Phase 1 and the balance of Shepherd Lane on the west when Phase 2 commences as they aren't building out to Shepherd Lane in Phase 1 . In case the Commission wanted to take a position on the height of the welcome tower, they felt this tower was symbolic to marking the entrance to the community campus. Historically, a tower always marked the entrance to a city or village. He had a slightly different recollection of the sequence of events that happened with the ARC. Subsequent to their meeting with the ARC, he prepared diagrams which he didn't believe they had the privilege of seeing, but it came out of that meeting and he didn't know if they would show up clearly on the display. They prepared diagrams which showed a 30-foot height and this would only be seen from Portola heading northbound with the foreground buildings blocking even the 30-foot height when heading southbound. That was because the tower was set some 80 feet back from the edge of the easterly building face. A reduction to 24 feet would make this tower much less visible. He said it was really in the middle of the site. Following the ARC meeting, they took three different sections through the tower and the edge of Portola. One from the corner of i 20 r"'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Julie Lane and Portola off to the upper left; one where they would be headed northbound on Portola; and one just directly perpendicular to Portola. He said the sections were based on the 30-foot height. He said the top section which was taken perpendicular from Portola was taken from a six-foot person walking on the sidewalk and they could see the 78-foot setback of the structure from the face of the building. From the pedestrian sidewalk, it was blocked totally by the building. Probably from a car heading northbound a person would see the top of the tower only. The middle section was taken from the intersection of Julie Lane and Portola and there they did have a fairly good, unobstructed view of that 30-foot tower. The bottom section was shown from the upper part of the site where someone would be walking northbound on Portola and they could see the building in front of the tower virtually obscured the tower even at 30 feet. He said it would be nice to keep that accent and nice in the sense that the building right across the entrance was 24 feet, the multipurpose auditorium, and to lower those two elements to the same height would lose something. He said he wanted to talk about the burdens and benefits of this project. He wanted to discuss what they see as substantially minimized burdens, while they have provided substantive benefits. In this regard, they invited the surrounding neighborhood to an evening meeting at the nearby Marriott Courtyard. Only one couple showed up and they were quite enthusiastic. He thought the primary burden would be traffic and circulation and they felt the impact had been minimized by providing two entrances on Julie Lane, by restricting Shepherd Lane to emergency only, by having a very simple on-site circulation, by providing substantial school stacking space all along the site, and locating the evening auditorium activity to the north end of the site away from the single family area. The second burden could be noise. Again, the bulk of the activity was away from the housing `OF 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 with the open space primarily on the south and east sides toward the housing. There would be no playground lighting or activity on the south and west sides in the evening. And they lowered that southerly playground three feet and provided three feet from the adjacent neighbors, 12 feet of landscaped buffer, and a property line wall would provide further separation. Another burden would be night lighting, but the playground areas would not have night lighting. The lighting would only be in the parking lot areas and would be indirect, down lighting and buffered by mature trees. A fourth burden might be drainage. In this case the entire site slopes away from the residential to the south and the west. The south playground would provide one retention area and the north parking lot would have a pervious concrete surfacing which would absorb the bulk of the storm water. In addition to minimizing those burdens, they were providing substantial benefits. The first would be location of a community center that is on the peripheral of this new neighborhood, not in the center, but on the peripheral and works as a buffer to Portola. This is a new neighborhood with primarily young families and in effect it is within easy interactive distance, although serving as a periphery and as a buffer to the neighborhood. Secondly, the membership of the center is open to the entire community. Thirdly, the activities and programs afford benefit for the entire family. There's dance, there's art, music, computers, drama, libraries, games, senior-used lounges, day care, play- grounds, etc. Finally, the buildings and parking are on the north and east sides away from the existing housing with the open spacing on the south and west sides near the housing. So they felt there were substantial benefits that really minimize the burdens this project would bring to the area. He thanked the Commission for their attention. 22 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 v Commissioner Campbell asked how many children would be attending the preschool, day school, classroom, day care and kinder-gym on a daily basis. Mr. Goldman said there was a maximum capacity of 160. Commissioner Campbell said that would be daily and asked if that would be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or difforent times. Mr. Goldman said the preschool hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. only because it would include day care. The day school would run from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He corrected that and said the number of preschool classrooms and day school classrooms, they were on different sessions and conceivable there could be 300 students at different times. Between day school and preschool. (Someone from the audience corrected that statement and said that the total would be 160 maximum.) Regarding the chain link fence, Commissioner Lopez asked if Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be five years apart, or if there was a proposed time line for Phase 2 to take place. Mr. Goldman said if you build it they will come. He mentioned that this wasn't just a chain link fence. They would be planting vines on the fence and his guess was whether in three years or five years, this would be a very attractive fence that would be removed in five years, but they probably wouldn't see it in five years. Commissioner Lopez said he was more interested in the time line for development. Mr. Goldman suspected that the need and the interest was there, but at this time it was putting their foot into the water initially. Regarding Community Development Condition No. 2, Chairperson Jonathan explained that the one-year requirement was pretty standard, as were the extensions ,^,her rcquested, so that wasn't something to be too concerned about. The staff report included a condition that the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 applicant obtain approval from the City Council for the height exception for the gym building and welcome tower, so what they were being asked to do was make a recommendation to Council, which they might or might not want to weigh in on, but the Council would be the final arbiter on that particular issue. Finally, on Condition No. 12 under Department of Public Works, he asked for clarification on what Mr. Goldman was requesting. Mr. Goldman explained that in Phase 1 the extent of development would not reach Shepherd Lane. It would stop approximately 200 feet from Shepherd Lane, so there would be stabilized sand in that stretch of Shepherd Lane until Phase 2 was built. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was okay with that from a circulation standpoint. That meant there would only be access from Portola. Mr. Goldman clarified that there were two points of access in Phase 1 on Julie Lane. Julie Lane would extend to the intersection with Shepherd Lane and they were requesting that the leg of Shepherd Lane to the south be deferred to Phase 2. It was in Phase 2 that the building on the westerly side of the site would proceed and the parking lot and entrance off Shepherd Lane would proceed in Phase 2. Mr. Drell said the problem was that there was no assurance that Phase 2 would ever occur. The City couldn't force them to proceed with Phase 2, so for the foreseeable future there would only be half of the street completed. At some time certain he thought they needed to see Shepherd Lane completed and it couldn't be deferred to Phase 2 unless they were willing to commit to a time certain to build it. Chairperson Jonathan summarized that as far as Julie Lane, that would be developed as part of Phase 1 . So they were talking about the remainder of Shepherd Lane and it was just the half section that fronts the project. Staff is requiring that the half street section be improved in full until it meets up with Julie Lane as part of Phase 1 . 24 "' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Mr. Goldman said it wasn't clear as a condition. There wasn't a timetable set on that condition, so they wanted to clarify it as to part of it proceeding in Phase 1 and the balance in Phase 2. They were doing this because they were only building 15,000 feet in Phase 1 , which was about 16% of the total project, and with the other economic burdens of Portola improvements, Julie Lane improvements and the landscape buffer on the south side of the property as well, all the peripheral improvements and fees was an undue burden for 15,000 feet of development. Chairperson Jonathan understood what Mr. Goldman was saying and also understood what staff was requesting, but he thought the Fire Marshal might have an issue with that in terms of access and circulation. Regarding the welcome tower, Commissioner Lopez asked what would be on the side of that tower. Mr. Goldman explained that on the tower in the plaster would be ` W cut out Hebrew letters which say Shalom, which means welcome, peace, hello, goodbye--numerous meanings. Commissioner Lopez asked if the tower would be lit at night with indirect lighting or up lighting. Mr. Goldman said yes, from inside. The tower, that section inside, is a parapet and he thought it would be effective to have soft lighting inside just to silhouette the lighting. It wouldn't be lit on the outside. Because the sun was moving south and westerly in that area during the day, it would be coming through and even the possibility of putting up plastic letters to create a slight tone to the light could be effective. Commissioner Tschopp noted that based on the city's experience with schools, the community and other religious facilities that grow up over time, whether 10 years, 20 or 30 years, at some point in time there seemed to be problems with traffic and parking with the surrounding neighborhoods. He asked if a condition of approval was plarPd here that said they would work in the future with the City to mitigate any traffic "� 25 MINUTES 3 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 and parking problems that might impact the surrounding neighborhoods, he asked if that would be acceptable. Mr. Goldman said yes. Commissioner Tschopp thought they did a much better job than the school districts and complimented them, but in other areas knew how overfill parking could spill into the ieiyrborhood and impact them. That's why he was asking. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no one. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION and noted that he had a Request to Speak Card from Matt Gerhardt. MR. MATT GERHARDT, a resident of 35 Overland Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he has had the opportunity to work with staff several times and they did a phenomenal job. He said Phil and his staff did a great job and have always done over and beyond what other cities do. Palm Desert , has a great reputation. He said he wasn't opposed to the project. He and his partner own property just to the west which they would be developing and living in. So he wasn't opposed to the development, he just had a few concerns. He concurred with the conditions of approval. They wrote a letter addressing those concerns, his partner did, and he thought they addressed every single one. He was concerned about item #22 regarding height. He saw all the diagrams showing the height and if a person was standing on Portola and all of that, but he was concerned about the residents. They live out there in a phenomenal area with panoramic views and it was beautiful. He thought if they could keep the tower and gym height down, there are height restrictions for the residences out there so that everyone can enjoy the view. And whether a community center or a house, he thought they should be kept to the same guidelines for the same reasons. The guidelines were there to have the unobstructed views as much as possible and 24 feet was plenty out there, especially if they were talking about lighting it. They 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 have strict guidelines on street lighting so that people can enjoy the stars and see the tram light and he wouldn't want to look toward the Painted Hills and see a lit tower. And that was kind of what they would be looking at. He indicated the applicant addressed that it was 80 feet off of Portola so it wouldn't necessarily be seen while driving down Puttoia, but wi,eii driving down Portola, he wasn't looking at the mountains. It was great to be able to see them, but the main concern was the residents around the area. He appreciated them thinking about the residents out there because he would be one. This was their only opportunity to address that and he thought it would be sad if they have some obstruction. His other concern was sound. The noise. One commissioner brought up the question of how many kids could be there and the answer was 160 children. He loved children, they're awesome, but there were some negative benefits living next to a school. As lot prices continue to go up, people are looking for more for their money. Living next to a school was not a benefit for a lot of people because of the sound. This wasn't a full elementary school and he understood that, but he asked what type of sound there wc,u;d be: recess bells or any type of loud speaker. Something for Public Works was when Julie Lane is finished, he asked if there would be a turning lane. Right now there was just a two-lane road, but he imagined that eventually it would be finished out with an actual turning lane. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Joy asked if he was referring to the eastbound Julie Lane going onto Portola. Mr. Gerhardt said Julie Lane that connects to Shepherd, between Shepherd and Portola, so eventually there would be a stop light there. But if it was two lanes there right now and there are 160 ch;Ic'rcn -,cssib!y being dropped off ;n the morning, he would hate to live on the other side of that and try to get by there or out of '�"" 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 i there in the morning without a turning lane into it. For example, a turning lane onto Portola or a turning lane into the community center. Mr. Joy asked if he was asking for a right-turn only lane from Julie Lane into the project. Mr. Gerhardt said that right now there are two lanes going east and west. He asked if there would be a center lane for turning. Mr. Joy said yes, he believed there would. Mr. Gerhardt said that would be one of his concerns. For all the people and families planning to take their kids there, that would be one of the concerns he would like to have addressed. Again, the school, from what he could see, was on the west side and the only buffer zone was the parking lot, so sound and sight were concerns. He appreciated their time and asked for them to address that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant would like to readdress the commission. Regarding height, Mr. Goldman mentioned that the gym at the peripheral on both ends of the gym was 22 feet and it was just the center that peaked at 27 feet. He also mentioned that from the residential property at the southwest corner of the site, the site falls off 14 feet to the northeast corner. So a 27-foot high gym was probably already down relative to the grade of the adjacent residential five feet plus or minus in that sense, so it really went down from 27 to 22 feet effectively, relative to adjacent housing that was that much higher. There was also a practical part of the gym. They weren't making the gym any bigger than it need be, but for volleyball, they needed a structure to support a span over a basketball court. That structure needed to be a minimum of three or four feet in depth. Then it wasn't so much the basketball in the center of the gym 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 *MV that presented the problem, but volleyball definitely presented a problem. They have done a number of gyms and it wasn't an excessive height at 24 feet inside. In terms of seeing the tower, the tower was also buffered by a two-story building to the east. It was in the center of the site and with the fall of the property and the buildings that were probably 200 feet westerly of that tower, chances are he didn't think they would see the tower. But he would be glad to draw a cross section in that direction as well. Relative to noise, the preschool playground was within the building perimeter. There was relatively little noise generated from a drop off and pick up. They would get some children yelling and so forth, but there was no real activity. The noise was generated from the playground and the playground was buffered by a two-story building on three sides of it. The play fields to the south of the property could generate noise. It was during the day and wasn't in the evening. He said it was a community asset. Anyone in this community could make use of these playgrounds and he saw that as much of a benefit then any detriment. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that there would be no b--I!c or amplification systems. Mr. Goldman said there could be an amplification system, but they are so advanced these days that they could control them. They wouldn't have one system blaring out over the entire area. They could have a series of small speakers, a speaker every 20 feet could be provided and could be kept at a very low volume. Chairperson Jonathan explained that amplification typically wasn't allowed. Mr. Goldman said whatever was allowed would be acceptable. In terms of the circulation and egress, if he was a neighbor living in e surrounding residential neighborhood and leaving during the school drop off or pick up time, chances were most of these tow 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 families also have children. He thought that many of the children might go to this school and, therefore, would be walking. If they weren't, yes, they would be leaving at the same time. But right now they are all leaving by way of the alternative circulation system heading south, so it wasn't like they were in a dead-end cul-de-sac. They have an option if it was in fact an issue. He thanked the Commission. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty said she appreciated everything the applicant had done, trying to take into consideration the houses nearby. However, with regard to the height issues, she believed that because this was predominantly in a residential area with houses on both sides and if a developer was to come in, they would be limited to 24 feet for two stories. Therefore, she believed the same should apply for anything going into this particular area and that there should be no height exception for either the gym or the tower. She would like to see it at 24 feet. She also had concerns if Phase 1 would be able to function as a stand alone project. She was hearing much uncertainty about Phase 2, acknowledging that it's a!ready at least five years away. Which led her to Public Works Condition No. 12. It needed to stay tied to Phase 1 because of this uncertainty. She shared ARC's concern with the color palette. It was certainly something they weren't used to seeing and she wasn't sure how that would blend in as far as being in a residential neighborhood. She thought that all of the services they were planning to have for the community were commendable, but right now she was beginning to question if this type of building being requesting with the height exceptions and with the unusual color palette was really appropriate in a residential area. Commissioner Campbell thought they might know how she felt about the project from her comments in 2001 when it was before the Planning 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 lrrr Commission. She didn't think this facility should be in that location surrounded by residential. Regarding the preschool and 160 children, 160 children do make a lot of noise in an open area like that. Even though those homes may have children that go to school, there are people who are retired who do not like to have the noise when they are going to be relaxing at home or trying to open their windows for fresh air and hear children. If they wanted to live by a school, they move by a school for their children; otherwise, sorne people do not like to have the noise around them. She also concurred with Commissioner Finerty regarding the height of the tower. She hadn't even thought about having a lit tower, but she did agree with Mr. Gerhardt regarding those people living there. Again, everything is dark, there is special lighting, and if they were sitting out in their patio looking at the mountains and there shouldn't be a light shining at them. She was opposed to having this facility in the middle of a residential area. With all the beautiful buildings they approved today, that would be a perfect location. Commissioner Tschopp believed this was an appropriate area for a development like this in that schools, churches, temples, synagogues, and boys and girls clubs typically locate in residential areas so they can better serve the people living around it. So he didn't have a problem with the location. He thought the architect had taken a good look at how to help and handle some of the parking elements. Regarding the color palette, it was hard for him to visualize, but he thought ARC was handling it in the appropriate manner by saying they will monitor it throughout the construction phase and would ask for modification, if necessary. He thought the tower element was a little too high. The gymnasium serves a function and sometimes it is a necessity to increase the height. But for just an architectural type of element in a residential neighborhood, he thought it was probably inappropriate and needed to be brought down somewhat. %MW 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 ri But other than that, he thought it was a good development, in a good location, and could be an asset to the community. Commissioner Lopez said in many cases he concurred with Commissioner Tschopp. He, too, thought that schools and recreational facilities and parks have a great benefit to a community and belong within walking distance for at least the ability for children and adults to take advantage of the facility itself. So he thought the location was appropriate. The concerns and questions he had regarding accessibility, flow and open space were mitigated and thought overall the project provided a very interesting campus type of atmosphere with a lot of open space to it. But the tower element in this particular location was out of place at that particular height. He thought the purpose and message could still be successfully communicated by lowering the tower to an appropriate level that would at least blend into the community in a much better situation than a 30-foot high tower. He thought 24 feet would probably be the right height. The gymnasium would be a challenge because of the need for the interior space, but there were ways of mitigating that particular problem. Overall he thought the project was a good addition to the community itself and ARC took the right direction regarding the exterior colors and he thought overall it should be a nice addition. He was in favor of the project. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. The colors didn't concern him. ARC weighed in on that and would work with the applicant and he had faith in ARC. He thought the location could not be more ideal. They have and want churches, schools, and recreational facilities to be in residential neighborhoods so they could serve those they are intended to serve. In addition, this particular location provides a wonderful buffer to the residential neighborhood age;nst t►,- heavy, noisy traffic along Portola. And finally with regard to the location, he thought one of the best things 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 the applicant had done for the neighborhood was put the neighborhood on notice back in 2001 by obtaining a conditional use permit for this project. So it wasn't a surprise to anyone that this was coming on line. So the location to him was not only acceptable, it was ideal. In terms of the height exception, he was in favor of the exception for the gym because he thought it was mitigated by the slope. He thought ultimately the height of the gym was no higher than a home would be had the slope not been created, the downward slope. The tower he could personally live with. Every time he goes home he looks at a lit cross up above him and that didn't bother him. He thought it was very nice, actually. So if he has to drive down Portola and see the word peace, that certainly didn't bother him either. However, if that was a concern to the Council or the residential neighborhood, he was very confident that some level of creativity could be applied by the designers to come up with the same statement, but with less height. So he would leave that to the Council. wrr He thought they needed to add a prohibition with regard to bells and amplification. He didn't see that as a condition and didn't want that misunderstood. He thought that was important to the neighborhood that they not have amplification, bells or that kind of noise. Finally, Public Works Condition No. 15 provided for an access driveway on Portola to be gated and used for official emergency vehicles only. He thought they could add that the access could be made available for loading and unloading purposes, or a different wording. Mr. Smith thought Condition No. 16 of the Planning Department would become the operative condition, which would allow it for special event setup also (on the bottom of page 4). So it was in there and they were indicating a preference that they would defer to Condition 16 versus Public Works Condition 15. In conclusion, Chairperson Jonathan was in favor of the project and believed and hoped that the project represents a wonderful resource for 'A"' 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 the neighborhood that should enhance the values of the surrounding homes. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2315, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-23, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voted no). Mr. Smith asked for clarification that the motion included the condition relative to the prohibition of amplified sound and bells. Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioners Lopez and Tschopp concurred. F. Case No. PM 31862 - INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map to establish a one-lot subdivision with a condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007). Chairperson Jonathan asked for a staff report, reiterating that it is the expectation that this matter would be continued. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission received copies of the tentative map in their packets which showed the proposed lotting which was for a one-lot subdivision with a condominium overlay for the existing 191-space mobile home park. The project is located on the west side of Highway 74 at 49-305 Highway 74, and the property is a 34.7-acre property which was established in 1970. He explained that the applicant seeks to change the ownership structure from a rental mobile home park to single-family manufactured housing 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 condominium units. He stated that the proposed map would not alter the existing 191-unit density or impact on the physical appearance of the park. There would be no displacement of tenants or residents. Residents would be able to choose to buy their condominium unit or continue to rent their space. Government Code Section 66427.5, a copy of which was attached to the staff report, prescribed the criteria to be considered in reviewing the application. That was outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the report. And on page 4 staff showed how each of those issues had been addressed. He stated that the City was quite limited by the applicable government code as to the issues it may consider as part of its review of the map. He said the City Attorney might wish to comment on some of the issues, but basically, in the last day or so staff received a couple of pieces of correspondence from Mr. Close of Gilchrist & Rutter, an attorney for the applicant, questioning the appropriateness of certain conditions included in the report. He believed the City Attorney was requesting additional time to review certain portions of that information. It was Mr. Smith's understanding that a continuance to January 18, 2005, was being requested in order to accomplish that. He concluded by asking if the Comimission had any questions. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there were a couple of conditions of approval being recommended by Mr. Greenwood. Mr. Smith concurred and thanked Chairperson Jonathan for the opportunity to comment. He explained that was received just recently from the Department of Public Works and it was seeking the street deceleration lane and he was sure Mr. Close might wish to comment on that also, but it was there for the Commission's consideration. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing. He reminded those present that if they wished to speak, they had a right to do that. In the event that the matter was continued, there would be further opportunity to address the Planning Commission. That would be at the continued meet;^;, •4,'ch in ?!I like!ihood wou!d he the second meeting in January, January 18, 2005. He explained that the procedure was to ask the taw 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 applicant to address the Commission first, then to take testimony in favor of the project, take testimony in opposition to the project, and then to give the applicant an opportunity to address the comments that have been made and then close the public hearing or continue the public hearing. In addition to that, he requested all those addressing the Planning Commission to make their comments in five minutes or less and to avoid being repetitive other than to say they endorse earlier comments. With that, he asked the applicant if they wished to address the Commission. MS. SUE LOFTIN, an Attorney representing the applicant, 433 C La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego, 92122, stated that they would be requesting to reserve time to respond on the 18th or to whenever it was continued. But for this evening, she would limit her comments to just the issues they have outstanding. She thanked staff and the City Attorney's office for their cooperation and work on the project. She was hopeful they would be able to resolve these issues. She said this was a request for a one-lot subdivision and approval of the Tenant Impact Report. Both acts were greatly restricted because of the nature of the subdivision. It wasn't like some of the things they had seen earlier this evening, which was new construction. This wasn't even like a conversion of an apartment building. Mobile home parks have their very own laws, because it is such a different and peculiar type of housing environment. For example, the Tenant Impact Report incorporates, as required by law, the state-mandated rent control provisions to protect the residents who select not to buy. It's the only instance in the state where there are those types of protections. Having said that, she wanted to cover briefly their comments that came in writing, and as such, would be requesting that they be incorporated into the record for tonight's public hearing: the two letters from Richard Close of Gilchrist & Rutter, and the correspondence from Anne .James, President of James & 36 ""� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Associates, regarding the septic system, and the correspondence from Larry Owens regarding the septic system. Condition No. 3 from the Department of Community Development, they were requesting that the last sentence be deleted. The sentence reads, "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." The statute provides very specific means of establishing market rents and what can be charged. Fcr example, attached to their Tenant Impact Report was the schedule of rent increases that would be the maximum rent increases that could be imposed upon a low income household and that was a matter of a calculation, as opposed to really having anything to do with the City's rent review process. The market rents by statute had to be established by an MAI appraiser. Again, 66427.5 specified and restricted how those rents could be established. With regard to Condition No. 5 and the request to put in a sewer system, 66428.1 did not allow for any onsite improvements i.r unless those were imposed in response to a state Title 25 inspection which is separate and apart from this process. She said the septic system that is existing is in good working order and condition, has never been cited for polluting in any manner whatsoever. She informed Commission thot .Mr. 0%vens :v;th Tri- Star Construction was going to speak to the issue in a moment. Further, she said the Commission was restricted to mitigating an existing health and safety condition for an offsite improvement. The requirement was for an on-site improvement. As stated, that is contrary to the HCD Title 25 Guidelines, as well as the governing section of the Government Code. It was their position that state law preempts the local ordinance to the contrary and for other reasons stated in their correspondence. Further, both as to this condition and they just received that evening the Engineering conditions, but as to both, any requirement for an offsite improvement for an existing health and safety condition required that tha! conditinn nrnvi(ie that it could he too 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 completed in one year with an unsecured agreement and that was in 66528.1 Subsection E. Lastly, with regard to the indemnity, they accepted that it was a common practice that a subdivider indemnify the City; however, this was a little broad, so they were requesting that they include at the end of the first sentence, "except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by the applicant, or any of the residents, to set aside, void, or annul any of the conditions of approval." Obviously, if there was litigation, they didn't believe it was appropriate to ask them to indemnify and pay for their defense of any position they themselves might take. With regard to the Engineering conditions, Condition No. 1 was requesting that monuments be set. They were in the process of setting monuments; however, it exceeds the authority under 66428.1 F. The condominium plan was under the authority of the California Department of Real Estate and Subsection F reads, "The local agency may not require the applicant to file or record a tentative and final map unless the conversion creates five or more parcels. The number of condominium units or interests created by the conversion shall not determine whether the filing of a parcel or tentative and final map shall to required." Therefore, as to the approval of this one-lot subdivision, they couldn't have a condition that requires a final map, and in particular a condition that was related to a map under the authority of the state. With regard to Condition No. 2, this was requiring offsite improvements and they needed to study this particular issue; however, this issue did come up previously and they talked to some of the people that have been involved, they happened to be at the meeting tonight and it was found not feasible at that time and it did not mitigate an existing health and safety issue as required under 66428.1 D. And if it was required, it could not be a condition of a final approval under Subsection E. Ms. Loftin said they were very pleased to be before the Commission and believed the project in terms of protecting the 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 residents who select not to buy was a positive project. For those people that want to buy when they are completed, over time it ultimately changes the two-tiered ownership where one party owns the land and one party owns the home and joins those two interests. Over time it would become 100% owner-occupied without any rental of the land and an owner of a mobile home that has resulted in other cities in other areas in projects which are maintained well and with residents who have pride of ownership and ownership participation in the community. With that, she said she would like to turn the mic over to Larry Owens, but also wanted to let the Commission know that their engineer, Larry McDermott, was present if they had questions; Anne James, who was in charge of the maintenance of the septic system was present to answer questions, as well as Richard Close. MR. LARRY OWENS, the owner of Tri-Star Construction, said he would be speaking about the septic systems within the Indian Springs park. His company for the past several years, and now, had completed an extensive program to locate, inspect and install manholes and risers on all 46 of the septic systems located within the park. With this project completed, along with any repairs that they had to make that were necessary to the leaching areas, he believed this brought the system up-to-date and in a good working condition. Any repairs they did have to make was relatively easy to the leaching system. There was sufficient expansion area for future expansion that may become necessary in the future. It was his opinion that the septic systems were in good working condition and with the park's stringent maintenance and pumping program, along with an occasional repair, the system should last indefinitely. He thanked the Commission. Ms. Loftin informed Commission that Mr. Owens is an engineer, as well as a contractor. With that they shortened the presentation in light of the fact they would be continuing the matter and welcomed any questions the Commission had. +` 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 i There were no questions. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he had some Request to Speak cards and would entertain those comments first. There were three in favor and one didn't specify, so he would start with the three in favor. One was Sue Loftin, one Larry Owens and the third was Richard Close for the applicant. He didn't know if Mr. Close had further comments to make. MR. RICHARD CLOSE, an attorney for the applicant, 1299 Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica, California, addressed the Commission. He said one of the conditions that they object to, as Ms. Loftin referred to, was the one that states that the rent control board/commission of the City would have ongoing jurisdiction after the conversion. For the purpose of establishing rents, under state law the local rent control authority disappeared and had no force and effect on the property after the first sale of a lot. So legally after the first sale of a lot, the Commission would have no authority over setting rents. It would all be established by a state rent control law which would determine what the appropriate rents ] were. The way the condition was currently worded, the last sentence, was contrary to that statutory provision. Number two, they all knew that the major issue that they hear about is the sewer system. They understood that the resident would like a brand new park; they understood that. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether the current septic system was adequate, whether it was doing any damage to the environment, and whether it was working sufficiently. Their experts, and they have done extensive work on it and he had overseen the issue of septic tanks for about seven years on this park, and this park had more pumping, more testing, than any other property that he was aware of, for the sole purpose to make sure that it's in top working condition and does not do any damage to the environment. In spite of all the precautions, the costs of this maintenance was approximately $8 per month per space. That was the same amount that would be paid on a monthly basis to the City or agency that would administer a sewer line. So if $4 million was spent, the cost would not go down. In 40 "'i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 tow fact, the Department of Real Estate would require the residents to pay into a reserve for the whole property and the sewer system. So it didn't make sense for the residents of the park, it didn't make sense for the area, for the residents, to be required to spend $4 million for a new sewer system. As well, his letter set forth a number of legal reasons why the City no longer had jurisdiction with this issue. When he said no longer, these laws were imposed, unfortunately from the point of view of the City, restricting what conditions can be imposed because many cities, especially in the early 1990's, were trying to condition conversions on more parking places-- upgrading facilities. And the legislature said no, we want to make it easy for conversions to occur because we want to see resident ownerships of mobile home parks. So the state enacted a law saying that cities cannot impose conditions upgrading of the property type of conditions on a conversion. And that was why there were a number of restrictions on what the City can do. rr.. Reading the local newspapers, he said they probably knew that they had these problems with the City of Palm Springs. That led to litigation that really settled the law in this area. It was an appellate court case, the Eldorado Case, which established the rights of the park and the responsibilities of the city. He said there was an ongoing $6 million lawsuit against the City of Palm Springs because of the delay of the conversion. Also, the residents in Eldorado were still very upset because the eight years of delay doubled the prices of the lots, so he didn't think anyone in this park or the owner wanted a delay. They wanted to see the project move forward in a reasonable manner in compliance with all the laws and they really appreciated the participation of the City Attorney's office and the cooperation of the city agencies. He thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he had a Request to Speak Card from Mari Schmidt. r..� 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 MS. MARI SCHMIDT, a resident of Indian Springs Space 86, addressed the commission. She said she turned that card in prior to the opening of the public hearing for a very specific reason. At approximately 4:30 this afternoon, she said Phil Drell called Pat Bell, the President of their homeowners association, and told her that this meeting, this public hearing, was to be continued until January 18. There were approximately 120 people who were to come this evening to pub!;.--IV hear what the applicant had to say. And her effort to reach the Chair before he opened the hearing had that at its basis. They got very busy and called everyone, telling them based on his information that this hearing was not going to happen this evening. They have some very elderly people who love to attend these kinds of meetings when it's important. Some of them are infirm and in wheelchairs, so they could see their zeal in not drumming them out to a meeting if it wasn't going to happen. She thought , Phil was very much trying to help them in that regard. By opening this public hearing this evening, they also established a date which was very critical to the conversion process. She wasn't sure if they were aware of that, but it now established the conversion as being real and ongoirg. She hesitated to even conjure or try to think of the ramifications of holding the public hearing when the public could not be there or were told not to be there. That was the reason she put the note on her card to please hear what she had to say before opening the hearing. Just the few comments that Sue Loftin and Richard Close said this evening should have been heard by the 120 residents who would have an opportunity to respond to that. So she asked that everything that had been said so far this evening be said again in January when everyone, she guaranteed them, would be here. She was to speak for 64 of the residents regarding possible questions on the boundaries of the lots in the plat. She didn't know what to do. She didn't know what stance to take. She thought the City put itself in some jeopardy. She said they needed to help them with how to respond to this. 3 42 "" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan said he appreciated her concern. He said she asked to speak before the matter was opened to a public hearing. He explained that she is part of the public hearing, so that would have been inappropriate and why she was speaking now. This was the public hearing process. Number two, the matter had been publicly noticed, so they were bound to open the public hearing. And number three, as he said earlier, everyone that was here tonight that has offered testimony could do so again at the January meeting, and all those that weren't here that want to address the commission would have an opportunity to do that in January. In addition to that, the minutes of the meeting would be available to the public. Anyone that wanted to get those minutes could contact the City or go onto the website and retrieve them. In addition, there was an audio tape that could be made available for those that wanted to listen to the actual proceedings. So hopefully she would come to the conclusion that the process is fair and just. He thanked her for her comments. Ms. Schmidt said she had a couple of other comments since he insisted on holding the hearing. She told them that her toilets backed up. And that is about the sixth time in the last five months that that has occurred. She personally had witnessed the pumping of two septic tanks that were backing up last week. It was consistently a problem in the park and part of her pent tcnight was if she was not here and if Pat Bell wasn't here, no one could respond to some of the comments being made about their system. They have to play catch up or they have to get tapes and be brought up to date on what has occurred tonight. And they would have been here if it were not for the City's staff alerting them that there was no meeting. It was a conundrum that was not going to go away she had a feeling. Mr. Drell added that the applicant's comments were virtually verbatim from the letter that they submitted to the staff and she could have a copy of them, which again, summarized completely all their comments. She asked if they could have 191 of them. That was her point. Mr. Drell said she could have 191 . but. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 j girl Referring to the Request to Speak Cards, Chairperson Jonathan next asked Pat Bell to address the commission. MS. PAT BELL, the President of the Indian Springs Homeowners Association, addressed the commission. She said it was difficult to say what she was going to say now because it had almost all been said by Mari Schmidt. They were very discombobulated that things have gone the way they have this evening having been primed to come tonight and put forth their stand on what was being said and then told forget it, don't come, and now told go ahead, you can say it. She stated that in no way was their stand this evening to slow down, or stop, or change the position of the conversion going ahead. That wasn't it at all. They knew it would and they just wanted to make sure it went through smoothly and they have some concerns. And those concerns she would rather not say too much about tonight. She had the good luck to be able to listen to what the other side was saying and maybe she could base her position a little stronger next time. She stated that she did not believe that Title 25 covered what Mr. Close had in mind, that it was the main governing body for there. She believed that the City Ordinance 743, which was based on the state plumbing code, both of those were applicable in this case and that was the stand she would take when the hearing continued on the 18th. She said they had other issues. Lot lines were one of them. She thought for sure that would be the biggie tonight. Her biggie was the sewer situation and she was very much interested in discussing it with them on the 18th. She believed that was just about all she had to say tonight and thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission regarding this matter. 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7 2004 `r MR. CHARLES BURTON said he bought a place in Indian Springs, Space No. 110, in September. He did not know these issues were coming up. He knew there was a possibility of conversion. He had no idea that the septic and sewer system was an issue, and the streets and the line lots, although he could have anticipated that the line lots would be an issue. He wanted to im aka sure that he understood that they have access to the minutes this evening and asked about the procedure for going about getting them, and if they could have a copy of Mr. Close's letter and any other information that they might disseminate to the rest of the residents of Indian Springs. Chairperson Jonathan asked staff when the minutes might be available for the public. There was a question about the dissemination of draft minutes. Mr. Hargreaves stated that since draft minutes are part of the Planning Commission's packets, it was a public document. They weren't the official minutes, they would be draft. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they were draft until approved or modified and approved by the Planning Commission. So those could be made available to the public. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked when the draft minutes would be ready. Staff indicated that draft minutes should be ready by Friday, the 17th. Chairperson Jonathan informed the audience that they should be available at that time. In addition, all attachments and all the documents, letters and so forth were part of the public record and would be available as well. It was noted that if they wanted an approved set of minutes, those would be available on December 22. He asked if that answered Mr. Burton's question. He concurred and thanked the Commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Pat Bell asked to be able to speak again. Chat 7 srscr. Jcrathan agreed. r.. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Ms. Bell explained that there was a very strict time frame involved for certain procedures to be done. One of them began today, and 180 days from now, according to the Tenant Impact Report and she hoped she was quoting that correctly, 180 days from now another period begins and that count started today, whether they were privy to give their whole spiel tonight or not, it started today because they did start it today and the City started it today. Another thing that was happening today was a very important definition of resident which begins the first time this commission hears these things. That was important because anybody who bought a house after or was in escrow after this date was not considered a resident. That meant they wouldn't have the same terms for buying or renting as the resident. She said she might have that a little bit wrong. That was why this date was so important if it was going to start counting tonight, even though all the material had not been heard tonight. She thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else who had not , testified previously who wished to address the Planning Commission regarding this matter. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Loftin spoke from the audience and said they would reserve further comments until January. Leaving the public hearing .open, Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, continuing Case No. PM 31863 to January 18, 2005. Motion carried 5-0. 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for a Determination of Use to allow a Jiffy Lube type of facility in the C-1 zone subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Drell explained that there is a determination of use process in the ordinance which did not expressly allow specialty auto repair. It allowed service stations which primarily deal with the dispensing of motor fuels. The applicant was requesting a determination of use to allow them to apply for a Jiffy Lube plus a satellite office of DMV for the purpose of car registration and smog tests. This was for the existing Texaco station at 74-180 Highway 111 . The Commission's action would be to simply determine if they could be allowed to file a conditional use permit application. From an aesthetic land use point of view, there was probably not a great distinction between specialty auto service. In fact, the existing Texaco station engaged in auto repair since its use long predated the city. The provision of DMV services would be a convenience to the public. So staff was recommending that Commission make that determination to allow the conditional use permit application to be filed. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that the determination was simply for the allowance of the CUP application. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Campbell said she would be in favor of having a Jiffy Lube there and even though they wouldn't do repairs, there was a repair shop that has been there for many years. As far as pumping gas, there was a Mobile Station by Deep Canyon, so it isn't that people would be running out of gas from Deep Canyon to Texaco. There was also a Chevron Station nearby. She liked the way Jiffy Lubes do their buildings. She thought it would be a lot better looking than a Texaco station. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was looking for a formal vote on the matter. Mr. Drell said yes. tow 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Commissioner Lopez said he wasn't sure what would be involved with the DMV part of this service. Mr. Drell thought the applicant could explain how that would work. MR. GREG PEREZ, with Jiffy Lube/Timaron Incorporated, addressed the commission. He said they already operate two facilities in Palm Desert and would like to open this one. He stated that they are in negotiations with the Department of Motor Vehicles and would be adding DMV registration services at their locations throughout the Coachella Valley. This would be one of the first ones they would want to implement. In essence, it would be one-stop shopping. Someone would be able to come in, do a smog test, and get their tags. They would not do any kind of change of ownership, but they would be able to register a vehicle and get tags at a Jiffy Lube. Commissioner Lopez asked if that would be done by appointment. Mr. Perez said no. Commissioner Lopez said he had a concern with how many people would be in the line and any parking problems. Mr. Perez indicated that at the locations where DMV has done this, and they weren't in a chain operation like a Jiffy Lube, they would have a marketing capacity along with it. They weren't doing a lot, possibly 40 a month. It tended to be those customers that were more moderate in their income because they didn't want to give the state the advanced cash and would rather hold onto it until the very last day and then go in and get it so they are waiting in line at DMV for three hours. In this case they could come in and get it done. So they were saying if they do five or six in a day, that would be on the high end for what they've experienced in other locations where they have done this kind of service. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other questions or comments. There were none and he ?sked if them was a motion 48 ""' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 ksw Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion, determining that a Jiffy Lube type of facility could be an acceptable use in the C-1 zone, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting was informational. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was also informational. `.► C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Drell for the project update reports. 2. Checking on future meeting attendance, Chairperson Jonathan noted that everyone was expected for the meeting on December 21 . He asked about the January 4, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Finerty and Chairperson Jonathan all said they would be absent. Commissioner Lopez asked if that would create a problem. Mr. Smith said no items had been schedule for it yet. Chairperson Jonathan said it looked like the meeting on January 18 could be really long with a full house, so he was a !fttle concerned about adding too many items on that agenda. He said '� 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004 there was always the option of scheduling the meeting on January 5. Mr. Smith confirmed the facilities were available on the 5th. Mr. Drell asked what items they had to potentially schedule. Mr. Smith replied that there was a University of Phoenix CUP if it wasn't ready for the 21 st. And there was some urgency with it. Staff would also be returning with Sacred Heart Church, and there were three or four industrial buildings in the north end again. He wasn't sure those would be ready for 4th or the 18th. So there were some items that could get backed up. Commissioner Finerty recommended scheduling the meeting for the 5th. She asked for confirmation that staff would not schedule Indian Springs and Sacred Heart on the same night. Staff agreed not to. Mr. Drell said that Sacred Heart would be ready for the 5th if there was a meeting on the 5th. Commissioner Finerty said she would prefer to hear those at separate meetings. Chairperson Jonathan said that it would provide relief even if it ended up being a short meeting and Sacred Heart wasn't ready. He said if they ended up meeting on the 5th they could do it then; otherwise, it should wait until February. Commissioner Campbell asked when the packets would be available for the meeting on the 5th. Mr. Drell said it would be the same, the Friday before the meeting. Commissioner Campbell said she wouldn't be here on Friday and would prefer it early. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone who couldn't attend the meeting on Wednesday, January 5 at 6:00 p.m. (Everyone said they could be there.) Chairperson Jonathan hoped Commissioner Campbell could review the packet before the meeting. Mr. Smith suggested sending it by Fed Ex to her if she was at a place it could be done. That had been done in the past. Commissioner Campbell said it could be delivered to the store and that would be fine. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a consensus that the meeting of January 4, 2005 be moved to January 5, 2005. Commission concurred. 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. PHILIP DREL Secretary ATTEST: t i SABB NAT AN, Chairperson Palm Dese t Planning Commission /t m low tow 51 CITY OF PALM DESERT RECEIVED INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ;aL 0 6 2004 ''OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK DATE: December 6, 2004 The following should be considered conditions of approval forthe above referenced project: (1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to,the internal street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. (2) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Deceleration lane required on Highway 74. 8' sidewalk required on Highway 74. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Mark Gred 466a, P.E. j GAPubWor'WCanditions of Approval\PMAPS\TPM 31662 rvAsed.wpd LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING TELEPHONE(310)393-4000 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 000 FACSIMILE(31 O)394-4700 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9040 1-1 000 E-MAIL: —Ias•®grlewyars.com December 3, 2004 RECEIVED VIA FEDEX 7 2004 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT David J. Erwin, Esq. CITY OF PALM DESERT Best, Best&Krieger LLP 74-760 Highway I I I Indian Wells, CA 92210 Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Dear Mr. Erwin: On November 29,2004, Sue Loftin and I met with Philip Drell and Stephen R. Smith of the City of Palm Desert(the"City") Planning Department regarding Indian Springs' Parcel Map Application Number 31862(the "Application") to be heard by the Palm Desert Planning Commission (the"Commission") on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. They stated that staff would recommend to the Commission that it condition approval of the Application on Indian Springs' abandonment of its septic system and construction of a sewer system within Indian Springs Mobile Home Park("the Park")that would connect to the City sewer system. They contended that Palm Desert Municipal Code section 8.60 ("Section 8.60" or the "Ordinance") requires the sewer condition. To the contrary,by its very terms, the application of Section 8.60 is limited to those properties listed on"Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment. Furthermore, if the City were to contend that its Ordinance compelled Indian Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such an ordinance would be illegal and unenforeceable for several reasons. First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer system. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST&RL=ER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 2 or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision(d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other things,upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium-type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in-lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks. In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage.' In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section 13360. The State Water Board stated: "Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate. If a[septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger connect to a sewer system. . . . [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section 13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied." Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will force us to challenge the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60 is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition,its enforcement against the Park would constitute a"taking"under the state and federal constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable regulations. 1 Water Code §§ 13280-13284. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST& RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 3 Our consultant's have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would cost in excess of$4,000,000. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system will be vigorously challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage. As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.40' 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least$6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Accordingly, we expect that you will advise the Planning Commission at its Hearing on December 7, 2004 that it must not impose a sewer connection as a condition of approval of parcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIST ER Prof Corpor ion Richard H. Close Of the Firm RHC:aap/110644_1/120304 3416.006 cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk(Via Federal Express) Sabby Jonathan, Chairman, Planning Commission(Via Federal Express) Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission(Via Federal Express) Sonia Campbell,Member, Planning Commission(Via Federal Express) Jim Lopez, Member,Planning Commission(Via Federal Express) Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission(Via Federal Express) LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST& RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORYORATION • a WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING TELEPHONE (310)393-4000 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 FACSIMILE (31 O)394-4700 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 E-MAIL: rclas (Wgrlawyars.com December 6, 2004 RE ' E DIED VIA FEDEx !.a_!, ! 2004 Chairman Sabby Jonathan '(Y,1MUN1'rY DEVEi,OMENT DEPARTMENT Vice-Chairman David Tschopp :iTY OF I•ALM DESERT Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice-Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty: We have reviewed the Department of Community Development Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park")to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staffs proposed Resolution to approve the Application with the attached Conditions of Approval. Following are our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on the Application on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. Condition of Approval No. 3. Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code section 66427.5(0(1), rent for non-purchasing residents may increase upon conversion to market ' levels over four years. However, the last sentence of Condition No. 3 as drafted states, "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." In fact, upon conversion, state law governs the four-year increase to market rents, and the City's rent control rules and LAW OFFICES GILCHIlISrr& RUTWER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice-Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 2 jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined b the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4 1153, 1178 (4'}'Dist. 2002) conversion occurs, and local rent control terminates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no circumstances ... is it left to local governments to legislate when state law takes effect." (Id. at p.1179.) Accordingly, the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deleted entirely. Condition of Approval No. 5. For the reasons stated in our letter to the City Attorney dated December 3, 2004, a copy of which each Planning Commissioner received, proposed Condition of Approval No. 5, which purports to require Indian Springs to abandon its septic system and connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and improper, and must be removed as a condition of approval. Condition of Approval No. 6. tr Draft Condition of Approval No. 6 would require Indian Springs to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the Application by the City or the Commission. The Staff Report recognizes that the City's action with respect to the Application has the potential to result in litigation. However, given the illegal Conditions of Approval discussed above (as well as Condition of Approval No. 6 itself as currently drafted), litigation against the City regarding its approval of the Application very possibly would be initiated by Indian Springs itself or by residents of the Park who object to the conditions which will interfere with and delay the Park's conversion and their ability to purchase lots in a timely manner. Although it may generally be appropriate to require, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, that an applicant agree to defend the City against attacks from others regarding its approval, the City certainly may not require an applicant such as Indian Springs to agree to defend the City against challenges to Conditions of Approval which the applicant objects to and regarding which the applicant itself initiates an action to void or annul. Accordingly, Indian Springs requests that the Commission amend Condition No. 6 as currently drafted to include the following language at the end of the first sentence therein: "... except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void or annul any of the Conditions of Approval." fir. LAVW OFFICES GILCHRIST& RUTI`M PROF663SIONAI.CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice-Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 3 For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIS &RUTTER Pro al Co oration Richard H. Close Of the Firm T W C:twc/110716 1/120604 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. December 2, 2004 City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Re: Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Conversion, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66425.1, PM 31862 Public Hearing: December 7, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Requested Action: Request Approval of Parcel Map, Without Sewer Condition Dear Mayor, and Honorable City Counsel Persons: The purpose of this correspondence is to request you approve the Parcel Map ("PM") 31862, without the imposition of a condition to connect to sewers. I am President of James and Associates, Inc., and have been involved with the management and maintenance of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 for the last eighteen (18) years, including without limitation, the Septic tow System. We became aware 10 years ago through the Southern California Water Quality Control Board and the Coachella Valley Water District of the seriousness of ground water contamination in the Coachella Valley. We agreed to a program to raise all lids and risers on the septic tanks to above ground levels, making the maintenance and testing easier, and the tanks more accessible to pumping. The project cost was approximately $300,000 and was completed in 2003. Pursuant to the requirements of the Water Quality Control Board, all tanks were to be pumped at the end of this project and will continue to be pumped on a scheduled three year cycle. We had discontinued the use of chemicals because of possible ground water contamination, using pumping as an alternative to break up scum layers. This resulted in the rotation program referred to above. irr 255 N. El Cielo,Ste 140 N286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760)320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588 E-mail: ,jamesk.assocgverizon.net JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. With the completion of the program, the Coachella Valley Water District confirmed that as long as the Septic System is maintained in good working condition, there is no basis, environmental or otherwise, to require hook up to sewer. The septic system consists of a solid cement tank with two separate compartments, with a line from the home entering the tank on the solid waste side, letting the liquid flow through the outlet side of the tank to a leach field or seepage pit, which filters through gravel and sand. We have 46 tanks ranging from 1,500 to 2,500 gallons, depending on location, and serving 3-5 spaces per tank. Our maintenance program includes a routine of checking the septic tanks for scum and water levels, and inspecting the leach fields. In addition to daily inspections and monitoring by park staff, Coachella Valley Water District requires annual testing, done by ATS Laboratories, who take random samples and submit the test results to Coachella Valley Water District. This testing helps protect the environment. We have always been in compliance and within the required range, with no citations for contamination. Letters are sent periodically to the Residents to remind them of how to maintain 1 and protect the septic system, and the ground water table from contamination. A binder with Map Locations, Septic Schedules and Annual Inspections is available upon request. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, l Anne James President Cc: James Goldstein Richard Close, Esq. L. Sue Loftin, Esq. G:\Documents\Properties\hidian Springs 452\Septics\Letter re Maintenance 12-2-04.doc 255 N. El Cielo,Ste 140#286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pli,one:(760)320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588 E-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net 097k Contracting, Excavation, Grading , "We dig the Coachella Palley" F7iday, December 03, 2004 Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Palm Desert, Calljbmia To whom it may concem, In 2003 Tn Star Contracting completed an extensive program to locate, inspect and install manholes and risers on an 46 systems within the park This project having been completed along with any repairs necessary to the leaching areas makes this an up to date and good working system, Any repairs that have been made to the leaching system are relatively simple since there is Sufficient room for further seepage area expansion. Ft rrthermore these repairs are made with the most current materials and up graded standards with in the industry. As on example, seepage pits have been installed and are buried straight down into the ground leading to a prolonged seepage area out of reach of landscape problems. In my opt uon the septic systems are in good working condition and with the parks stringent maintenance and pumping program along with an occasional repair these systems should Last kndef"tely. Sincerely, Lurrtt j J. Owens Bus(760)251-5454 15-501 Little Marongo Roa4 Desert blot Springs, G!92240 Fax(760)251-5458 kaw e-ma igfb ,Tri-Star.info CERTIFIED COPY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION December 7, 2004 BROOKE SILVAS CSR 10988 BARKLEY 189020 • Court Reporters Los Angeles Orange County San Francisco San Diego Inland Empire Palm Springs San Fernando Valley San Jose (310) (949) (415) (858) (909) (760) (818) (408) 207.8000 955.0400 433.5777 455.5444 686 0606 322.2240 702.0202 885.0550 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 9 10 11 12 13 14 DECEMBER 7 , 2004 15 6 : 00 P .M. 16 17 18 CIVIL CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 19 73-510 Fred Waring Drive 20 Palm Desert, California 21 22 23 24 25 Brooke Silvas, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 10988 2 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 APPEARANCES : 2 3 COMMISSIONER SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson 4 COMMISSIONER JIM LOPEZ 5 COMMISSIONER SONIA CAMPBELL 6 COMMISSIONER DAVE TSCHOPP 7 COMMISSIONER CINDY FINERTY 8 9 PHIL DRELL, Director of Community Development 10 BOB HARGREAVES, City Attorney 11 TONYA MONROE, Administrative Secretary 12 STEVE SMITH, Planning Manager 13 14 Assorted Public Speakers 15 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2004 16 6 : 00 P.M. 17 18 MR. JONATHAN: Good evening. We will go ahead and 19 call this meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission 20 to order. And I ' ll ask Commissioner Cindy Finerty to 21 lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance . 22 (Pledge of Allegiance. ) 23 MR. JONATHAN: Can we please have the roll call . 24 Mr. Tschopp? 25 MR. TSCHOPP: Here. 3 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 MR. JONATHAN: Mr. Lopez? '2 MR. LOPEZ : Here. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Mrs . Campbell? 4 MS . CAMPBELL: Here. 5 - MR. JONATHAN: And Mrs . Finerty? 6 MS . FINERTY: Here . 7 (Approval of Minutes, Summary of Council 8 Action, Oral Communications and Consent 9 Calendar conducted. ) 10 MR. JONATHAN: Now we are up to the public hearing 11 portion of our agenda. And there is one -- there is a 12 matter before us, item F under public hearing agenda. 13 It is the case number PM3862 , the Indian Springs, 14 Limited, Applicant, matter. I just want, out of 15 fairness to those that are present, advise you that when 16 we get to that item on our agenda, which will be quite a 17 bit of time from now because we have several items 18 before that, in all likelihood, partly because there ' s 19 been so much correspondence received and staff needs 20 time to analyze those comments and respond and possibly 21 modify its recommendations to the planning commission, 22 in all likelihood, it appears that matter will, in fact, 23 be continued to the second meeting in January, which is 24 January 18th, 2005 . 25 The matter - - again, speaking about item number 4 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 F, which is the Indian Springs matter -- has been 2 publicly noticed, and therefore public testimony -- if 3 people choose to speak in spite of the fact that it will 4 be continued, anyone that does wish to speak will have 5 an opportunity to do so. We will open the public 6 hearing portion. However, again, it is likely that the 7 matter will be continued. Therefore, there will be an 8 opportunity for public testimony at our meeting -- 9 second meeting in January. And in that event, there 10 will be no decisions that take place here tonight or 11 discussion for that matter by the planning commission. 12 Again, I 'm advising those who are in the 13 audience of this out of fairness . I don' t want those 14 people waiting an hour, two hours, whatever it is, to 15 find out that it will be continued, which in all 16 likelihood will happen. 17 Any other comment on that matter from any other 18 commissioners? 19 Then we ' ll proceed with the agendized items . 20 Again, this is the public hearing section of our agenda. 21 Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be 22 limited to raising those issues that he, she or someone 23 else raised at the public hearing described herein, or 24 in written correspondence delivered to the Planning 25 Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 5 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 (Public Hearing items A through E were 2 conducted. ) 3 MR. JONATHAN: And now that does bring us to item F 4 on our agenda, PM 31862 , Indian Springs, Limited, the 5 applicant . This is a request for approval of a parcel 6 map to establish a one-lot subdivision with a 7 condominium overlay at the 191-space Indican Springs 8 Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 , (APN 9 652-120-007) . 10 Mr. Drell, may we have the staff report . 11 Let me mention again, it is our expectations 12 this will be continued. 13 MR. DRILL: Mr. Smith will give a brief summary of 14 the report. 15 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, you did receive a copy of 16 the tentative map in your packet, which shows the 17 proposed lotting which is for a single, one-lot 18 subdivision condominium overlay for the existing 19 191-space mobile home park. The project is located on 20 the west side of Highway 74 at 49-305 Highway 74 . The 21 property is a 34 . 7-acre property which was established 22 in 1970 . 23 The applicant seeks to change the ownership 24 structure from a rental mobile home park to a 25 single-family manufactured housing condominium unit -- 6 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 condominium units . The proposed map will not alter the 2 existing 191-unit density or impact on the physical 3 appearance of the park. There will be no displacement 4 of tenants or residents . Residents will be able to 5 choose to buy their condominium unit or to continue to 6 rent their space. 7 Government Code section 66427 . 5, which we 8 attached a copy of in the report, prescribes the 9 criteria to be considered in reviewing the application. 10 We outline that on pages 2 and 3 of the report . Then on 11 page 4 , we showed how each of those issues has been 12 addressed. The City is quite limited in the -- by the 13 applicable Government Code that it may consider as part 14 of its review of the map. 15 The City Attorney may wish to comment on some 16 of the issues . But basically in the last day or so, we 17 have received a couple of pieces of correspondence from 18 Gilchrist & Rutter, Mr. Close, the attorney for the -- 19 for the applicant, questioning the appropriateness of 20 certain conditions that we had included in the report . 21 I believe the City Attorney is requesting additional 22 time to review certain portions of that information. 23 It ' s my understanding that we would be 24 requesting a continuation until your meeting of 25 January the 18th in order to accomplish that. I think 7 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 I ' ll conclude at that point . If the commission has any 2 questions, I would be pleased to try to answer them. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Mr. Smith. 4 Questions for staff? 5 There were a couple of conditions of approval 6 being recommended I think by Mr. Greenwood. 7 MR. GREENWOOD: Yes . Thank you for the opportunity. 8 We received that just recently from the Department of 9 Public Works seeking discrete deceleration lane aspect . 10 And I 'm sure Mr. Close may wish to comment on that also. 11 But it ' s therefore for your consideration. 12 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. No questions for Staff? 13 Okay. We will go ahead then ask declare the 14 public hearing to be open. Let me remind those that 15 have chosen to remain here, if you wish to speak, you 16 certainly have a right to do that. In the event, as we 17 expect, the matter is continued, there will be further 18 opportunity to address the planning commission. And 19 that will be at the meeting that we continue this 20 meeting to, which in more likelihood will be the second 21 meeting in January, which I believe is January 18th. 22 Our procedure here is to ask the applicant to 23 address the commission first, then to take testimony in 24 favor of the project, and to take testimony in 25 opposition to the project, and then to give the 8 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 applicant an opportunity to address the comments that 2 have been made, and then to close the public hearing or 3 to continue it until our next meeting. 4 In addition to that, we request that all those 5 addressing the planning commission make their comments 6 in five minutes or less, if at all possible, and avoid 7 being repetitive other than to. say they endorse earlier 8 comments . 9 Having said all that, we do declare the public 10 hearing to be open and ask the applicant if he or she 11 wishes to address the planning commission. 12 MS. LOFTON: Hi . Good evening, Mr. Chairperson and 13 the other commissioners . My name is Sue Lofton. I 'm an 14 attorney representing the applicant. My address is 15 433-C La Jolla village Drive, San Diego, 92122 . And we 16 will be requesting to reserve time to respond on the 17 18th or whenever you continue it . But for this 18 evening, I will limit my comments to -- just to the 19 issues that we have outstanding. 20 I do want to thank Staff and the City 21 Attorney' s office for their cooperation and work on the 22 project . And I 'm hopeful that we will be able to 23 resolve these issues . 24 This is a request for a one-lot subdivision and 25 approval of the tenant impact report . Both acts are 9 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 greatly restricted because of the nature of the 2 subdivision. It ' s not like some of the things that 3 you've seen earlier this evening, which is new 4 construction. And this isn' t even like a conversion of 5 an apartment building. Mobile home parks have their 6 very own type, their very own laws because it ' s such a 7 different and peculiar type of housing environment . For 8 example, the tenant impact report does incorporate, as 9 it ' s required by law, the state-mandated rent control 10 provisions to protect the residents who select not to 11 buy. It ' s the only instance in the state where there 12 are those types of protections . 13 Having said that, I want to cover briefly our 14 comments that have come in writing and as such would be 15 requesting that we incorporate into the record for 16 tonight ' s public hearing the two letters from Richard 17 Close of Gilchrist & Rutter; the correspondence from 18 Ann James, President of James & Associates regarding the 19 septic system; and the correspondence from Larry Owens. 20 regarding the septic system. 21 Condition number 3 from the Department of 22 Community Development, we' re requesting that the last 23 sentence be deleted. The sentence reads "said amount to 24 be determined through city rent review process . " The 25 statute provides very specific means of establishing 10 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 market rents and what can be charged. For example, 2 attached to your tenant impact report is the schedule of 3 rent increases that would be the maximum rent increases 4 that could be imposed upon a low-income household. And 5 that ' s a matter of a calculation as opposed to really 6 having anything to do with your rent review process . 7 The market rents by statute have to be established by an 8 MAI appraiser. And, again, the statute, which is 9 66427 . 5, specifies and restricts how those rents can be 10 established. 11 With regard to condition 5 and the requirement 12 to - - or the request to put in a sewer system, 66428 . 1 13 does not allow for any on-site improvements unless those 14 are imposed in response to a state Title 25 inspection, 15 which is separate and apart from this process . The 16 septic system that is existing is in good working order 17 and condition, has met -- has never been cited for 18 polluting in any manner whatsoever. Mr. Owens, with 19 Tristar Construction, is going to speak to that issue in 20 just a moment . 21 Further, we are unfortunately restricted to 22 mitigating an existing health and safety condition for 23 an off-site improvement . Your requirement is for an 24 on-site improvement . As stated, that ' s contrary to the 25 HCD Title 25 guidelines, as well as the governing 11 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 section of the Government Code . It is our position that 2 state law preempts local ordinance to the contrary and 3 for other reasons stated in our correspondence . 4 Further, both as to this condition - - and we 5 just received this evening, the engineering conditions 6 that - - as to both, any requirement for an off-site 7 improvement for an existing health and safety condition 8 does require that it be -- that the condition provide 9 that it can be completed within one year, with an 10 unsecured agreement . And that ' s in 66428 . 1, 11 subsection E. 12 Lastly, with regard to the indemnity, we 13 certainly accept that that is a common practice, that a 14 subdivider indemnify the City. However, this was a 15 little broad. So we ' re requesting that you include 16 after the -- at the end of the first sentence, "except 17 as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by the 18 applicant or any of the residents to set aside, void or 19 annul any of the conditions of approval . " 20 Obviously if there is litigation, we don' t 21 believe it ' s appropriate that you ask us to indemnify 22 and pay for your defense of any position that we might 23 take. 24 With regard to the engineering conditions, 25 Condition 1 is requesting that monuments be set. We are 12 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 in the process of setting monument . However, it exceeds 2 the authority under 66428 . 1 (f) . The condominium plan is 3 under the authority of the California Department of 4 Real Estate . And subsection F reads, "The local agency 5 may not require the applicant to file, record or report 6 a tentative and final map unless the conversion creates 7 five or more parcels . The number of condominium units 8 shall not determine whether the filing of a parcel or 9 tentative and final map shall be required. " 10 Therefore, as to the approval of this one lot 11 subdivision, we can' t have a condition that requires a 12 final map. And particularly a condition that ' s related 13 to a map that ' s under the authority of the state. 14 With regard to Condition 2 , this is requiring 15 off-site . improvements . And we need to study -- study 16 this particular issue. However, there -- this issue did 17 come up previously. We ' ve talked to some of the people 18 that have been involved. They happen to be here 19 tonight . And it was found not feasible at that time . 20 And it did not mitigate an existing health and safety 21 issue as required under 66428 . 1 D. And if it is 22 required, it cannot be a condition of a final approval 23 under subsection E. 24 We are very pleased to be here in front of you 25 this evening. We believe the project, in terms of 13 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 protecting the residents who select not to buy, is a 2 positive project . For those people who want to buy when 3 we ' re completed and over time, it ultimately changes the 4 two-tiered ownership where one party owns the land, one 5 party owns the home, and joins those two interests . And 6 over time, it will become a hundred percent owner 7 occupied without any rental of the land and an owner of 8 the local home that has resulted in other cities and 9 other areas in projects which are maintained well and 10 with residents who have pride of ownership and 11 participation in the community. 12 With that, I would like to turn the mike over 13 to Larry Owens, but also let you know that our engineer, 14 Larry McDermott is here if you have questions . And P 15 James, who is in charge of the maintenance of the septic 16 system, is here to answer questions, as well as Richard 17 Close . 18 With that, Larry. 19 MR. OWENS : Good evening. My name is Larry Owens . . 20 I 'm the owner of Tristar Construction. And I will be 21 speaking to you this evening about the septic system in 22 this park. 23 My company for the past several years and now 24 have completed extensive programs to locate and inspect 25 and install manholes and riders in all 46 of the septic 14 BARKLEY Court Reporter. 1 systems located within the park. With this project 2 completed, along with any repairs that we had to make 3 and were necessary to the areas, I believe this brings 4 the system up to date and in good working condition. 5 Any repairs that we did have to make was relatively 6 easy. And there is sufficient expansion area for future 7 expansion that may become necessary in the future . It 8 is my opinion that the septic systems are in good 9 working condition. And with the park maintenance and 10 buffing program, along with an occasional repair, the 11 system should last indefinitely. 12 Thank you. 13 MS . LOFTON: And Mr. Owens is an engineer as well as 14 a contractor. With that, we have shortened our 15 presentation in light of the fact that you are going to 16 continue the matter and would welcome any questions that 17 you would have this evening. 18 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Ms . Lofton. 19 Questions for the applicant? 20 Thank you. 21 MS . LOFTON: Thank you. 22 MR. JONATHAN: You bet. 23 I do have some cards . We ' ll entertain those 24 comments first . There are three in favor. One that is 25 not indicated either way. We ' ll start with the three in 15 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 favor. I 'm sorry. One of those is Sue Lofton and one 2 of those is Larry Owens . And Richard Close for the 3 applicant . I don' t know if you have further comments to 4 make. 5 - MR. CLOSE: Yes . Let me clarify a couple of points . 6 My name is Richard Close. My address is 1299 Ocean 7 Avenue, Santa Monica, California. 8 One of the conditions that we object to, as Sue 9 Lofton referred to, is the one that states that the Rent 10 Control Board Commission of the City would have ongoing 11 jurisdiction after the conversionjor the purpose of 12 establishing rents) Under state law, the local rent 13 control authority disappears and has no force and effect 14 on the property after the first sale of a lot . So 15 legally, after the first sale of the lot, the commission 16 would have no authority over stepping rents . It would 17 all be established by a state rent control law which 18 would determine what the appropriate rents are. The way 19 the condition is currently worded, which I think is the 20 last sentence, is contrary to that statutory provision. 21 Number two, we all know that the major issue 22 that we hear about is the sewer system. We understand 23 the residents would like a brand-new park. We 24 understand. But that ' s not the issue. The issue is 25 whether the current septic system is adequate, whether 16 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 it ' s doing any damage to the environment, whether it is 2 working sufficiently. Our experts, we 've done extensive 3 work on this . I have overseen the issue of septic tanks 4 for about seven years on this park. And this park has 5 had more pumping, more testing than any other property 6 that I 'm aware of . The sole purpose is to make sure 7 that it ' s in the top working condition and it does not 8 do any damage to the environment. 9 In spite of all of the precautions, the cost of 10 this maintenance is approximately $8 per month per 11 space. That is the same amount that would be paid on a - 12 monthly basis to the City of -- or the agency that would 13 administer sewer lines . So if $4 million was spent, the 14 cost would not go down. In fact, the Department of Real 15 Estate would require residents to pay a reserve to the 16 whole property for the sewer system. It doesn' t make 17 sense for the residents of the park. It doesn' t make 18 sense for the area for the residents to be required to 19 spend $4 million for a new sewer system. 20 As well, my letter sets forth a number of legal 21 reasons -why the City no longer has jurisdiction over 22 this issue . When I say no longer, these laws were 23 imposed unfortunately from the point of view of the City 24 restricting what restrictions can be imposed because 25 many cities, especially in the early ' 90s, were trying 17 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 to condition conversions on more parking places, 2 upgrading facilities . The legislature said, "No, we 3 want to see resident ownership of mobile home parks . " 4 So the State enacted laws saying that cities cannot 5 impose conditions upgrading the property conditions on a 6 conversion. That ' s why we have a number of restrictions 7 on what the City can do. 8 As you probably know from reading local 9 newspapers, we had these problems with the City of 10 Palm Springs . That led to litigation. It settled. It 11 was an appellate court case, Colorado case, which 12 establishes the rights of the park and the 13 responsibilities of the City. There ' s an ongoing 14 $6 million lawsuit against the City of Palm Springs 15 because of the delay of the conversion. And also the 16 residents in El Dorado are still very upset because the 17 eight years of delay doubled the prices of the lots . 18 I don' t think anyone in this park wants nor 19 does the owner want to see a delay. We want it to move 20 forward in a reasonable manner in compliance with the 21 laws . And we participate the participation of the City 22 Attorney' s office and the cooperation of the city 23 agencies. 24 MR. JONATHAN: Mr. Close, thank you. 25 MR. CLOSE: Yes? 18 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 MR. JONATHAN: I just said thank you. 2 MR. CLOSE: You' re welcome. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Then I do have a card from 4 Marie Schmidt . 5 MS . SCHMIDT: Good evening. My name is Mary 6 Schmidt . And I 'm a resident of Indian Springs, space 7 86 . And I had turned that card in prior to the opening 8 of the public hearing for a very specific reason. At 9 approximately 4 : 30 this afternoon, Phil Drell called 10 Pat Bell, the president of our homeowners ' association 11 and told her that this meeting, this public hearing, was 12 to be continued until January 18th. There were 13 approximately 120 people who were to come this evening 14 to publicly hear what the applicant had to say. 15 In my effort to reach you before you opened the 16 hearing, had that at its basis, we got very busy and 17 called everyone telling them, based on his information, 18 that this hearing was not going to happen this evening. 19 We have some very elderly people who love to attend 20 these kinds of meetings when it ' s important. Some of 21 them are infirmed and in wheelchairs . So you can see 22 our zeal in not drumming them out to a meeting if it 23 wasn' t going to happen. And I think Phil was very much 24 trying to help us in that regard. 25 By opening this public hearing this evening, 19 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 you've also established a date which is very critical to 2 the conversion process . I 'm not sure you' re aware of 3 it . But it now establishes the conversion as being real 4 and ongoing. I hesitate to even conjure or even try to 5 think of the ramifications of holding a public hearing 6 when the public cannot be there or are told not to be 7 there. And that was the reason that I put the note on 8 my card to please hear what I had to say before you open 9 the hearing. 10 I don' t know how to -- just the few comments 11 that Sue Lofton and Richard Close have said this evening 12 should have been heard by the 120 residents who would 13 have an opportunity to respond to that . So I would ask 14 that everything that has been said so far this evening 15 be said again in January when everybody I guarantee you 16 will be here . 17 I was to speak for 64 of the residents 18 regarding possible questions on the boundaries of the 19 lots in the plat . I don' t know what to do. I don' t 20 know what stance to take. I think the City has put 21 itself in some jeopardy. You know, you need to help us 22 with this, how to respond to this . 23 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. I certainly appreciate your 24 concern. Let me just say very briefly, and then we ' ll 25 move forward, you asked to speak before the matter was 20 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 open to a public hearing. You are part of the public 2 hearing. So that would have been inappropriate. That ' s 3 why you' re speaking now. This is the public hearing 4 process . 5 - Number two, the matter has been publicly 6 noticed, so we are bound to open a public hearing. 7 Number three, as I said earlier, everyone that 8 is here tonight who has offered testimony can do so 9 again at the January meeting. And all those that are 10 not here that want to address the commission will have 11 an opportunity to do that in January. In addition to 12 that, the minutes of this meeting will be available to 13 the public . Anyone who wants to get those minutes can 14 contact the City Por go onto the Website and retrieve 15 those. In addition, we have an audiotape that can be 16 made available for those who want to listen to the 17 actual proceeding. 18 So hopefully we ' ll come to the conclusion at 19 the process is fair and just . Thank you for your 20 comments . 21 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I have a couple of other 22 comments that are -- since you insist on holding the 23 hearing. I will tell you that yesterday, my toilets 24 backed up. That is about the sixth time in the last 25 five months that that has occurred. And I personally 21 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 have witnessed the pumping of two septic tanks that were 2 backing up last week. It is consistently a problem in 3 the park. And part of my point tonight is that if I 4 were not here and if Pat Bell were not here, nobody 5 could respond to some of the comments that are being 6 made about our system. You know, they have to play 7 catchup in order to have to get tapes and be brought up 8 to date on what ' s being heard tonight. And we would 9 have been here if it were not for the city staff 10 alerting us that there was no meeting. It ' s a conundrum 11 that is not going to go away, I have a feeling. 12 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 13 MR. DRILL: If I could also add, the applicant ' s 14 comments basically are virtually verbatim from the 15 letter that they submitted to us . You can have a copy 16 of it which you can summarize completely all their 17 comments . 18 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 19 MS. SCHMIDT: Could we have 191 one of those? 20 That ' s my point . 21 MR. JONATHAN: Thanks very much. 22 Pat Bell . 23 MS . BELL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and 24 commissioners. It ' s a little difficult to say what I 'm 25 going to say now because I think it ' s all been said by 22 BARKLEYJ Court Reporters 1 Mary Schmidt . We 're very discombobulated that things 2 have gone the way they have this evening. Having been 3 primed tonight and put forth our stand on what was being 4 said and then told, "Forget it . Don' t come . " And then 5 told, "Go ahead. You can say it . " I would like to say 6 that in no way is our stand to - - this evening to slow 7 down or stop or change the position of the conversion 8 going ahead. That ' s not it at all . We know that it 9 will . And we just wanted to make sure that it goes 10 through smoothly. And we have some concerns . And those 11 concerns -- I would rather not say too much tonight . I 12 have the good luck to be able to listen to what the 13 other side was saying so now maybe I can make my 14 position a little stronger next time. 15 I would like to state at the get-go that I do 16 not believe that Title 25 covers what Mr. Close had in 17 mind. That is, that that ' s their mine - - that ' s the 18 main governing body for them. I believe that the city 19 ordinance 743 , which is based on the state code, the . 20 state plumbing code, both of those are applicable in 21 this case . And that is the stand that I will take when 22 your hearing continues on the 18th. 23 We have other issues . Lot lines are one of 24 them. I thought for sure that would be the biggy 25 tonight. Well, my biggy was the sewer situation. And 23 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 I 'm very much interested in discussing that with you on 2 the 18th. 3 I believe that ' s just about all I have to say 4 tonight . Thank you. 5 - MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Ms . Bell . 6 Is there anyone else present who wishes to 7 address the planning commission regarding this matter? 8 MR. BURTON: Good evening. My name is Charles 9 Burton. I bought a place in Indian Springs, space 10 number 110, in September. I did not know these issues 11 were coming up. I knew that there was a possibility of 12 conversion. I had no idea the septic and sewer system 13 was an issue and the streets and the line lots and all 14 that . Although, vI could anticipate the line lots might 15 be an issue. I just want to make sure that I understand 16 that we have access to the minutes this evening and the 17 procedure to go about getting those and that we can have 18 a copy of Mr. Close ' s letter and any other information 19 that we might disseminate to the rest of the residents . 20 of Indian Springs . 21 MR. JONATHAN: You bet . When do we think the 22 minutes might be available for the public? 23 MS . MONROE: We normally have the (unintelligible) . 24 MR. JONATHAN: Can we create draft documents that 25 are subject to planning commission approval? 24 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 MS. MONROE: Yes . 2 MR. JONATHAN: Is that legal? Can we just get a - - 3 MR. HARGREAVES : The draft minutes are part of your 4 packet. It ' s a public document . They' re not the 5 official minutes . They' re the draft minutes . 6 MR. JONATHAN: So those can be made available to the 7 public? 8 MR. HARGREAVES : Sure. 9 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Is the commission okay with 10 that? 11 MR. HARGREAVES: It ' s public record. 12 MR. JONATHAN: Exactly. So when do we think the 13 draft minutes would be ready? 14 MS . MONROE: They should be ready by the 16th, 15 part of your packet . 16 MR. JONATHAN: Friday, the 16th of January? 17 MS. MONROE: No, of December. 18 MR. JONATHAN: Of December. Okay. Good. 19 MS . MONROE: Hopefully they will be approved on the 20 23rd. 21 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. So by Friday, the 16th, 22 possibly sooner? 23 MS . MONROE: The 17th. 24 MR. JONATHAN: The 17th of this month. If you 25 want to check with city hall, they should be available . 25 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 In addition to that, all attachments and all the 2 documents, letters and so forth are part of the public 3 record. They will be available as well . I think that 4 answers your question. 5 - MR. BURTON: It does . 6 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. 7 MR. BURTON: And thank you very much. 8 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 9 MS . MONROE: If they want an approved copy, it will 10 be available on the 22nd. 11 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Just to add to that then, we 12 have our next meeting scheduled for December 21st . 13 It ' s our expectation that at that meeting, we ' ll 14 actually approve ,the draft minutes . Typically, as you 15 saw tonight, we have little or no changes . If you 16 wanted to get an actual approved copy, those should be 17 available as early as December 22nd. 18 Okay. We don' t have repeats on public 19 testimony. I ' ll ask if there is anyone else present who 20 wishes to address the planning commission. 21 Is it a quick brief question? Okay. 22 MS . BELL: Something I forgot to say. With this 23 conversion -- 24 MR. JONATHAN: Give us your name again. 25 MS. BELL: I 'm sorry. I 'm Pat Bell from Indian 26 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 Springs. I 'm the president of the homeowners ' 2 association. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 4 MS . BELL: There ' s a very strict time frame involved 5 for certain procedures to be done . One of those begins 6 today. 180 days from now, according to the tentative 7 back report -- I hope I 'm quoting that correctly. 180 8 days from now, another period begins . And that count 9 starts today, whether we have privy to give our whole 10 spiel tonight or not, it starts today because they did 11 start it today and you did start it today. 12 There is another thing that is happening today. 13 There is a very important definition of resident which 14 begins the first time that this commission hears these 15 things . And that ' s important because anybody who buys a 16 house after -- or is in escrow after this date is not 17 considered a resident. That means that they don' t have 18 the same terms for buying or renting as the resident . I 19 may have that wrong. That is why this date is so 20 important if it ' s going to start counting tonight, even 21 though all the material hasn' t been heard tonight. 22 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 23 MS . BELL: That was quick. 24 MR. JONATHAN: Is there anyone else who has not 25 testified who wishes to address the Planning Commission 27 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 regarding this matter? 2 Okay. We will give the applicant to have an 3 opportunity to address the commission if he or she 4 wishes . 5 - MS . LOFTON: Thank you. We ' ll reserve all further 6 comment until January. 7 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Thank you. We will then, I 8 guess, continue the public hearing subject to the 9 pleasure of the Commission. 10 MS . FINERTY: Move to continue to January 18th. 11 MS . CAMPBELL: I ' ll second. 12 MR. JONATHAN: There ' s a motion and a second to 13 continue this meeting to our second meeting on 14 January 18th. 15 Any discussion? 16 All in favor, please say aye . 17 (Commission says aye . ) 18 MR. JONATHAN: Motion passed unanimously. The 19 public hearing is continued to January 18th. 20 (Proceeding concluded at 8 : 41 p.m. ) 21 22 23 24 25 28 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 I , ee `(. , 5U.,' , Certified Shorthand 5 -Reporter, Certificate No. (0Ro8 , for the State of 6 California, hereby certify: 7 I am the person that stenographically recorded 8 the Transcript of proceeding held on 12-7-2004 9 The foregoing transcript is a true record of 10 said proceeding. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dated 12-22-2004 17 18 19 20 LLf \ Q_ 21 22 23 24 25 29 BARKLEY • 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss . 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 I, Derrirk Ari rade hereby certify: 5 I am an employee of Barkley Court Reporters, 6 duly authorized agent for the deposition officer that 7 stenographicaly recorded the testimony in the foregoing 8 proceeding and authorized to execute this copy 9 certificate. 10 The foregoing is true and correct copy of 11 the original transcript of the stated proceeding. 12 ++ 13 Dated CZ l 27 _ Oci 14 • 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BARKLEY Coon RrporNrs 1 it ' s doing any damage to the environment, whether it is 2 working sufficiently. Our experts, we 've done extensive 3 work on this . I have overseen the issue of. septic tanks 4 for about seven years on this park. And this park has 5 had more pumping, more testing than any other property 6 that I 'm aware of . The sole purpose is to make sure 7 that it ' s in the top working condition and it does not 8 do any damage to the environment . 9 In spite of all of the precautions, the cost of 10 this maintenance is approximately $8 per month per 11 space . That is the same amount that would be paid on a 12 monthly basis to the City of - - or the agency that would 13 administer sewer lines . So if $4 million was spent, the 14 cost would not go down. In fact, the Department of Real 15 Estate would require residents to pay a reserve to the 16 whole property for the sewer system. It doesn' t make 17 sense for the residents of the park. It doesn' t make 18 sense for the area for the residents to be required to 19 spend $4 million for a new sewer system. 20 As well, my letter sets forth a number of legal 21 reasons why the City no longer has jurisdiction over 22 this issue. When I say no longer, these laws were 23 imposed unfortunately from the point of view of the City 24 restricting what restrictions can be imposed because 25 many cities, especially in the early ' 90s, were trying 17 BARKLEY court Reporters 1 to condition conversions on more parking places, 2 upgrading facilities . The legislature said, "No, we 3 want to see resident ownership of mobile home parks . " 4 So the State enacted laws saying that cities cannot 5 impose conditions upgrading the property conditions on a 6 conversion. That ' s why we have a number of restrictions 7 on what the City can do. 8 As you probably know from reading local 9 newspapers, we had these problems with the City Of 10 Palm Springs . That led to litigation. It settled. It 11 was an appellate court case, Colorado case, which 12 establishes the rights of the park and the 13 responsibilities of the City. There ' s an ongoing 14 $6 million lawsuit against the City of Palm Springs 15 because of the delay of the conversion. And also the 16 residents in El Dorado are still very upset because the 17 eight years of delay doubled the prices of the lots . 18 I don' t think anyone in this park wants nor - 19 does the owner want to see a delay. We want it to move 20 forward in a reasonable manner in compliance with the 21 laws . And we participate the participation of the City 22 Attorney' s office and the cooperation of the city 23 agencies . 24 MR. JONATHAN: Mr. Close, thank you. 25 MR. CLOSE: Yes? 18 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 MR. JONATHAN: I just said thank you. 2 MR. CLOSE: You' re welcome. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Then I do have a card from 4 Marie Schmidt . 5 MS . SCHMIDT: Good evening. My name is Mary 6 Schmidt. And I 'm a resident of Indian Springs, space 7 86 . And I had turned that card in prior to the opening 8 of the public hearing for a very specific reason. At 9 approximately 4 : 30 this afternoon, Phil Drell called 10 Pat Bell, the president of our homeowners ' association 11 and told her that this meeting, this public hearing, was 12 to be continued until January 18th. There were 13 approximately 120 people who were to come this evening 14 to publicly hear what the applicant had to say. 15 In my effort to reach you before you opened the 16 hearing, had that at its basis, we got very busy and 17 called everyone telling them, based on his infoLmation, 18 that this hearing was not going to happen this evening. 19 We have some very elderly people who love to attend 20 these kinds of meetings when it ' s important . Some of 21 them are infirmed and in wheelchairs . So you can see 22 our zeal in not drumming them out to a meeting if it 23 wasn' t going to happen. And I think Phil was very much 24 trying to help us in that regard. 25 By opening this public hearing this evening, 19 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 you've also established a date which is very critical to 2 the conversion process . I'm not sure you' re aware of 3 it . But it now establishes the conversion as being real 4 and ongoing. I hesitate to even conjure or even try to 5 think of the ramifications of holding a public hearing 6 when the public cannot be there or are told not to be 7 there. And that was the reason that I put the note on 8 my card to please hear what I had to say before you open 9 the hearing. 10 I don' t know how to - - just the few comments 11 that Sue Lofton and Richard Close have said this evening 12 should have been heard by the 120 residents who would 13 have an opportunity to respond to that. So I would ask 14 that everything that has been said so far this evening 15 be said again in January when everybody I guarantee you 16 will be here . 17 I was to speak for 64 of the residents 18 regarding possible questions on the boundaries of the 19 lots in the plat . I don' t know what to do. I don' t . 20 know what stance to take. I think the City has put 21 itself in some jeopardy. You know, you need to help us 22 with this, how to respond to this . 23 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. I certainly appreciate your 24 concern. Let me just say very briefly, and then we ' ll 25 move forward, you asked to speak before the matter was 20 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 open to a public hearing. You are part of the public 2 hearing. So that would have been inappropriate. That ' s 3 why you' re speaking now. This is the public hearing 4 process . 5 - Number two, the matter has been publicly 6 noticed, so we are bound to open a public hearing. 7 Number three, as I said earlier, everyone that 8 is here tonight who has offered testimony can do so 9 again at the January meeting. And all those that are 10 not here that want to address the commission will have 11 an opportunity to do that in January. In addition to 12 that, the minutes of this meeting will be available to 13 the public . Anyone who wants to get those minutes can 14 contact the City ,or go onto the Website and retrieve 15 those. In addition, we have an audiotape that can be 16 made available for those who want to listen to the 17 actual proceeding. 18 So hopefully we ' ll come to the conclusion at 19 the process is fair and just . Thank you for your 20 comments . 21 MS . SCHMIDT: Well, I have a couple of other 22 comments that are -- since you insist on holding the 23 hearing. I will tell you that yesterday, my toilets 24 backed up. That is about the sixth time in the last 25 five months that that has occurred. And I personally 21 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 have witnessed the pumping of two septic tanks that were 2 backing up last week. It is consistently a problem in 3 the park. And part of my point tonight is that if I 4 were not here and if Pat Bell were not here, nobody 5 could respond to some of the comments that are being 6 made about our system. You know, they have to play 7 catchup in order to have to get tapes and be brought up 8 to date on what ' s being heard tonight . And we would 9 have been here if it were not for the city staff 10 alerting us that there was no meeting. It ' s a conundrum 11 that is not going to go away, I have a feeling. 12 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 13 MR. DRILL: If I could also add, the applicant ' s 14 comments basically are virtually verbatim from the 15 letter that they submitted to us . You can have a copy 16 of it which you can summarize completely all their 17 comments . 18 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 19 MS . SCHMIDT: Could we have 191 one of those? 20 That ' s my point . 21 MR. JONATHAN: Thanks very much. 22 Pat Bell. 23 MS . BELL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and 24 commissioners . It ' s a little difficult to say what I 'm 25 going to say now because I think it ' s all been said by 22 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 Mary Schmidt . We ' re very discombobulated that things 2 have gone the way they have this evening. Having been 3 primed tonight and put forth our stand on what was being 4 said and then told, "Forget it . Don' t come . " And then 5 told, "Go ahead. You can say it . " I would like to say 6 that in no way is our stand to - - this evening to slow 7 down or stop or change the position of the conversion 8 going ahead. That ' s not it at all . We know that it 9 will . And we just wanted to make sure that it goes 10 through smoothly. And we have some concerns . And those 11 concerns -- I would rather not say too much tonight . I 12 have the good luck to be able to listen to what the 13 other side was saying so now maybe I can make my 14 position a little stronger next time . 15 I would like to state at the get-go that I do 16 not believe that Title 25 covers what Mr. Close had in 17 mind. That is, that that ' s their mine - - that ' s the 18 main governing body for them. I believe that the city 19 ordinance 743 , which is based on the state code, the 20 state plumbing code, both of those are applicable in 21 this case . And that is the stand that I will take when 22 your hearing continues on the 18th. 23 We have other issues . Lot lines are one of 24 them. I thought for sure that would be the biggy 25 tonight. Well, my biggy was the sewer situation. And 23 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 I 'm very much interested in discussing that with you on 2 the 18th. 3 I believe that ' s just about all I have to say 4 tonight . Thank you. 5 - MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Ms . Bell . 6 Is there anyone else present who wishes to 7 address the planning commission regarding this matter? 8 MR. BURTON: Good evening. My name is Charles 9 Burton. I bought a place in Indian Springs, space 10 number 110, in September. I did not know these issues 11 were coming up. I knew that there was a possibility of 12 conversion. I had no idea the septic and sewer system 13 was an issue and the streets and the line lots and all 14 that. Although, PI could anticipate the line lots might 15 be an issue. I just want to make sure that I understand 16 that we have access to the minutes this evening and the 17 procedure to go about getting those and that we can have 18 a copy of Mr. Close ' s letter and any other information 19 that we might disseminate to the rest of the residents . 20 of Indian Springs . 21 MR. JONATHAN: You bet . When do we think the 22 minutes might be available for the public? 23 MS. MONROE: We normally have the (unintelligible) . 24 MR. JONATHAN: Can we create draft documents that 25 are subject to planning commission approval? 24 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 MS . MONROE: Yes . 2 MR. JONATHAN: Is that legal? Can we just get a - - 3 MR. HARGREAVES : The draft minutes are part of your 4 packet . It ' s a public document . They' re not the 5 official minutes . They' re the draft minutes . 6 MR. JONATHAN: So those can be made available to the 7 public? 8 MR. HARGREAVES: Sure . 9 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Is the commission okay with 10 that? 11 MR. HARGREAVES: It ' s public record. 12 MR. JONATHAN: Exactly. So when do we think the 13 draft minutes would be ready? 14 MS . MONROE: They should be ready by the 16th, 15 part of your packet . 16 MR. JONATHAN: Friday, the 16th of January? 17 MS . MONROE: No, of December. 18 MR. JONATHAN: Of December. Okay. Good. 19 MS . MONROE: Hopefully they will be approved on the 20 23rd. 21 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. So by Friday, the 16th, 22 possibly sooner? 23 MS . MONROE: The 17th. 24 MR. JONATHAN: The 17th of this month. If you 25 want to check with city hall, they should be available . 25 BARKLEYI • JCourt Rsportars 1 In addition to that, all attachments and all the 2 documents, letters and so forth are part of the public 3 record. They will be available as well . I think that 4 answers your question. 5 - MR. BURTON: It does . 6 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. 7 MR. BURTON: And thank you very much. 8 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 9 MS . MONROE: If they want an approved copy, it will 10 be available on the 22nd. 11 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Just to add to that then, we 12 have our next meeting scheduled for December 21st . 13 It ' s our expectation that at that meeting, we ' ll 14 actually approve the draft minutes . Typically, as you 15 saw tonight, we have little or no changes . If you 16 wanted to get an actual approved copy, those should be 17 available as early as December 22nd. 18 Okay. We don' t have repeats on public 19 testimony. I ' ll ask if there is anyone else present who 20 wishes to address the planning commission. 21 Is it a quick brief question? Okay. 22 MS . BELL: Something I forgot to say. With this 23 conversion -- 24 MR. JONATHAN: Give us your name again. 25 MS . BELL: I 'm sorry. I 'm Pat Bell from Indian 26 BARKLEY Lourt Reporters 1 Springs . I 'm the president of the homeowners ' 2 association. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 4 MS . BELL: There ' s a very strict time frame involved 5 for certain procedures to be done . One of those begins 6 today. 180 days from now, according to the tentative 7 back report -- I hope I 'm quoting that correctly. 180 8 days from now, another period begins . And that count 9 starts today, whether we have privy to give our whole 10 spiel tonight or not, it starts today because they did 11 start it today and you did start it today. 12 There is another thing that is happening today. 13 There is a very important definition of resident which 14 begins the first time that this commission hears these 15 things . And that ' s important because anybody who buys a 16 house after -- or is in escrow after this date is not 17 considered a resident. That means that they don' t have 18 the same terms for buying or renting as the resident . I 19 may have that wrong. That is why this date is so 20 important if it ' s going to start counting tonight, even 21 though all the material hasn' t been heard tonight . 22 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you; 23 MS . BELL: That was quick. 24 MR. JONATHAN: Is there anyone else who has not 25 testified who wishes to address the Planning Commission 27 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 regarding this matter? 2 Okay. We will give the applicant to have an 3 opportunity to address the commission if he or she 4 wishes . 5 - MS . LOFTON: Thank you. We ' ll reserve all further 6 comment until January. 7 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Thank you. We will then, I 8 guess , continue the public hearing subject to the 9 pleasure of the Commission. 10 MS . FINERTY: Move to continue to January 18th. 11 MS . CAMPBELL: I ' ll second. 12 MR. JONATHAN: There ' s a motion and a second to 13 continue this meeting to our second meeting on 14 January 18th. 15 Any discussion? 16 All in favor, please say aye . 17 (Commission says aye . ) 18 MR. JONATHAN: Motion passed unanimously. The 19 public hearing is continued to January 18th. 20 (Proceeding concluded at 8 : 41 p.m. ) 21 22 23 24 25 28 BARKLEY Court Reporters 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 I , �� `( , :5U.,VPO , Certified Shorthand 5 -Reporter, Certificate No. ( C)A' , for the State of 6 California, hereby certify: 7 I am the person that stenographically recorded 8 the Transcript of proceeding held on 12-7-2004 9 The foregoing transcript is a true record of 10 said proceeding. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dated 12-22-2004 17 18 19 20 � - 21 22 23 24 25 29 BARKLEY' r_ • • 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss . 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 I, Derrick Anarar1e hereby certify: 5 I am an employee of Barkley Court Reporters, 6 duly authorized agent for the deposition officer that 7 stenographicaly recorded the testimony in the foregoing 8 proceeding and authorized to execute this copy 9 certificate. 10 The foregoing is true and correct copy of 11 the original transcript of the stated proceeding. 12 13 Dated l2 27 - ac, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BARKLEY Court Rrpoiters