Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1229 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '"" WEDNESDAY - DECEMBER 29, 2004 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. I1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. 111. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell .. Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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. A. Case No. PM 31862 - INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., Applicant (Continued from December 7, 2004) 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). Mr. Smith noted that this matter was originally before the Planning Commission at the meeting of December 7, 2004. At that time the matter was continued to allow staff and the City Attorney to review in depth the concerns which the applicant had raised with respect to certain conditions of approval that had been included in the draft resolution at that time. Following the December 7 meeting, the City Attorney determined that due to unforseen circumstances related to the Permit Streamlining Act, the project needed to be acted upon earlier than January 18, 2005. Consequently, the matter was renoticed for the hearing on December 29. All tenants in the park were notified, as well as property owners within 300 feet. He stated that there had been changes made to the draft resolution and there would be another one made for Public Works. With respect to Community Development Condition of Approval No. 3, the City Attorney reviewed the issue and concluded that the jurisdiction of the City's rent review process terminates upon the sale of the first unit and the last sentence of the condition should be deleted. That had been done. 2 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 W Community Development Condition No. 5 related to the requirement for the connection of the park to the sewer system. That condition remained in the recommendation. With the staff report were letters from the Coachella Valley Water District and the California Water Quality Board, and he understood the Water Quality Board might be offering testimony tonight. Relative to Community Development Condition No. 6 for the indemnification of the City, the City Attorney agreed that it should be modified to have the words added, "This section shall not apply to any action brought by the applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter." Mr. Smith stated that change had been made. With respect to the Public Works conditions, the draft resolution included two conditions. Those should be eliminated and replaced with a single condition, a copy of which was distributed to the applicant this evening, to read: "Application approval by City is subject to complete 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 be in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances." In conclusion, Mr. Smith stated that the City Attorney advised that while the City is limited as to the conditions which may be imposed, conditions may be imposed if they are addressing issues of an existing health and safety condition or matters directly permitted by the government code. Commission should weigh the testimony and reports supporting the inclusion of the conditions against the applicant's concerns. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the map, subject to the conditions as noted and as included with the staff report packet with the exception of the changes to the Public Works condition. He asked for any questions. City Attorney Bob Hargreaves stated that he would like to clarify the issue with respect to the meeting tonight. Subsequent to the last meeting, the Permit Streamlining Act was reviewed and there was a certain amount of ambiguity with respect to when the time limits start to 3 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 run. They believed that the best interpretation was that it didn't start to run until after the Planning Commission has made a CEQA determination, which it hasn't done, so they more than likely would have been all right if they had waited until the January meeting. But because of the contentiousness of this meeting and in an abundance of caution, they scheduled the meeting tonight. They asked the applicant to waive the issue, the applicant declined, and that was why they were meeting. It was the City Attorney's belief and opinion that they could have waited until January, but in an abundance of caution decided to go forward tonight. He apologized for the inconvenience. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Hargreaves for his comments and Mr. Smith for his report and asked if there were any questions for Mr. Smith. There were none. Regarding the conditions of approval, Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that the new Public Works conditions deleted the requirement for the deceleration lane and the sidewalk. Mr. Smith said that was correct. They reviewed the matter further and determined that they could be eliminated. Chairperson Jonathan noted that also as part of the staff report they would have discussion by Mr. Jose Angel from the Water Quality Control Board. He asked him to address the Commission and state his name and address for the record. MR. JOSE ANGEL, Acting Assistant Executive Officer for the Board, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Board's primary jurisdiction is water quality control for the region. It does so basically by regulating discharges of waste. Within the context of the item before the Commission, they provided City staff with general concerns about discharges from septic systems. In particular, discharges of waste where there is a high density of units per acre, such as in this case. It was their recommendation that this report, his staff recommendation, would bring the matter to the Board's attention in any event pursuant to the federal requirements that they review regulations every three years. He said that the problem with discharges from this type of development and units is that they were basically concentrating about 50,000 gallons per day of waste water in a very small area. 4 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Some of this waste water contains certain constituents such as nitrates and other constituents which could impair water quality. What they were trying to do when percolating waste water is diffuse it. But make no mistake about it, the impact was there. It might take 10 or 15 years, but it would reach ground water. The problem is that these systems are impacting municipal supplies. So it was a significant concern for them. To the degree that the sewer system is readily available and if it was their recommendation to approve conditions, he supported that the system should be hooked up to the city's collection system. Otherwise, they would have to come to the Board in any event for a revised permit. Under current regulations Indian Springs would probably not be able to have the number of seepage pits that they have right now. They would be required to install more. They would also tow recommend to their Board that they adopt a ground water monitoring network for this site. In his opinion, it was in the best interests of the developer to hook up to the existing collection system. He informed Commission that he is a registered civil engineer and had over 15 years experience in waste water. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that he said he would recommend that they would need more septic pits. Mr. Angel stated that they don't have sufficient area, but by city standards, current standards, to percolate all the waste water, and the current volume generated. So they would need either additional seepage pits or leach fields, whatever they wanted to call it; additional disposal area. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification on what the other thing was he said regarding ground water. 5 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Mr. Angel said a ground water monitoring network. Installing ground watering monitoring wells so they can assess. Currently what they are required to do, and if he could suggest, keep in mind that the system was installed in the 1970's, so that gave them an idea of how long this thing has been in operation. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that this particular system was installed in the 1970's. Mr. Angel confirmed it was the 1970's. Commissioner Finerty asked how long septic systems generally last. Mr. Angel stated that in California, he believed the average failure was 5% per year. He said that was with adequate operation and maintenance. Out of 100 systems, five will fail no matter what. That is to say, they would either see the discharge from the septic tanks surface and they get a lot of odor complaints and that kind of thing, or the leach field basically loses its percolating capacity and they just basically have a direct path to the underground water. Commissioner Finerty asked in how many years that usually occurs. Mr. Angel said five per year if there were 100. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was five septic pits per year. Mr. Angel replied five leach fields or septic pits. He explained that the difference between a leach field and a pit system is the leach field is sort of a football field versus a seepage pit, which is just a whole in the ground. So it is more concentrated. They typically would not see the seepage pit fail because it won't surface. What happens is the soil gets saturated and they lose their ability to basically provide additional treatment to the discharge. Commissioner Finerty said that meant that no matter how much they treat it, it is just incapable. 6 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Mr. Angel said that was right. To give them an idea of what they are dealing with, the discharge from the septic system, all things being equal, had twice as much as the pollutants as a waste water treatment plant would discharge. So they only consider them to provide primary treatment, whereas the typical Coachella Valley sanitary district waste water treatment plant provides a secondary treatment. So they provide additional treatment; they produce better treated waste water. But again, the main problem is the density. So it wasn't necessarily that they have the seepage pits. And second, they are impacting the municipal water supply. If the Commission decided not to recommend approval, clearly they felt the concern remained and they were willing to work with the residents out there to procure funds like they had done in Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs so they could phase them out as funding became available and they could defer the cost of hooking up to the municipality's collection system. Commissioner Finerty reiterated they had done this before and asked if where they phased out, say 50 septic pits, if they set up a program whereby so many would be eliminated each year and those would be hooked up to the sewer system. Mr. Angel said it could be done that way or they could just give them a deadline that the system should be eliminated by a certain date. For example, in Mission Springs Water District in Desert Hot Springs, they gave them 12 years to eliminate all the existing septic systems/leach field discharges that are within 200 feet of a sewer collection system. Just a date. Or they could give them a time schedule to phase out a particular number per year. The way their Board does that is adopt a prohibition prohibiting the discharge from the septic system and say something to the effect that by this date, the discharge shall cease. Something to that effect. In the meantime, they work with the communities to make sure that they move along. There is funding available and grants. Commissioner Finerty asked about grants being available. 6W 7 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Mr. Angel confirmed that there are grants available. The voters of California passed several propositions since 2000. Proposition 13, Proposition 40 and Proposition 50 that provide for many municipalities to apply for grants to address some of these water quality problems. They are a concern; make no mistake about it. And it was a matter of time before the impact shows. Their experience with septic systems is that. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that they knew eventually it was going to be impacted, there was no question. Mr. Angel said that was right, particularly if they were upgrading the municipal water supply. Commissioner Finerty said especially with the density. Mr. Angel said the density was a significant concern for them. Commissioner Finerty thanked him. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Angel's agency was the one who would field any complaints or concerns about this particular development. Mr. Angel said yes. He said he would go over the recent regulatory history. They have had at least one odor complaint over the septic tanks. They've had an ongoing series of noncompliance with their requirements. Minor things, nothing serious, regarding submittal of monitoring reports. In fairness to the owners of the site, they have been responsive to their concerns, but it was an ongoing battle and they were high maintenance, these things, and they require monitoring and they require pumping. Commissioner Tschopp said they've had at least one complaint. Mr. Angel said one complaint and at least a dozen noncompliance issues with the site. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Angel had any copies of the noncompliance reports. 8 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Mr. Angel said they were public records and he could give them some dates if that would help their deliberation. Going back to May 7, 1993 - failure to submit a report; February 11 , 1994 - failure to submit a report; March 4, 1994 - failure to submit a report; April 12, 1994 - failure to submit a report; February 8, 1996 - failure to submit a report; January 4, 1998 - noncompliance because they didn't make a certain number of things accessible for inspection; same thing on April 30, 1998, December 2, 1998, December 29, 1998. Of particular concern was one citation where they cited the owners because the discharge had a volatile organic constituent in it. Commissioner Finerty asked him to repeat that. He said it was a volatile organic constituent; things they use to basically clean the toilets essentially. They find organic constituents in there called 1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene. Not to be too r .. descriptive, but the coins they find in the urinals basically to dissipate the odors. That's where it comes from. They are additives that they use to either make sure the system washes out. Going on with the noncompliance issues, January 10, 2002 and February 27, 2003. He stated that the most recent compliance inspection showed compliance. But they have a series of problems, they were not major problems, but they were problems for them. The discharger has been responsive and he didn't want them to get the impression that they haven't been cooperative, but they have problems over there, no question about it. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the Commission packets they were given an inspection and maintenance report apparently done in November of 2004. He asked if Mr. Angel had seen them because he didn't really know how to read them or what sense they made. Mr. Angel said he hadn't seen the most recent one, but basically what they are required to report is how much waste water they are discharging on the average on a daily basis; secondly, they were supposed to tell them how many nitrates the discharge has; 9 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 how much total nitrogen, and they use those constituents as indicators to the threat to water quality. In addition to that, they let them know how many number of sites/septic tanks are accessible for inspection. And they also sample for volatile organic constituents. Based on Mr. Angel's expertise, Commissioner Tschopp asked if this appeared to have a potential to harm the groundwater supply at this time. Mr. Angel said he would be more blunt about it. All of this discharge, where they have a high density, poses a significant threat to water quality. They are upstream of the drinking water supply in any event and if the sewer is readily available, he could see no reason why, particularly if the Commission decided that the condos should be approved, then the new owners should bear the responsibility. That made sense to him, was practical, and common sense. Commissioner Tschopp said that he knew that industrial corporations and so forth bear the responsibility for clean up when there are spills that affect groundwater and so forth. He assumed it wasn't the same in a mobile home park or in septic tank situations. Mr. Angel said the owners of the site would be responsible. The James, they were considering them the responsible party. If there is a water quality impact, the way their Board works they first go directly to the dischargers, they call the responsible parties dischargers. There would be a primary responsible party, but once the pollution, if there is pollution that spreads, the Board has the prerogative to ask additional entities to conduct investigations. For example, if one of the city wells get impacted and they suspect it is coming from there, the Board can ask the City to conduct and pay for the investigation. Clearly the Board uses some common sense and tries to find the most responsible party. It is within their Board's prerogative to require any particular entity to conduct an investigation when it comes down to water quality. And they have some of those situations. For example, in Palm Springs, Desert Water Agency has borne a significant cost with wrl 10 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 �r one of their wells which was polluted by a dry cleaner, but they ended up paying the bill. For them, he would just add in trying to wrap up the perspective of where they are coming from. Their current permit for this site is a general permit. It covers many other sites. It's general and in his opinion was very loose. They were also recommending to his Board that the permit be revised so it provides additional safeties for protection of water resources. So whether they act in a particular way or not, this permit was going to be revised if the Board went along with the recommendation. So the owners of the site would have to face additional requirements. Commissioner Tschopp asked what that might be. Mr. Angel said they might address the density as one. And it went back to what Commissioner Finerty said. They would work with j,. them on a time schedule and try to find resources to help the citizens out there to defray the costs. They weren't trying to put people out of business or give them a hard time, but there were significant water quality concerns with these types of developments. Commissioner Tschopp said that in his capacity, he was saying that over time the high density will result in a problem. Mr. Angel said that was their experience. Commissioner Lopez asked about the records they had for maintenance and inspections. When they are conducted, he asked who paid for them. Mr. Angel said in essence it was the discharger because they pay an annual fee for their permit. They pay somewhat; they didn't cover all the staff, of course, but it helped. They submit an annual fee to the State Water Resource Control Board. The rest is borne by the citizens of California to the General Fund. Commissioner Finerty noted that Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that they were not really too schooled at how to read these, but she was 11 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 ww noticing that for the various contaminants, it looked like two out the 191 spaces were checked. Mr. Angel said right, but they don't necessarily check all of them; the cost would be significant. But just to give them an idea of what they were looking at, but if they were on page 1 , on the fifth item where he listed certain constituents there like total dissolved solids, volatile organics, hydrogen and nitrates. The drinking water standard for nitrates is 10 milligrams per liter. Some of the discharge here is about 8 milligrams per liter. For total nitrogen is 45. So in some regards they are okay, but in other regards they could look at this report and it is 46. It poses a significant threat to water quality. Going back to the middle of the page with the Toluene, Commissioner Finerty said it was 74.7 and 22.5. She asked what they were expecting to see for Toluene. Mr. Angel said that the maximum contaminant level for drinking water believed was five parts per billion. And what they were looking at was almost 75. Commissioner Finerty said that was at one of the spaces. Mr. Angel said that it could come from gasoline or some other solvent. People may dump some into the drain. Commissioner Finerty indicated that Toluene wasn't something they should be having in their water. Mr. Angel said that none of these volatile organic constituents should be in the .drinking water or in the groundwater. They weren't naturally occurring. They were synthetic-made compounds like industrial solvents and that kind of a thing. That's what they were looking at. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that five parts per billion is what they should be seeing. 12 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Mr. Angel concurred. Going down to nitrates at the bottom for Space 96, Commissioner Finerty noted that it is .58 and space 150 it is 1 .76 and then they talk about the total nitrogen. She asked if those were high as well. Mr. Angel said they were relatively low. He explained that the standard for nitrates in drinking water is 10; 10 milligrams per liter or 45 for total nitrogen. So the way they keep these contaminants out, Commissioner Finerty said they continue to pump. Mr. Angel said that was correct. Also, within the septic tank there are some microorganisms that digest or convert some of these constituents into less threatening constituents. If they go a few pages back under Maintenance and Inspection regarding space numbers 30 to 50, and on the inspection date of November 17, Commissioner Finerty asked for information about the category that said Thickness Inlet Scum Layer/(Inches) and they just had "pumped" and then there was a Thickness Outlet Scum Layer/(Inches) and a date. She asked if that meant that between October 6 and November 17, 2004 there was enough stuff in there that they needed to pump it out. Mr. Angel said that was right. They at least try to pump out each septic system at least once a year. Solids build up, or slush. They build up within the septic tank and if they don't remove them, they will have significant water quality problems, not to mention nuisance conditions out there. Periodically they have to check how much solids have accumulated within the septic systems and how much they have been pumped up. In fairness to the discharger, they have done a fairly decent job in that regard. But having said that, it still poses a significant threat to water quality from their perspective. Commissioner Finerty indicated it wasn't a question of if, it was when it will. 13 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Mr. Angel said that was correct, from their experience. Regarding the schedule, Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a pumping schedule and on Space 159 it seemed like, and she didn't now what the tank was or how many people were involved in that tank, but they had 12 pumpings from 10/27, 1 1/2, 1 1/19, 1 1/26 and asked why that was. Mr. Angel said that was a good observation. Some septic tanks have more units connected to them, so there was a more rapid build up of solids. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that meant they weren't equally divided. Mr. Angel concurred. He said they have a total of 44 pits out there. On the average they were probably looking at a little less than five units per pit. If there was any consolation in their deliberations, he said they weren't alone facing this issue. It is throughout California and certainly in the region it is a problem. So their Board would take a broader look at the current regulations and its current policies regarding septic systems. And they weren't going to get more relaxed. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant claims that the Regional Water Quality Control Board couldn't require abandonment of a septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage. Mr. Angel said that was correct. The law explicitly prevents the Regional Board. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the Regional Water Quality Control Board had substantial evidence that the septic system in question will cause water quality damage. Mr. Angel said they didn't have groundwater data. The answer was no. That's where they are going. When he said that the permit was going to get revised and would get tighter, they will 14 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 recommend that the Board adopt a groundwater monitoring effort for this site. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that he was in agreement that the Board cannot require abandonment without substantial evidence and he was saying they didn't have the physical evidence. Mr. Angel said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he would agree with the applicant's position that the Board at this point cannot require abandonment of the septic system. Mr. Angel said that was correct. From his earlier remarks, either way they would have to deal with them for a revised permit, regardless of what the City did. If the Commission didn't approve this, he didn't say they weren't going to permit the septic tanks, .w but it would get tighter. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that Mr. Angel was recommending that it be done, but he was also saying that the Board at this point wasn't in a position to require it. Mr. Angel said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Angel. He asked if there was anything else from staff. There wasn't. Chairperson Jonathan declared that the public hearing was open and since there were so many people present who might not be familiar with the procedure, he explained that in the public hearing section, they would first give the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission. They would then open it up to anyone present who wished to address the Commission. They would start with the ones who submitted cards, first those in favor and then those in opposition, and then those that didn't indicate either way. The testimony given tonight was limited to five minutes or less and asked that they keep that in mind, and they also ask those present to limit their comments to those issues which the Planning Commission have authority over. The other thing was for everyone to 15 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 remain polite and try not to be redundant. If they agree with the previous speaker, just let them know that and move on rather than repeating what has just been said. Other than that, everyone was free to address the Commission. Once the other public testimony was given, the procedure was to let the applicant have a final opportunity to address any of the comments made and then the public hearing would be closed or continued and then the Commission would have discussion. Having declared the public hearing to be open, he asked the applicant to address the Commission, requesting that they give their name and address for the record and to speak clearly. MS. SUE LOFTIN, 5760 Fleet Street, Suite 110, in Carlsbad, California, 92008, addressed the Commission. She wished them a good evening and happy holidays. The hearing tonight was one they certainly appreciated everyone's work on and was certain everyone had issues like they all do with houses full of company or off on trips. First of all, for purposes of this evening so that she didn't reiterate anything that she stated last time, was to incorporate all testimony from the December 7 hearing, all written material submitted at that time to the Planning Commission, including without limitation the two correspondence from Gilchrist & Rutter dated December 6 and December 22, 2004, the letter from Tri-Star dated December 3, 2004, the letter from James & Associates dated December 2, 2004 and she would like to incorporate the materials they submitted this evening: the materials they took the opportunity to talk to Mr. Angel about were actually submitted by them to establish they have clearly conformed to the regulations that the discharges are within the Water Quality Control limits. It did get a little confusing when they were talking about comparing drinking water with septic water, but it's clear that they have complied with that. She also submitted binders (two copies) that show since 1997 that the park has been in full compliance with all aspects of the requirements and conditions. She was a little surprised to hear about citations because they have no records of those and it was 16 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 clear that they have passed each and every year since that point in time. The applicant, again, as evidenced by the testimony last time, has spent $300,000 in upgrading the 1970 system so that it will be the upgraded and current condition for purposes of operation. She stated that the applicant requests this evening approval of the map as recommended by staff with the exception of Condition 5 that reads, "pursuant to the General Water Resources Policy No. 4 and Municipal Code Chapter 8.60, the subdivider prior to the sale of each unit shall connect said unit to the public sewer and provide evidence of the same to purchaser." First of all, she wanted to review what they were talking about. They have a private septic system that at least since 1977 they have provided documentation that there is no current health and safety problem to the residents onsite. There is no problem and the ground water is tested. It is included in those reports, as well as the one they fir.. were discussing earlier. There has been no contamination. All numbers are within the range or at the low range of what is required. Therefore, there is no existing health and safety problem onsite for the existing residents. The issue turns to, is there an existing health and safety problem offsite? And the answer, again, was no, not from this specific septic system. There are septic systems from the RV parks in other areas of the desert that have created some significant problems. They have not been maintained properly. In this property it is pumped annually. The regulations require every three years. Annually is what her client believed was appropriate, as evidenced by the prior speaker. What this section is requesting is that prior to sale, the private septic system be replaced with a private sewer system. That entails taking out all the streets. All of the connections for the sewer hook ups to the homes are in the back of the homes, requiring tearing up all the yards. It requires installation of the sewer mains through the streets and then connecting from the street to the home. It is their clear position that they do not have the authority under either their ordinance nor, more importantly, 17 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 under state statute, to require that a private sewer system be installed at the sole cost and expense of the parties involved. According to the City's Ordinance 743 which enacted Chapter 8.60, it was not intended to be a blanket ordinance. It clearly stated that the properties that were intended were those intended by and encumbered by a Certificate of Requirement. This is contained in their staff report, in their internal memorandum that was dated as of October 6, 1993 in Item No. 1 on page 2. Looking further at the City's minutes and interoffice memorandums, on February 15, 1994, to address the concerns of Council at that time that it was going to be a blanket encumbrance, the staff recommendation gives under the background comment, Exhibit A is the final property address list which are the parcels that are then later attached to the ordinance. She thought it was important to note that this property was not listed and is not, and never had, a Certificate of Requirement. Further in the City's submittal, they, as part of the application, submitted the preliminary title report which only confirms that a Certificate of Requirement was never recorded against the property. The preamble to the ordinance does state that it is to apply to all properties; however, property is later defined as those properties on Exhibit A. So the City's ordinance on the face of it does not apply to their particular property. Assuming arguendo that it would, under 8.60.070 Certificate of Temporary Exemption, the property meets three out of the four exemption criteria. Beyond 200 feet, there is a sewer connection along 74. Most of these properties are beyond 200 feet. So they weren't requiring a connection, would be requiring the construction of the sewer main lines throughout the property and requiring that to be borne solely by the property owner and then maintained later. Condominiums which share a common septic system are another basis of the ordinance not applicable and requiring the septic. The fourth was financially feasible. This project costs approximately $4 18 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 million to create a private sewer system. That is $21 ,000 approximately per lot that upon the purchase residents obviously would be paying for that. They have to pay a monthly fee of $9.00 approximately for the sewer connection to the city. Then in their homeowner's association dues they also have to pay for the annual maintenance of those lines and for a reserve and replacement which they were estimating would add about $90 to their monthly HOA dues. By comparison to a septic system that has been updated that is operative for which it has been in full compliance, there is no additional cost. The total per month cost for the operation and the preventive maintenance is $8.45 a month. That is what they would pay, plus the reserve in order to build up for all of the items of approximately $9.00. That was a significant dollar amount in cost asking private households to pay for a full public sewer system that they were privately going to own. tow Notwithstanding any of that, the state statute 66428.1 was enacted for the specific purpose of requiring or limiting what cities or other local jurisdictions can do on conversions. This was a critical component. One of the things that it specifically disallowed is that any units that cannot be eliminated, that they could only address offsite improvements. They could not require interior improvements. Those offsite improvements must be and create an existing health and safety hazard. From this property they have no existing health and safety hazard from either the existing residences nor the surrounding properties. The improvement request was for improvement totally onsite and, therefore, was prohibited. Lastly, the statute requires that it be an unsecured agreement that cannot be a condition of a final map. In this case they wrote it as a condition of the final map. In conclusion, on the face the ordinance and the legislative history that the staff has provided, it is clear that this property is not subject to the City's ordinance. Even assuming that it did apply, three out of the four listed exemptions apply to this property. The state statute 66428.1 D & E preempt local ordinances in terms of what they can require. They 19 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 couldn't require onsite improvements for upgrades. They could require offsite improvements only if they address an existing significant health and safety issue. There is no evidence of such in this matter. The residents were rightfully concerned that they go through with this conversion and then, in listening to Mr. Angel speak, she could understand their concern that there is a possibility that this could come hit them at a later point in time. And the 12 years, the grants, and all of those kinds of things were irrelevant and was not what was being proposed tonight. But as to those residents, they were requesting a specific finding that the ordinance is not applicable to them and a specific factual finding that there is no evidence presented of an existing health and safety problem from this sewer system. As they heard from Mr. Angel, they do not have the facts nor the authority to require hook up due to malfunction. The materials that they submitted were very general in nature. As to this property, it was if it was not maintained, and if this happened and that happened, then they could have a problem. That was certainly true of all systems, including a sewer system. If they didn't maintain that, there would be problems. In terms of those comments, they needed to keep in mind what the balance was here. They have a system that works, they have a system that's been upgraded, the trade off the way the condition is drafted and what the intent is creates a considerable ongoing financial issue for these residents and they need to make sure that is protected, as well as make sure they are protected in the future. That because this is a good system, does not create the problems, that they not get penalized in the future either. With that, she stated that she had with her Larry Owens, who testified last time, he is the engineer who did the upgrades; Anne James of James & Associates, the property manager in charge since 1995 of maintaining the system and could answer any questions they might have in that regard. She thanked them for 20 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 their patience and said she would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Loftin talked about the difference financially for the owners. For clarification, she asked if Ms. Loftin was representing the owner of the mobile home park. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. She represents the owner of the mobile home park. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was any representation for the individual owners of the mobile homes. Ms. Loftin said they don't have their attorney with them this evening. They were going to be speaking. Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Loftin alluded to the cost being $4 ..Y million to create a sewer system. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was based on competitive bids that the owner had gone out and solicited. Ms. Loftin said that had been numbers provided by engineers that work in the area. They hadn't sent it out for a formal bid where they had time to come in and look everything over. They are familiar with the property. That does include the hook up fees payable to the different agencies. But in terms if it was a reliable number, she stated it was a very reliable estimate. Commissioner Finerty said the point was that it had not gone out to bid and there hadn't been someone out to really look at the property and really scrutinize exactly what needs to be done. The owners made no effort to do such. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Loftin said that wasn't correct. To clarify her statement, the bid numbers in the information were requested from engineers who do this type of work and who have had an active participation 21 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 in this particular property so that they had information such as where are the connections to the homes, where are the leach fields, where are the tanks, what has to be put into the road, what is the capacity, so it was not like nobody knew what was going on. So there was a significant historical background of information that went into these bids. Commissioner Finerty noted that these bids were non existent, though. She was led to believe that this was just a verbal number and asked if she actually had bids in writing to confirm the $4 million figure. Ms. Loftin said she needed to ask and turned to speak to someone in the audience. MR. LARRY OWENS, 77-545 Robin Road in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said they did an estimate based on the lineal feet of the road that is there, the line that would have to be put in, all the conversions, digging up the roads, putting them all back, and estimating engineering costs to do the diagrams and plans. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was fair to say that Mr. Owens did a verbal estimate. There was nothing that was provided in writing. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Owens said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty didn't know if he could answer this, but to his knowledge, she asked if there were any other companies that were asked to look at this. Mr. Owens didn't know. Commissioner Finerty asked Ms. Loftin if she was aware of anyone other than Mr. Owens having looked at the property and given some sort of a bid. 22 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Ms. Loftin said she just clarified that with Ms. James, who handles the bids. She did have a bid that was also verbal from another company. It was prior to Mr. Owen's bid. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that there were no written bids. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Loftin also talked about a possible increase of $90 in the residents' dues for sewer hook up, maintenance of lines, and reserves. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. She then clarified that it did not include the sewer hook up. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would go on their water bill. Ms. Loftin said that wasn't how the utilities worked on the property. The water bill would go to the homeowners association. Then it was divided among each of the households so, because the water meters are not sub-metered in this particular property. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was just divided up among 191 units. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty said that aside from that, they were estimating that the maintenance of lines and the reserves would be an additional $90 per unit per month. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Loftin concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked where she came up with those numbers. Ms. Loftin said they were done by a CPA. She didn't do those kinds of numbers and based on cost, repairs, building up reserves, and so on. *MW 23 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Commissioner Finerty asked if they didn't have a written bid for the sewer system, how a CPA would then determine that it would be about $90 to put aside for the maintenance for the lines. Ms. Loftin said that the $90, again, there are three parts to, and she would get to her question, there are three parts to a homeowner's association budget that relate to any specific item. There's the monthly fee, which in this case is around $9.00. There is the annual divided by monthly operating cost to do the general maintenance. Then there is a set aside based on a lifeline that is established by the Department of Real Estate that then has to be set aside. That is determined by estimating the number of miles of pipe, the number of homes, the number of connections, and so on. The number of miles is done by taking the number of miles of the road, the pipe would go through the road, the laterals would come off of the road and in this case the laterals are longer than usual because all of the sewer connections into the homes are at the ffi back of the homes. So it is an estimate based on those kinds of numbers. Commissioner Finerty asked if the CPA based this $90 a month increase on verbal bids, one from Mr. Owens and one the property manager had solicited prior to Mr. Owens. Ms. Loftin said no. Whether the bids were to build the system from the ground up, when the DRE budget preparers prepare a budget, they look first at past operatings to get the operating. In this case there is no past operating for a sewer system, so they would look at and use what is in there, she wasn't sure what to call it, but they have averages for what it costs to maintain and operate. That is based on linear feet of pipe, connections, number of connections and so on. And based on each year, those are revised because they assume when they are going to replace, if they built a sewer system in one year, materials change over time and they update it to do that. So the dollar amount of the bid was not relevant to and was separate from the calculation to come up with what it would cost from the DRE. 24 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Commissioner Finerty said she understood how reserve studies work, but typically it has been based on what has actually been spent and then they project how long the life will be and how much they need to set aside given certain escalation in fees that they know are going to happen. Ms. Loftin said that was right. In this type of area you have, for example, all utilities have a shorter lifeline because, which if Commissioner Finerty was familiar with budgets, because of the soil here and the wide range in temperatures. So those things are taken into consideration, she was correct. But in this instance that wasn't how it was done because they don't have something that has been built yet. Commissioner Finerty understood that. She noted that Ms. Loftin was also talking about an $8.45 per unit and asked if that was to maintain the septic system now per unit. Ms. Loftin said that was correct and she could give Commissioner Finerty the exact numbers on that if she would like. The annual cost of pumping over the last three-year average was $10,300; the annual repair maintenance when there's a problem with the leach line, those kinds of things happen. Chairperson Jonathan interrupted and said they understand they don't have a firm bid for the $4 million, they understand that they estimated $90 a month for the HOA fees and he asked if they needed to get into the detail of this or if they could move along. Commissioner Finerty explained that she was just trying to understand how, she understood the concern for the residents and it was because of the sewer system controversy is why so many people were present and so many people were concerned, and she was trying to understand how for a sewer system they were talking about $90 per month, where to maintain and put reserves aside for the septic it was only $17.45 per month. She wasn't getting that connection. So if she had the $10,300 annual pumping and whatever the repair and maintenance has been over the last couple of years, she needed to try and understand how they could get by at $17 per month versus the $90. Chairperson Jonathan suggested addressing that question and asked if Ms. Loftin could account for the IWW difference. 25 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Ms. Loftin said sure. Going back to the "all other repairs," it was $9,070 for an annual cost, and that was an average over seven years. This did not include the $300,000 in upgrades that were just completed. Commissioner Finerty said that would have been from reserves. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. So they have an $8.45 a month that would go into the operating split into the two categories, and then they would need a reserve to build up to redo the $300,000 over time and that was where they got the dollar amount. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was the $9.00. Ms. Loftin said yes. There is a significant difference between when, in this instance the septic system goes down, it affects a small number of homes, they go in and it's a small repair. On the sewer systems, the repairs are not done in the same fashion and when there is a problem, the problems tend to be more expensive and looking at the lifeline of hard pipes as opposed to the leach lines given the particular soil that you have, the expenses on that type of construction over time is more expensive than you have on the current septic system. Changing the subject, Commissioner Finerty asked if Ms. Loftin could tell them what the plan is to establish the lot lines. Ms. Loftin said the plan is, in the staff report they received a copy of a flier that she sent out to the residents. The lot lines are established on and for the condominium plan. Once the City has approved the one-lot subdivision so that they have the outer monuments established, then there will be a three-part process for establishing the lines for the condominium units. The first step is to do an aerial fly over. Put the aerial fly over into the computer and then there is a lot of vegetation, so they couldn't do a condominium plan or site plan strictly from an aerial photo. The engineer will come out with a survey crew. The engineer would mark temporarily the front and the back lot lines. 26 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 thw Then the residents would have the opportunity to comment on those. It is typical that there would be some issues. They look at an aerial and an engineer goes out and they say they think a tree goes on this side and the resident says no, that is my tree. That process usually takes 30 to 60 days to get through and resolve with all the residents. Then the map is prepared. It is sent with the DRE package. Between the time it is sent to the DRE and the time they get ready to close escrows, the markers for the front and back lot lines are placed. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was their intent to have the lot lines established before escrows are to close. Ms. Loftin said absolutely. They had to. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that the process Ms. Loftin just described was not part of the proceedings tonight. r. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said they were here to establish the one-lot subdivision and not get into the individual lots themselves. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if any other Commissioners had questions and, if necessary, they would go back to Commissioner Finerty. Chairperson Jonathan said he had a question having to do with process. Condition No. 5 that Ms. Loftin referred to indicates that the subdivider, prior to the sale of each unit, shall connect said unit to the public sewer, and so forth. He asked if mechanically this was a cost that the applicant would bear prior to any sale of any unit. Ms. Loftin said that mechanically how it would have to work, because most of the units are more than 200 feet away from Highway 74, so if this stayed as drafted, the applicant would have to go in, tear out the streets, put in the sewer lines, then each lot two 27 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' DECEMBER 29, 2004 would have to have a lateral put all the way down and back and around the back. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but he was asking if the work would be done by the applicant and paid for by the applicant prior to the sale of any unit. Ms. Loftin said that as the condition was drafted, she would assume that is what it would contemplate. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was the expectation that the cost would then be somehow transferred to the individual home buyer through escrow. Ms. Loftin said she wanted to make it clear for the record that they don't agree with the condition, but assuming the condition went through and it was done, the answer was yes. Chairperson Jonathan said that what he was understanding, and who paid for it was kind of secondary to what they were being asked to consider, but he wanted to make sure he understood the dynamics. Ultimately the individual buyer of a unit would be the one that will pay their proportionate share of the cost of Condition No. 5 of creating an internal sewer system and connecting to the public system. Ms. Loftin said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked for other questions. With respect to the last remark about passing the cost through to the buyer, Mr. Hargreaves said his understanding was that there was an appraisal done which sets the value of the lots and that's what the individual buyers are charged. He asked if that was correct. He also asked if that process had within it the ability to pass through the cost apart from the appraised value. Ms. Loftin answered yes. 28 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 MR. RICHARD CLOSE, Attorney for the Applicant, 1299 Ocean Boulevard in Santa Monica, California, addressed the Commission. To answer that question, he said the prices are set pursuant to the state law requirements. And they would include all additional improvements, assuming that a court would find that Condition 5 was a valid condition. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him and Ms. Loftin. Commissioner Tschopp said he had a question for Mr. Close. He said it has been his experience in appraisals, though, that they'll typically deduct for being on a septic system as opposed to a sewer system and also will deduct for cost of improvements down the road when they reach a value on the property. He asked if that was something he could see happening in this case. Mr. Close said he wished he could comment; but he didn't have the credentials to be able to adequately answer the question. There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that he would ask for comments from the non-applicant public and then following that, give the applicant an opportunity to readdress the Commission. Referring to the blue Request to Speak Cards, he called Mr. John Tessman to the podium. He noted that the meeting was recorded for purposes of the minutes and asked Mr. Tessman to restate his name and address for the record. MR. JOHN TESSMAN, 49-305 State Highway 74, Space No. 172 in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He stated that the reason he marked that he was for it was because he wanted to go on record that he completely supports the owner in this proposition that he is doing to convert these to condos. He was sure it was a tough decision on the Commission's part as to whether or not to enforce this ordinance or not in this situation. It was a tough decision. This might not be a clear yes or no answer today, hopefully it is, whether they were going to force them to hook up to sewer or not or force them to hook up to sewer later. He said it might be easier to push them as small guys later to comply at that time when they get ready to sell. 29 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 He stated that this ordinance was meant to protect the health, safety and welfare of our people in the greater Palm Desert area. That was why he didn't mind when he sold his house and moved into the mobile home park, which wasn't hooked onto sewer after 27 years, to hook up to the sewer because he knew it was a thing to do. Even though he didn't financially gain from it and wished he could have that money back in the bank. But speaking of money, one of the meetings that they had with the Loftin Firm at the clubhouse, and they just heard it today the testimony on retaining the sewer and how it was going to save them money versus hooking up to the public sewer system. Incidentally, he said the public sewer system was not maintained by the City and they knew that. It's maintained by Coachella Valley Water District. He didn't think the City would ever want to get into the sewer business. It seemed to him that the figures they've thrown out in that meeting started at $23,000 to hook up each unit. Then they ended up at $25,000 and said it would be added to the cost of what they were going to pay. That wasn't reiterated tonight. And part of that quote was $4,000 to pay Coachella Valley to hook up. He said he did a little checking on his own, he worked for a water company, and the person at Coachella Valley Water said they range generally $6,000 to $10,000 and $6,000 would be basically to hook up to what they would consider a private system, which is what he heard in testimony tonight. Six thousand dollars, not $21 ,000. That meeting scared him and probably scared everybody. Incidentally, the hook up fee was not $4,000, it is $2,991 with Coachella Valley Water. As far as a hook up, there was a hook up provided to both Mountain Back, which was the condominium right below them, and at that time that particular hook up was also made for their park. The hook up to the sewer might require the park, because it was down between Mountain Back and them, require the entry to come between two units and this was probably no problem right now because they didn't have lot lines to find. 30 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 He recommended that the committee at this time define on that perimeter map where the hook up was located before they would even consider approving this perimeter map. What they said in the meeting was they would require the residents, after the lot lines are drawn, an act of congress in order to do something like this. So it came down to, is it time to enforce this ordinance now when it's easy and doesn't cost very much money? Or do it later? He thanked them. MS. SANDY SYMINGTON, 49-305 Highway 74, Unit 95, addressed the Commission. She said she has been a resident of Indian Springs for about five years. She was pleased to be able to speak to the Planning Commission while minds are open and decisions have not been made. At the December 7 Planning meeting, Attorney Sue Loftin requested that the City of Palm Desert remove all rental control laws from Indian Springs. That would be after the first sale of a subdivided lot. This park is for anyone over 55 years of age. Many of the homeowners living in Indian Springs were well into their 70's and 80's. She respectfully requested that the rent controls stay intact for as long as needed to protect the elderly who would be displaced and unable to pay more than their fixed income would allow. She asked that they not remove rent control from Indian Springs Park. MS. PAT BELL, 49-305 Highway 74, Space No. 171 , addressed the Commission. (Copies of her letter and five photographs were submitted to staff and circulated to Commission.) She stated that she is currently the President of the Indian Springs Homeowners Association. She said that tonight she was present representing all of the residents in their park, not just the membership of the homeowners association. But she first wanted to say a few words to the seniors present. Last night a last meeting was called by the park owner's representatives. They were also present tonight. The purpose of last night's meeting was to discuss this night's meeting. It is the holiday season, the hour was late, people had family visiting and 31 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 it was pouring rain. Nevertheless, the room was full of concerned residents. Once again they were told of the magnificence of their current septic system and how it will last and they used the word forever. Once again they were given outrageous cost estimates to hook up and maintain, by the way, which they had just been told was not the case, a sewer system instead of the septic system they have. Last night they had a new wrinkle to their request. What they said, "And what would be the City's motive?" asked the park owner's legal representative. This was a rhetorical question, actually, because he answered his own question and he said money. They want the money. She said she was paraphrasing their words, but that's what they meant. To their credit, this group of people remained polite and attentive anyway. k 3 To the Palm Desert Planning Commissioners, she said seniors in their park have absolutely run out of patience. They were getting the same evasive answers regarding the sewer situation. Every time they talk about sewer, they talk about septic and tell them it is better than sliced bread. Yes, they were worried about the cost, worried about the cost of the land that they would be required to buy, and they didn't even know how much this land will cost until the conversion is nearly completed. And they were worried about an aging infrastructure, particularly the septic system that is part of their proposal. Given the prime location,.it was hard to fathom how the park owner could be allowed to let a 30-year old outmoded system be left in. Yes, they worry about how they will pay for the sewer. Many of them are on limited incomes. But maybe there are options, but let's find out. Most of the park residents felt that keeping the old septic system is not a viable option. That would be the equivalent to keeping the old out house after septic tanks had been invented. Let's move on to the future. Both the City and state law say abandon the old septic system and so do they. Shame of them that are spending big bucks to convince these seniors that substandard is good enough for them. 32 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 She thanked the City of Palm Desert for having the courage of their convictions. They insist that Ordinance 743 and the state code be complied with. She asked that it be entered into the permanent record and thanked them. (Said letters and photograph are on file.) Chairperson Jonathan noted that Ms. Bell heard testimony tonight that it appears that ultimately the unit purchasers may very likely pay for the sewer installation. He asked as President of the Homeowners Association if it was her sense that most owners would nevertheless still favor the improvement, the installation of the sewer system in spite of the possibility that they might have to ultimately pay for that. Ms. Bell said it was a problem for a lot of people because a lot of them are on limited incomes. It's by far, from speaking with people, better to do this in advance as the City's ordinance requires, because at this point they have no price on the land and should the park owner be required to pay for it, they know there's no free lunch. She asked if that cost could be passed on and amortized over a number of years, making it much easier for them to pay for it? Chairperson Jonathan asked if she meant through a mortgage or something else. Ms. Bell said yes. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that Ms. Bell's sense is that people understand that and nevertheless were in favor of the sewer installation. Ms. Bell concurred. Regarding what was said about the Section 8.60 in the City's Ordinance 743, the legal rep for the park owner referred to Exhibit A and she might have it wrong and perhaps the legal rep for the City could clarify it, but as she saw it, the Exhibit A of the ordinance was a list of residences that did not hook up, did not abandon septics, but the City kept a list of these people expecting that they should hook up in the future because the paragraph reads, as follows, "The properties listed in Exhibit A of this ordinance, or the recorded "Certificate of Requirement" (which 33 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 she had a copy of), or the lack of any of the above notwithstanding (important clause), it shall be the property owner's responsibility to comply with the full intent of this ordinance which is to assure any new property owner or buyer that prior to the sale or transfer of ownership to that new property owner or buyer, all structures on that property are lawfully connected to the public sewer and all subsurface septic tanks, cesspools and seepage pits are lawfully abandoned." It seemed to her that Mr. Close or Ms. Loftin were intimating that this is going to be a huge expense to the residents because the hook up is at Highway 74 and each owner, each resident, would have to go all that way down to Highway 74. She wasn't quite sure, but this perhaps Dave Erwin could clarify. Chairperson Jonathan said that perhaps the applicant would choose to address that in their redress. Ms. Bell thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan called Mr. Terrence Ryan to the podium. MR. TERRENCE RYAN, 49-305 Highway 74, Space No. 164, addressed the Commission. He stated that most of the comments he had were already addressed by Mr. Angel and Pat Bell, but the one question he did have, is what is the operative time of a septic system? The representative last night, as Ms. Bell said, said that it should last forever, but nothing was forever. Although there had been regular maintenance and upgrades, the majority of the septic system is still over 30 years old and he wondered how long it will be in the future before they have major problems. Those were the only comments he had because most of it had been addressed already. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Angel was available to answer that. Mr. Ryan thanked them. 34 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 .. MR. JOSE ANGEL with the Water Board readdressed the Commission. He stated that the typical life expectancy is 25 years, at least the piping system. Again, the decision they were facing, from his perspective, was to pay now or later. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that the average life is 25 years for a septic system and this is approximately 30 years old. Mr. Angel said yes. He explained that what was unique about this system is they didn't have leach fields. They have seepage pits. And essentially that's just a hole in the ground conveying the effluent downward. So they wouldn't see them failing. What they would likely see first is the impact from the water wells. It was mentioned also that they monitor ground water. He said they don't have ground water monitoring requirements. If the results they quoted were in ground water, he believed they would be dealing with him in a different capacity. rW Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Angel was suggesting that it was possible that the septic system has failed already and that it may be leaching contaminants into the ground water now. Mr. Angel said it wasn't necessarily a question of failure as much as how much can they remove; what kind of constituents they can remove. This is a passive system. It does not provide removal of some of the constituents they are monitoring. It is not designed for that. These are synthetic constituents, volatile organic constituents. He said he would grant that they can remove some of the pathogens, bacteria. He would grant that they can remove some of the other oxygen demanding constituents. They are not removing salts. Make no mistake about it. They are not removing the nitrates. And they are not removing the volatile organic constituents. Chairperson Jonathan asked if a properly operating septic system removes those items. Mr. Angel stated that none of the septic systems remove those 6W items that he mentioned. It is a passive system. 35 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan noted that the question he asked is if they had any indication that the septic system is either operating properly or not operating properly as they sit here tonight. Mr. Angel said that the evidence that he cited is that the site does not have a clean bill of health when it comes down to compliance with their requirements. On behalf of the discharger he would say that they have been responsive to the noncompliance issues. As far as answering the ultimate question of whether they have any evidence that they are polluting ground water, no they don't have that evidence. Chairperson Jonathan said the answer to the earlier question was that the average life is 25 years and this one is around 30. Mr. Angel said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him. MR. ED DIFANI, 49-305 Highway 74, Space No. 132, addressed the Commission. He said he heard what Ms. Bell said tonight and he was confused. He understood the City's ordinance and the state of California's ordinance that when an owner sells property, they have to hook up to sewer. He thought they were being railroaded into trying to get them to go on the sewer line with this condominium deal. He didn't like being railroaded. Eight or nine years ago, and he had been on the property almost 10 years, and the streets were all in disrepair and the clubhouse was in disrepair. They spent a quarter of a million dollars, as he understood it, and he tried putting it on them. It is his responsibility to fix it and he lost that one and he was skeptical of the man and that was all he had to say. He thanked them. Referring to the next Request to Speak Card, Chairperson Jonathan called for Ms. Mary Wiley. She said from the audience that she didn't wish to speak, then came to the podium. MS. MARY WILEY, 49-305 Highway 74, Space No. 81 , addressed the Commission. She said that what they were discussing is their 36 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 septic system. They are all seniors. They do not use a great deal of water, flushing their stools for instance. Most of them might run their dishwashers once a week and maybe do laundry once a week. It wasn't like they have families of three or four that the washer is going every day and the dishwasher is going every day. She was a farmer and had a septic tank and in 23 years she only had to have it pumped once. They were a family of four. She knew that the soil in California is a lot different than the Midwest and more goes out and goes down quickly and doesn't absorb, but she still thought for a senior citizen park they do not use their septic tanks like family members do. That was their discussion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that her preference was not to replace the septic system. Ms. Wiley stated that her concern was with the use they give their septic tank that they wouldn't be in any major problem for years to come. Chairperson Jonathan thanked her. Referring to the next Request to Speak Card, he called for Ms. Mari Schmidt. MS. MARI SCHMIDT addressed the Commission. She said she lives in Indian Springs in Space No. 86, 49-305 Highway 74. She had a prepared statement and said she was representing more than herself, so she would appreciate a little indulgence with a few minutes extra, not many. She had extra copies which were distributed to the Commission. She said she also had an observation that she thought was important based on what she had heard this evening. When the conversion takes place, they have to remember that the current park owner will retain ownership of a number of properties because there are low and low low income renters who will remain and there will be market value renters that will remain. That meant the park owner will be an owner also, and depending on how quickly those sales occur, he will, or the owner will, have to pay his fair share of any sewer hook up. She said the other night at a meeting that this was really about money and she meant that. The 37 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 bottom line is how much money and who is going to pay it. She thought it was really important that they stay straight on it. With that, she said she would read what she had into the permanent record of this public hearing. (See copy of her letter dated December 29, 2004 attached hereto as Exhibit A). As part of her prepared statement, she stated that, "Firstly, let me say that I fully understand that the Planning and Zoning Commission convened this evening for the purposes of this public hearing is an advisory commission to the City Council and that your purview is to study the proposed application for conversion and made recommendations to the City Council and it is the City Council's decision after due consideration to either accept or reject the application submitted by the applicant. We also know you want to pass this on as soon as possible to the Council. Please be aware that this is very clear to us in the park and particularly those who are here tonight." Chairperson Jonathan interrupted her to make sure that they were all clear. The Planning Commission's role tonight, as he understood it, was not to make a recommendation to Council, but to approve or disapprove a parcel map. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct. The Planning Commission in this instance has full authority to approve or disapprove. It would then go to City Council on appeal if someone decides to appeal. Ms. Schmidt said she was glad he cleared that up. That had never, ever been articulated to any of them. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that it was in all the reports and public notice and invited her to proceed. Ms. Schmidt continued reading her prepared statement. When she reached the middle of page 2 regarding the results of the homeowners association form which 64 residents in the park filled out, she asked if the Commission wanted her to read those results. Chairperson Jonathan explained that she was actually addressing the area which the Commission indicated they were not here tonight to address. 38 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 a=r Ms. Schmidt said perhaps. Chairperson Jonathan said that if she wanted to continue talking about it, he would give her a little leeway, noting that she was way over the five minutes, but she might just want to address the areas the Planning Commission had authority over, lot lines, sample CC&R's, and encumbrances as stated in the letter were nothing the Commission had anything to do with. Ms. Schmidt asked who does. Chairperson Jonathan didn't know. He reiterated that the Planning Commission was there to address the approval of the parcel map and the conditions that the City's staff has recommended. Ms. Schmidt asked if they were approving the one-lot parcel. Chairperson Jonathan said yes. Ms. Schmidt asked what happened to it if the Commission approved it, where it went. Chairperson Jonathan assumed the process would continue in terms of converting these units to saleable lots. Ms. Schmidt asked if it was through with the City and if it then went to the DRE. Chairperson Jonathan thought the applicant's attorney addressed that to some extent and suggested that perhaps she might want to contact Ms. Loftin after the meeting to find out, or staff, he wasn't sure. It was not the Planning Commission's area. Ms. Schmidt assumed what they were doing, and should correct her if she was wrong, was they were deciding whether a piece in paper in front of them is properly marked for boundaries. She asked if that was the extent of it. 39 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan stated that they were approving the parcel map which establishes a one-lot subdivision. It was all part of the staff report package and invited her to acquire one if she hadn't already. Ms. Schmidt said she had it. Chairperson Jonathan further explained that there are conditions of approval that staff has recommended and that was what the Planning Commission was addressing tonight. Just that. Ms. Schmidt said she was also a little bit confused. At the beginning of the meeting there were some changes to that prior packet and she wasn't sure everyone quite understood what those changes represented. She asked if it would be appropriate to understand better what they changed of the five conditions. Chairperson Jonathan explained that primarily there was an elimination of the deceleration lane and sidewalk requirement. But again, any of those changes were public documents and would be available following tonight's meeting. Ms. Schmidt said that when people come to a public hearing, it was her understanding that the public hearing is just that. It is for the public to hear what is going on and she wondered if everyone in this room really understands what is going on because she has a long history of this kind of procedure and she did not understand what they were doing. Chairperson Jonathan asked if she had anything else. Ms. Schmidt said she would like to understand, and would like the people to understand, what was going on. She came here tonight thinking, after reading everything she could find to read, that the Commission was imposing conditions on certain things and that it would go onto City Council for passage. Now she learned this evening that was not the case. That they would make some ultimate decision that is going to impact 190 homes. This is a big ticket thing that's going on. 40 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan said they all understood that and he was trying to help. He asked if she had a specific question that they could answer. He had given her leeway and would give her a little bit more because they were all trying to be helpful to everyone there. Beyond what she had already addressed the Commission on already, he asked if she had a specific question or a specific comment. Ms. Schmidt said yes, she had a specific comment. If this body is, if you five people are going to decide their future in the park, she wanted them to very very carefully consider it. And please don't rush because there is some, and that was something else she didn't understand, was the time frame. The way this hearing has evolved; December 7, January 18, December 29. It did not sit well with their constituency. It was just not proper. Chairperson Jonathan thanked her for her comments. There were no other pertinent Request to Speak Cards and he asked if there was anyone „„ else who wished to address the Commission. MR. CHARLES BURTON stated that he lives in Indian Springs in Space No. 110. It seemed like to him what he was hearing is that there is a septic system that is 30 years old and they have testimony by Mr. Angel that they normally last 25 years. He wanted to give them an example of what happened to the roof on his house. He moved into a home in 1973 with a shake roof. In 1993 his shake roof leaked and failed and he had to have a new roof. Two years later his neighbor's roof failed. These were tract homes and they all had shake roofs. Three years later another neighbor's failed. They all now have brand new roofs on them. So this septic system is only a matter of time until it fails. His question was who pays for the clean up once it fails. And it should be probably a massive clean up. Will the current owners pay or the will the new owners of the lots pay? He thanked them and said that was all he had to say. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. MS. MARGO IVERSON, 49-305 State Highway 74, Space No. 79, addressed the Commission. She was not on the side of 41 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 management and was just on her own side. First of all, Mr. Angel talked about the land up there. He talked about density. They had to remember, as someone else mentioned, the majority of people are over 65. Probably 75% of them are. Just guessing, maybe 50% is one person in one unit. In the most there are two in the other units. They don't have residents a portion of the year because they have snowbirds who only come for the season. In her looking at it, the septic tanks weren't a problem. At all. They aren't used like a usual home situation. They have five units on 47 septic areas. Sometimes there may be only two people using them. Mary mentioned that they are older people. They don't do ten tons of wash a week because they have kids; they don't have all that. But she did agree with Mary Schmidt that said if they could do it now and the management that's there, the owner that is there could pay for it, that's a good deal. But someone mentioned adding $20,000, and she was just using that as a figure and didn't know if that was correct or not, onto a mortgage. That might not be possible because the mortgage company may decide, and if they picked out $100,000 and adding another $20,000 onto it. The mortgage company may say that's really nice, but we're only going to give you the money for that $100,000 and not the $20,000. Let's say they do, do they want to pay 8% or 9% interest on that $20,000 for the next 30 years? It made no sense. Financially it didn't. She said she happened to be one of the low income people and this would wipe her totally out. She didn't have the $20,000 to put up front and she was sure there were other people in there that feel the same way as her. Why have a bigger mortgage? That meant bigger payments. So she wasn't siding with management, she was just telling them her personal perspective and other people she has talked to. The newer sewers, they don't use the septic tanks like a normal community would. And Mr. Angel could not tell them one thing that said they needed them. Or any of the standards were being broken. He could tell them that there were a couple of compliances that maybe a report wasn't in on time. It wasn't done by a specific date. But that's all he could tell them. He couldn't tell them that they went there and the ground was 42 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 contaminated and they had to do this, that and whatever because it's never happened and probably won't for another 20-30 years and by that time they would all be dead. That was it. Chairperson Jonathan thanked her. He asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. MR. J.C. SMITH addressed the Commission. He said he lives in Indian Springs Mobile Home Park in Space No. 167. Recently he had the pleasure of having his yard, driveway and front torn up while they replaced his particular septic system. He said the management of the park did an excellent job and they were very very cooperative. But while they were doing this, he got to examine what they were tearing up and he believed it would be unfair to the citizens of Palm Desert, also to Indian Springs Mobile Home Park, if an impact study was not done before any decision was made on the sewer system. Because as Mr. Angel said, these systems do fail and they could have a great deal of ground water containment and contamination. He knew that the Planning Commission's ultimate responsibility is to protect and look out for the interest of all the people and he believed this was something that should be done before any decision was made on the sewer system. He thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him, informed someone that the Commission didn't take repeat testimony, and asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. MS. CAROL BYRON addressed the Commission and said she lives in 104 in Indian Springs. She said she is on the Board there and knew all these people out here and those that didn't come. She watched them dig up J.C.'s yard and it was an extreme inconvenience for the man and a real mess. It belies the fact that these folks were trying to tell them that it is a wonderful system and it is going to go on forever. She said that was such b.s. Sandy Symington, who the Commission did not allow to speak a second time, management's husband, Mark Steffey, visits Ms. Symington's backyard every morning to check the septic. The magnificent septic that's going to last forever. Why would he be 43 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 checking it? They have replaced things in the greenbelt that have to do with the magnificent septic that's going to last forever. She said the Commission really had to pay attention to what's going on here and asked them to please do that. She thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission regarding this matter. MR. ARMEN ABRAHAMIAN addressed the Commission. He said he lives in Space 170 and has lived there for 28 years. It has been a marvelous place to live thanks to rental control. They didn't know what it was to walk out the back end of their house and get this odor, this tremendous odor. Okay, he called the manager and he had to say about the Indian Springs managers and that was that they were wonderful and they never ignored him once. But he went outside and all of the sewage was running under his mobile home. He called Mark, he comes there, he pumps it out and it wasn't very long and he had to come again to pump it out. Four people are on his septic tank. When they finally found it after all these years, they never pumped it for 10, 12, 15 years, they finally found it. Broke the concrete, cleaned out the septic tank and he hasn't had any problems. However, when they took and cleaned it all out, they looked down and saw water running into the septic tank, completely just running. That could be one toilet where someone was gone and it was just leaking. Just running, running, running. No one has ever told them about anyone who has had a problem with it. He hasn't had a problem since, but those managers were very good. They never put him off. Never, not once. If it was Sunday, they came the following Monday morning. If they told him something, they did it and he had to give them credit for that. But it is not too nice to walk out, he could just detect that odor. No one has told them about it, but he had to tell them of it because it is very important and he would not like anyone else to go through it. 44 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 However, for 28 years he has lived in this city, he has worked here at the Old Village Market and this is really paradise. And that was the only complaint he had and he didn't have any complaints any more because they did take care of it. But for 10, 12 years they didn't know where it was until the engineering company came, broke the concrete and found out where their septic tank was. And it wasn't too bad, only that little bit of experience and he didn't want any of these people to go through this, especially when they were going to sell the place and move on somewhere. They don't want that for the next man that comes in or even for these people who have been there for just several years. He thanked them. MR. ERNEST LATANZIO, Unit 95, addressed the Commission. He said he was here with Sandy tonight and she has a problem. The septic tank is on her property. If it becomes private ownership and the other three or four units dump their septic onto her property, he asked if they were responsible for the clean up. Who shared in the cost of replacement at some future date? Does she do it alone? Is her property contaminated alone? Or do all four pay for the bill? He thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Planning Commission. MR. GLEN WIESNER at Indian Springs Unit 112 addressed the Commission. He said one of their lady's said something about there was only a woman here and a woman there and there were only a few people living here and they don't use the water that much. Well, when they moved into Indian Springs, there were men and wives all around him and up until about a year ago, there were just a lot of women around him, besides his wife. Now there are more couples around him. So when they talk about the difference between a septic tank and sewer system, they need the sewage system. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him. He asked if there was anyone else present who had not previously addressed the Planning Commission that wished to do so at this time. 45 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 MS. ESTHER MANN, a resident of Indian Springs in Space No. 134, addressed the Commission. She was concerned about the impact that the septic system has on the environment. Maybe not now, maybe three, four or five years from now the City of Palm Desert or whoever controls the rules about septic tanks will decide enough is enough. They have grown so rapidly in such a short time. She is a snowbird and has been for the last 23 years and she has seen this area grow and she knew it had to make an impact on the environment one way or another. And having all this garbage seeping into the soil, she didn't know how that could help the environment. There had to be some ruling down the line by the City to consider the health and welfare of the people around and also the plants that are growing and the animals that are out here. And that was going to be half of the environment. She thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and asked if there was anyone else. There was no one else and he offered the applicant to once again address the Commission. MR. RICHARD CLOSE said he wanted to make a couple of observations. Number one. Mr. Angel talked about the average life of a septic system being 25 years. That meant that some would fail in 10 years and some would fail in 40 years. That's an average. But he thought what was important to recognize is what is a septic system when they talk about failure. A septic system is a concrete box which is fairly easily dug up and replaced. There is no technology, it's not a building, it's a concrete box. So that's a failure and a method of solving the failure is to replace the concrete box. Number two. It has lines/pipes that go out to disperse the liquids that have been dealt with within the tank itself, by the stuff that does its business within the concrete tank. So it goes out in pipes. Well, those pipes sometimes get clogged or fail. So what will be done by companies like the former testimony they had, it will be dug up and replaced into a different section of the greenbelt. It was not difficult, not a sophisticated process. It's digging up some 46 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 pipes and relocating them. So a failure of a septic system is not a difficult problem to solve. It wasn't an expensive problem and that is why the testimony earlier about the $8.60 a month cost to maintain the system is such because these are not complicated systems. Next was a general observation. What was really unfair here, and of course it was not within the Commission's purview directly, but what was unfair here is throughout most cities, the infrastructure in the street is put in by a city or water agency and the residents merely have to hook up their home to that line that is within the street. What's being asked of the park and the residents of the park in this situation is to pay for the whole system; all of the pipes within the streets. That is a burden that is usually borne by the general public because of concerns and desires to get homes off of septics onto sewer. So maybe in the bigger picture of the City Council there should be thought as to how to solve this problem, if there be a problem, through a solution that is more of the nature of what is done in other areas of, he assumed in this city, as well as other cities. MS. LOFTIN readdressed the Commission. She thanked them all for their time this evening. She wanted to highlight a couple of things. First of all, the sewer septic issue was clearly a very confusing issue and at times an overwhelming issue. For example, one gentleman testified he called and the Water District told him it would be $6,000 to $10,000 to hook up to a private system in the street. And that's true. What the person answering the question didn't understand is there is no hook up in the street. That has to be built. That is why there is such a significant difference in cost in this project then in a more typical project. The last kind of item was some of the things that had been commented on are part of the day to day maintenance such as every day the manager does check every septic connection. That's part of his job, that's part of his duties, and that's part of management. 47 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 She wanted to answer one question for the audience that came up last night and she answered it, but she wanted to answer it again. Who pays for the repairs after this is a condominium project? Whether it is septic or it is sewer, the homeowner's association will pay for the repair without regard to whose lot the problem occurs on. That is the monies they were discussing earlier that go and are calculated into the homeowners association dues. In closing, they wanted to reiterate their request that they approve the project and delete Condition No. 5. They thanked the Commission and everyone who came out tonight to give input on this matter. Chairperson Jonathan thanked them, closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. He did have a question for Counsel and said it touched on some possible legal ramifications and asked if they should very briefly convene into closed session or discuss that here. Mr. Hargreaves said he would need to hear the question and requested him to ask the question. If he felt it should be more appropriately handled in closed session, they could adjourn to closed session. Chairperson Jonathan hoped this was appropriate and then Mr. Hargreaves could guide them from there. In his opinion the applicant has made it clear that should the Planning Commission not make a decision that the applicant is happy with, it was very likely that some level of litigation or legal action may follow. He asked if Mr. Hargreaves had considered that and if he felt they would be acting within their legal authority, regardless of what their decision was tonight. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. First of all, the applicant made it clear one way or another that litigation could be the result of a decision they feel is adverse. Number two, they have reviewed the recommendations of staff from a legal perspective and feel that the actions would be within the jurisdiction and power of the City if, as a factual matter, they conclude that requiring a sewer addresses a health and safety issue. There is a factual determination that needs to be made there and that's their determination. As far as the legal is concerned, if they determine that requiring sewers is necessary to address a health and safety issue, then they felt the law would support them in that decision. 48 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was a health and safety issue, or an existing health and safety issue. Mr. Hargreaves said it is an existing health and safety issue. Chairperson Jonathan said he answered his question and thanked him. Commissioner Tschopp asked if given staff's recommendation, he took it that it was Mr. Hargreaves' and staff's opinion that the city code does apply to this particular development. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. He said he had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Conlon who was the staff member who developed the ordinance and processed it through City Council, and he asked him that question. He responded with these materials and his response, and based on what he intended and what his understanding of what the Council intended, was that the ordinance was intended to apply to anyone that was on a septic system. The list there was a list on which properties that encumbrance would actually be filed, so those were the property owners that were officially put on notice, but when the ordinance was worded, and he thought there was an allusion to this in some of the testimony, there was an operative provision that said that basically whether they are on that list or not, it is the property owner's responsibility. Commissioner Finerty commented that is seemed like the Planning Commission has heard Ms. Loftin and Mr. Close's, as argued in court, and they always need to have the other side of the story and asked if what they have as far as this side of the story is the staff report. Because they cited a bunch of reasons as to why this wouldn't apply and why that wouldn't apply, but even if it did apply, it wouldn't because these other three conditions weren't met and it was a lot to follow and digest. Mr. Hargreaves apologized for not having a memorandum to that effect on the law, but if there was a particular concern, he would address it. If they would like him to go through the correspondence and respond to the different points, he'd be happy to. Chairperson Jonathan thought it might suffice if he could tell them that he has reviewed the legal issues raised by the applicant's representatives, and after reviewing those issues, his answer is the same, which is they would be acting within Mr. Hargreaves' interpretation of the law and within their range of authority to make whatever decision they made tonight. Mr. Hargreaves confirmed that was his opinion and that's what 49 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 he intended to express earlier, having reviewed the various issues, and they had the chance to discuss and thought they agreed to disagree. But again, he could respond to the issues. With respect to the number of legal issues, there is ambiguity. They were never really going to know for sure one way or the other until they run into a court, but in this case they feel reasonably confident that the City would be well based in reaching the decision that staff has proposed. From a legal standpoint. He wasn't going to comment on the factual process because that's not his purview. Chairperson Jonathan asked Commissioner Finerty if that was adequate in her mind. She said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion. Commissioner Tschopp said personally he would like to see Indian Springs Mobile Home Park connected to the City's sewer system. He thought that would be good not only for the homeowners, but the rest of the city as well. The issue, though, prior to granting the condominium overlay is, can the City require the applicant to hook up to the sewer system? And from the applicant, they had a lot of argumentative legal substance that the City could not require that. He said it was quite interesting hearing the attorney's opinion just moments ago, it was his feeling that the City code then applies and that the mobile home park should be hooked up to the City's sewer. And that is what he would have to go on. That is the City's code, that is how they would treat all applicants looking to place a condominium overlay map on a project like this, and that's what he would go with. So he would be in favor of the staff's recommendation. Just to provide some clarification, Mr. Hargreaves stated that the city code requires hook up and the city code exists whether or not the applicant goes through this process. And the city code is there whether or not they make it a condition of approval. So the city code is somewhat apart. The process they were actually going through right now is a subdivision map process, a parcel map process, where there is the ability to condition a parcel map on those specific existing health and safety issues. So if they are going to move forward and put that condition on the parcel map, he would suggest that is the test they need to meet-- whether or not it addresses an existing health and safety issue, not whether or not it's required by the city code. 50 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Commissioner Tschopp thought it would be helpful if they actually had the city code in front of them, the actual verbiage. Mr. Hargreaves believed the code sections were in their report. But there again, the issue wasn't whether or not the code applies, in this proceeding the issue was whether or not there is a health and safety issue here that needs to be addressed. Chairperson Jonathan said if he understood him correctly, Mr. Hargreaves established in his mind that the City has the authority to condition the parcel map request on connection to the sewer system and they would endorse that recommendation if they make a factual finding or determination that there is an existing health and safety issue. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said that was unrelated to the code. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Commissioner Tschopp reiterated that it would then have to be an existing health and safety issue. Mr. Hargreaves also suggested that ilow existing could be read narrowly or broadly. If they have an existing condition that threatens health and safety at some point, then now would be the time to address it. Commissioner Tschopp said the confusion is in the California government codes that specifically states that it must use substantial evidence and it's necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety hazard. He asked if that was how the Commission was to apply that to their decision tonight. Mr. Hargreaves asked him to repeat his question. Commissioner Tschopp said that the California code specifically states that in order for them to require the applicant to hook up to the sewer system that they must, or the California Water Board, would have to require a Substantial evidence and that it's necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety concern. He asked if that was the same standard the Commission was applying here on the city code. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the standard Commissioner Tschopp just read is the standard he suggested they needed to apply tonight. That standard was not the standard that the city code necessarily sets up. The city code itself says you have to connect, and then there is a process where they can get a variance. But the finding of a substantial, it doesn't say substantial. There needed to be substantial evidence that there is an existing health iW 51 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 and safety concern. There was nothing in there that said it had to be a substantial health and safety concern. By the very nature of a septic tank, Commissioner Finerty thought there was an existing health and safety hazard because that is what they are known for. The letter from the Coachella Valley Water District dated December 21 says that they are well-known sources of ground water contamination and that it becomes even more apparent when the density, such as that existing at Indian Springs is such that it is. So Indian Springs has an increased risk of ground water contamination. So there is an existing; it is common sense given the age of it, given that it is a septic tank, given that they know nitrates are going to, they could wait until the nitrates have fouled everybody's drinking water, but she didn't think that was when they decide to move. They knew there was going to be a problem by the very nature of a septic tank, and especially a septic tank of this age with this density. Commissioner Campbell noted that they also heard testimony during the previous meeting of December 7 and some of the owners complaining about their septic tanks overflowing and their toilets overflowing every few days because there was only one large septic tank for so many units. Now also Mr. Ford stated that a septic tank is a block of cement and you have pipes. If they get clogged, then they put in new pipes to go in a different location, so all of this ground underneath there where these pipes are going are being saturated and being contaminated and that was seeping into our ground that is sand and is reaching all of us, and the water is being contaminated and eventually they have to go ahead and think about the welfare of all the people, not just in Palm Desert, but all the desert. Chairperson Jonathan didn't disagree with what had been said, but following up on Commissioner Tschopp's inquiry to legal counsel, and it was his concern as well which was the point of his earlier questions, he asked Mr. Angel of the Regional Quality Control Board earlier whether or not the Board had substantial evidence that the septic system at Indian Springs will cause water quality damage. He answered that no, they did not. His question to Counsel was if they lack substantial evidence, if they were still able to make a determination that there is an existing condition that threatens the health and safety of the residents. Mr. Hargreaves said 52 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 r�r as he understood Mr. Angel's statement, they do not have a water monitoring system in place out there so they did not have actual evidence. He believed that Mr. Angel testified that in his opinion the system represented a substantial threat to water quality based on the age of the system, the density of the system, and the nature of the systems. Chairperson Jonathan said that the fact that the Board doesn't have the evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist or that there isn't an existing condition that threatens the health and safety of the residents; in fact, Mr. Angel felt that there was. Mr. Hargreaves said that was right, and then it would be circumstantial evidence rather than actual physical evidence. Chairperson Jonathan said that in spite of that, the lack of substantial evidence didn't preclude the Commission from reaching a conclusion. Mr. Hargreaves said the lack of substantial evidence would. The water monitoring system is not in place. If it was, they would have actual physical evidence. Substantial evidence can be other factors. Commissioner Lopez thanked everyone for coming out tonight and expressing their concerns. This was part of the process. He commended them all and their conduct as they went through the part of the procedures tonight and kind of laid the ground work and appreciated their patience and courtesy to their fellow speakers and to the applicant. As mentioned earlier this evening, this is a difficult decision. There's a lot of legalities involved in it; there's a lot of common sense that needs to be applied to it. He thought they heard enough, at least from his perspective, he heard enough information to indicate that septic systems in general are, over a long period of time, create dangerous situations for our ground water, our drinking water, and at times do fail which causes and creates pollution within our ground water. He was concerned more about what was going to happen in the future. A couple of them mentioned this evening that it wasn't so much what was going to happen right now or what was going to happen in two years, three years or 30 years from now, but we are concerned about that. As residents here and as human beings, he thought they all had to be concerned about what happens to our environment over long periods of time. And they had seen how in many instances if they avoid or ignore situations such as what they were talking about this evening, that in the long run taw something will happen that will create a very difficult environmental 53 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 problem for all residents of Palm Desert, whether it be in Indian Springs or the rest of the residents in the Coachella Valley. Knowing that the system has created problems in the past, he thought it was appropriate that Condition No. 5 be part of this application. The decisions they had to make tonight are those that impact all of them and before they voted on this, he wanted to make sure they have all of the changes before them and they understand what has been changed, what has been added and thought it would be pretty simple to do that. But from his perspective, he thought they are moving in the most appropriate direction and that was to approve the application with Condition No. 5 incorporated into it. Chairperson Jonathan thought the only change from the staff report was the conditions of approval from the Department of Public Works, the elimination of the deceleration lane and the sidewalks. Mr. Hargreaves suggested that if they are actually going to go forward and impose Condition No. 5, that there needed to be a specific finding by the Planning Commission that Condition No. 5 is necessary to address an existing health and safety condition based on the evidence presented tonight regarding the nature of the system, the history of the system, the density of the system, and the age of the system. Something to that extent so that if anyone ever questions the decision, there would be a determination by the Commission that they could refer to and have some sense of what they based that decision on. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Lopez was ready to incorporate that into a motion. Commissioner Finerty asked if there would be more discussion. Chairperson Jonathan said he was just asking if there was a motion. They would have discussion following. Commissioner Lopez said no, that was his opinion and he would wait for further discussion. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't want to be redundant, but he wanted to clarify for his own mind since this was a complicated issue dealing with both state and local ordinances and laws. Again, Mr. Hargreaves' opinion is Ordinance 8.6 applies to this property. Mr. It Hargreaves said yes. Commissioner Tschopp said that it should be considered with California Water code. Mr. Hargreaves didn't know that 54 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 the California Water code addresses the issue definitively one way or another. Commissioner Tschopp stated that the California Water Code prohibits that the Regional Board cannot establish a prohibition against discharge waste--it must provide substantial evidence for the record to show that such discharge will result in violation of water quality objectives, and on and on and on. Mr. Hargreaves explained that is the water code and that is a provision that applies to the Regional Board. They have a different process that they need to go through before they can impose that kind of a requirement. He suggested that to some extent they operate under similar provisions that they would need substantial evidence of an existing threat to health and safety. He believed that the Water Board would go forward, and actually, state law mandates that they go forward and review that situation with respect to septic tanks and come up and address the perceived threat there, through a monitoring system or whatever. The Regional Board at this point could not simply require that they remove the septic systems. Setting that aside, Commissioner Tschopp indicated that the City's Ordinance 8.6 simply states that prior to sale, the properties will be hooked up to sewer. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he was saying that applies to this property. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp thanked him. Mr. Hargreaves clarified again that it applies to the property, it did not apply necessarily to this proceeding. This proceeding is approval of a parcel map and it has by state statute a very limited window for making conditions. And the fact that the City has an ordinance one way or another, would not be a sufficient basis to apply that condition to this parcel map. He was trying to make it perfectly clear. Commissioner Lopez said that with any application that comes before them, they rely on staff's report, as well as testimony before the Commission, whether it be for or against the application itself. He thought what he heard this evening from the testimony given to them is that there are situations where there are malfunctions within the septic system that currently exist today. Those malfunctions have been addressed by the management of the park, but nevertheless there are malfunctions that occur. When those occur, however long it takes them to discover those occurrences, during that time there is something going on that is going down into the earth and whether it is a day, or two days, 55 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 a week or however long it takes to repair this, from his perspective at least, that was an indication that there is an existing danger to the health and well being. From his perspective. Commissioner Finerty concurred because their job is to, they aren't experts in this area, but they need to rely on the information given. And whether it was the testimony from Mr. Angel, or the letter from CVWD, or the letter from the California Regional Water Board, there's no question as to what they are telling them with regard to septic tanks being the leading cause of ground water pollution. Locally they talk about the discharge from the septic tank leach field is a concern because the discharge contains pollutants that migrate in the subsurface due to the permeable nature of our sand, and there is no question that this is a concern for the entire city. And if septic tanks were so adequate, it was hard to imagine why everybody goes to sewer. It was in Palm Desert's interest that everything go to sewer and she thought that was the purpose of their ordinance and why they say if there is a sale, this is going to happen because it's a good thing. It's the right thing. Chairperson Jonathan didn't want to let the opportunity go without thanking everyone. As Commissioner Lopez indicated, it helped the City make better decisions when they hear from more and more people and he thanked them for taking their time tonight. He hoped that as they go through this process, they came away with the conclusion that they have a very dedicated staff that has devoted a great deal of professional time, effort and expertise to this matter and that they have volunteer citizens from their community that are taking their time as well to listen to everyone that is affected by this matter to just make the best decision they can given the information that is made available to them. When the Commission makes a decision, some people are happy and some people are unhappy. He certainly hoped that they, all of them, focus with the process and that they were all pleased that everyone had a chance to be heard and be part of that process. Having said all that, he said he was certainly in favor of approval of the parcel map. It seemed to come down to the one condition, Condition No. 5, which is the requirement to replace the septic system with a sewer system. It is something that will inevitably need to be done, so the question was whether it needed to be done now as part of this parcel 56 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 map or at some later time. It was his preference that it be done now because it seemed to him that this is inevitable, so let's deal with it now and avoid the potential for disaster at a later time. In order to sustain the condition that staff is recommending, Condition No. 5, they have to come to a conclusion that there is an existing health and safety situation, an existing condition that threatens the health and safety of the community. He believed that they do in fact have that situation. The reason he felt that way is that they have gotten testimony from individuals about leaking septic tanks and malfunctioning septic systems. They have received a recommendation from the Coachella Valley Water District that the septic system needs to be replaced because it threatens the health and safety of the community. They received a recommendation from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the same effect. It concludes that there is an existing threat to the health and safety of the community. And they received that same recommendation from staff after they reviewed all of those recommendations and came to their own conclusion. So in his mind there was certainly enough information and indication to the Commission that there is an existing health and safety issue out there that makes it appropriate to sustain Condition No. 5 and, therefore, he would be in favor of approving the parcel map. Action: With that, Commissioner Finerty made a motion that they accept staff's findings and that the Commission does believe there is an existing health and safety condition due to the age of the septic system which they know to be at least 30 years old, the density of the Indian Springs Park, the very nature of a septic tank which contaminates the ground water, mainly due to the nitrates, the testimony received from Mr. Angel, the letter from CVWD, and the letter from the California Water Quality Board. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any further discussion. He called for the vote. Motion passed unanimously 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319, approving PM 31862, subject to conditions as amended. Motion passed tow unanimously 5-0. 57 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan thanked everyone again for attending. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE None. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. XI. COMMENTS None. X11. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p. PHILIP DRE4, Secretary ATTEST: SABBY J THAN, Chairperson Palm Desert anning Commission ltm 58 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS -PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION December 29, 2004 GOOD EVENING - MY NAME IS MARI SCHMIDT AND I OWN THE COACH ON SPACE#86 IN INDIAN SPRINGS. IT IS MY PERMANENT RESIDENCE. I HAVE A STATEMENT WHICH I WISH TO READ INTO THE PERMANENT RECORD OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MATTER OF THE CONVERSION OF INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL SPACE TO MOBILE HOME CONDOMINIUMS. FIRSTLY, LET ME SAY THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONVENED THIS EVENING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS AN ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT YOU PURVIEW IS TO STUDY THE PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND IT IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION A! I-EX ouf CONSIDE►A i i07i%;T!l hI T HEER ACCEPT OR REJECT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. WE ALSO KNOW YOU WANT TO PASS THIS ON ASAP TO THE COUNCIL. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS VERY CLEAR TO US IN THE PARK AND, HERE TONIGHT. SECONDLY, I WISH TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSITION ON THE SEWERISEPTIC ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE PARK CONVERSION. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU THAT THE RESIDENCY AT INDIAN SPRINGS IS FULLY IN FAVOR OF YOUR REQUIREMENT THAT THE PARK OWNERSHIP BE REQUIRED TO CONVERT THE ENTIRE PARK TO THE CITY-S SEWER SYSTEMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO SELL ANY LOTS. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE CITY WILL HOLD FIRM TO THAT POSITION AND, WE FULLY SUPPORT YOU IN THAT DECISION. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO PLACE INTO THE RECORD OF THIS CONVERSION APPLICATION PROCESS THAT THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS OPERATING IN INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK IS OVER 30 YEARS OLD,FAILING,REQUIRE CONSTANT MAINTENANCE AND POSES A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD TO THE RESIDENTS. IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE SEWERS_ SINCF_.THE PARK OWNERSHIP HAS OPTED TO CONVERT THE PARK AND SELL OFF THE LOTS. IT SHOULD BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPENSE TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. IT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY INTERESTING TO LEARN FROM PARK RECORDS THE INCREASING FREQUENCY THAT THESE SYSTEMS MUST BE PUMPED AND PAMPERED. I CAN PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT IT IS OFTEN AND ONGOING. THIRDLY, I FEEL 1T IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES IMPERATIVE TO THE CONVERSION APPLICATION. 1) REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT -IN THE EARLY PART OF APRIL (2004)WE WERE INFORMED BY THE OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES THAT A LETTER OF INTENT TO CONVERT THE PARK HAD BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. THIS CAUGHT MOST EVERYONE BY SURPRISE AND CREATED GREAT UNREST IN THE COMMUNITY. THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD APPOINTED 5 RESIDENTS TO FORM A CONVERSION COMMIT TEE". WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO WORK WITH THE OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES TO AVOID ANY PITFALLS THAT WE MIGHT ENCOUNTER AND KEEP A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER DURING THE err PROCESS. WE WAITED MOST OF THE SUMMER, COMMUNICATIONS DWINDLED AND I Rowtvad at Punning CortuMa m meeting Date• /,?`{I c y CM Na Pry .3 I BSc F��1' 0_)L',r i THEN, WITHOUT MUCH NOTICE TO THE ASSOCIATION. THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES CALLED FOR SEVERAL RESIDENT MEETINGS, THE INTENT AND TIMING OF WHICH IS SOMEWHAT SUSPECT, LONG STORY SHORT, THE RESIDENTS ARE TOTALLY CONFUSED BY THE PROCESS.WE WERE TOLD THAT THE "PRELIMINARY SURVEY PLAT"WAS IN THE PARK MANAGERS OFFICE FOR INSPECTION BY THE RESIDENTS TO ASCERTAIN IF THE PLAT WAS CORRECTLY DRAWN IN REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL LOT LINES. THE PACKET OF DOCUMENTS AND THE MAP SAT IN THE OFFICE FROM SEPTEMBER 8TH UNTIL MID OCTOBER WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE RESIDENTS FROM THE PARK OWNERSHIP THAT IT WAS THERE FOR RESIDENT INSPECTION. I WILL ADD THAT BOTH PAT BELL AND I RECEIVED SIMILAR PACKETS IN SEPTEMBER BUT WITHOUT THE MAP. NOT UNTIL OUR NOVEMBER GENERAL HOA MEETING DID WE LEARN TI AT OUR RESIDENTS TRULY HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THESE DOCUMENTS AS THE PARK OWNERSHIP HAD NOT INFORMED THEM THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR VIEWING. IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT INCUMBENT ON THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO ANNOUNCE THE PURPOSE OF THESE DOCUMENTS_ DUE TO THE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS,THE HOA COMPOSED AND CIRCULATED A FORM THAT ALLOWED THE RESIDENTS TO COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THEIR LOTS LOOKED PROPERLY DRAWN .WE RECEIVED 64 RESPONSES TO THAT FORM, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED AND RECAPPED. YOU WILL SEE THAT 64 RESIDENCES IN THE PARK FILLED OUT THE HOA FORM AND RETURNED IT TO PAT BELL. I HAVE ATTACHED A COLOR CODED MAP SHOWING WHERE THESE INQUIRIES OCCUR. THE RESULTS ARE: 9 RESPONDED THAT"COMMON AREA APPEARS TO BE INCLUDED IN MY LOT BOUNDARIES". 4 RESPONDED THAT"ADJACENT PROPERTY BUILDINGS APPEAR TO BE IN MY LOT BOUVINDAP.IES". 49 RESPONDED THAT `THEY COULD FIND NO VISIBLE WAY TO DETERMINE THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES". 24 RESPONDED THAT"THEY ARE PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES ARE CORRECT'. 8 RESPONDED TO "OTHER"AS FOLLOWS: -`'MINE APPEAR OBVIOUS." -'"LOT BOUNDARIES APPEAR CORRECT." -"APPEAR OKAY.- -'-IT LOOKS OK TO US.- ---WE LOOKED AT THE MARKS AT THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE ON THE -CURB AND WE CAN SEE THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE WIDTH BUT -WE CAN'T SEE THE DEPTH OF OUR PROPERTY." -`'WE DON'T FEEL WE'RE QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE EXACT BOUNDARY LINES." -`-NO LOT LINE STAKES!" 2 THESE INQUIRIES REPRESENT 3401. OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. LET ME SAY THAT THESE ARE NOT"OBJECTIONS"TO THE BOUNDARIES BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO BUY THEIR LOTS AND JUST WHAT IT IS THEY WILL BE BUYING. 2) THERE IS CONSIDERABLE CONCERN REGARDING THE "SAMPLE CC&R'S" -I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE LANGUAGE AND CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN THIS "SAMPLE DOCUMENT". I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH DOZENS OF CC&R'S OVER THE YEARS AND I AM AMAZED AT THE INCLUSION OF A REQUIREMENT PERTAINING TO A 5 YEAR CONTRACT FOR THE JAMES AND COMPANY TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY COMMENCING UPON THE SALE OF THE FIRST LOT. THERE IS OTHER UNACCEPTABLE "GRAY MATTER"IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED AND CORR6t�FD REFORT-TI;FcF;';'P Q'S „2E �COA. EL. 31 REGARDING THE EXISTING ENCUMBRANCE OF$5.7 MILLION RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE (NON UTILITY)EASEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 1971 -ARE THESE ISSUES THAT ARE ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED DURING THE CITY'S REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION? AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE CONCERNED REGARDING HOW THIS APPLICATION PROCEEDS. THE FURTHEST THING IN OUR MINDS, HEARTS AND ACTIONS IS TO SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS. BELIEVE ME,WE WANT IT DONE AND DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, NOT AT THE EXPENSE AND DISRUPTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCY OF THE PARK. WE APPEAL TO YOU ALL HERE AT THE CITY TO ACT ON OUR BEHALF. AS WELL AS. THE APPLICANT'S. THIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE HAS AN INCREDIBLE r PRICE TAG ATTACHED TO IT.WE WANT TO BE DEALT WITH FAIRLY—NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS AND WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU ALL TO ACT IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST. THANK YOU_ RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, MARI SCHMIDT 49-30i HWY 74 486 INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK two wlp RV STORAGE d v, tTo IS IC z .PlCD C> C y z.O pp N fA /t� - U � _ o W. u" .v. tj J1 M pYp pp u IA W �"' a 14 t7(1RTy v oe v y LA w INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GENERAL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2W4 Me have looped at the map posted in the Club house per the instructions of the park owners representatives. Uwe am unable to determine if the lot lines are correct as drawn on that preliminary survey map. 'Therefore I request a re-survey map justification of my resident lot boundaries for the following reasons: Common area appears to be included in my lot boundaries. Adjacent property buildings appear to be in my lot boundaries. t1 There is na visable way for me to determine my lot boundary line. JNanxe: am physically unable to determine whether my lot boundariesare correct. Othera v�51,p N 5 op X5>Space # � � T. �� JtA F Phone: Date: This form has been provided by the Homeowners Association for the convenience of the responding residents. Pat a check where applicaale and return to Pat Bell, President, #171, 773-3771, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ORIGINAL PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION December 29, 2004 BROOKE SILVAS CSR 10988 BARKLEY 190118 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 29 , 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 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 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 BOB HARGREAVES, City Attorney 10 TONYA MONROE, Administrative Secretary 11 STEVE SMITH, Planning Manager 12 13 Assorted Public Speakers 14 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2004 15 6 : 00 P.M. 16 17 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. It being 6 : 00 p.m. , we ' ll go 18 ahead and call this meeting of the Palm Desert Planning 19 Commission to order and ask Commissioner Jim Lopez to 20 lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance . 21 (Pledge of Allegiance. ) 22 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Commissioner Lopez . 23 Mr. Smith, may we have the roll call, please . 24 MR. SMITH: Commissioner Tschopp? 25 MR. TSCHOPP: Here . 3 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In a n v■ r vl 1 MR. SMITH: Commissioner Lopez? 2 MR. LOPEZ: Her. 3 MR. SMITH: Chairman Jonathan? 4 MR. JONATHAN: Here. 5 MR. SMITH: Commissioner Campbell? 6 MS. CAMPBELL: Here. 7 MR. SMITH: Commissioner Finerty? 8 MS. FINERTY: Here. 9 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Mr. Smith. 10 I believe we do not have draft minutes before 11 us yet for our approval . We ' ll get those at the next 12 meeting. And we have not had a council meeting since 13 our last meeting. So we will go ahead and entertain all 14 communications . 15 Any person wishing to discuss any item not 16 otherwise on the agenda may address the Planning 17 Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and 18 giving his or her name and address for the record. 19 We' ll go ahead and get to the public hearings . 20 Please note that anyone who challenges any hearing 21 matter in court may be limited to raising only those 22 issues he, she or someone else raised at the public 23 hearing described herein, or in written correspondence 24 delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, 25 the public hearing. 4 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 The case before us is PM 31862 . Indian 2 Springs, Limited, is the applicant . This matter is 3 continued from December 7th, 2004 . It is request for 4 approval of a parcel map to establish a one-lot 5 subdivision with a condominium overlay at the 191-space 6 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 7 49-305 Highway 74, APN 652-120-007 . 8 Mr. Smith, may we have the staff report, 9 please. 10 MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you noted, this 11 matter was originally before the planning commission at 12 your meeting of December 7th, 2004 . At that time, the 13 matter was continued to allow staff and the city 14 attorney to review in depth the concerns which the 15 applicant had raised with respect to certain conditions 16 of approval that had been included in the draft 17 resolution at that time. 18 Following the December 7th meeting, the city 19 attorney determined due to unforeseen circumstances, the 20 project needed to be acted upon earlier than 21 January 18th. Consequently, the matter was renoticed 22 for the hearing this evening, December 29th. All 23 tenants in the park were notified, as well as property 24 owners within 300 feet . 25 There have been changes made to the draft 5 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I n a n us. r v l 1 resolution. And we ' re going to make another one this 2 evening given that we were -- we received additional 3 information from public works this afternoon. So let me 4 go through them at this point. 5 With respect to condition of approval number 3, 6 the city attorney has reviewed the conclusion of the 7 rent review process terminated upon sale of the first 8 unit, and the last sentence of the condition has been 9 deleted. That has been done . 10 Condition number 5, related to the requirement 11 for the connection of the -- of the park to the city 12 sewer system or the sewer system, that condition remains 13 in the recommendation. In your report, there is the 14 report from -- or letters from Coachella Water District 15 and the California Water Quality Board. And I 16 understand that the Water Quality Board may be offering 17 testimony this evening shortly. 18 Condition number 6, which was for the 19 indemnification of the City, the city attorney agrees 20 that we should modify it and recommend the condition 21 have the words added -- this section shall not apply to 22 any challenge of the City' s actions in this matter. 23 That change has been made. 24 With respect to the public works conditions, 25 the draft resolution includes two conditions . Those 6 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 should be eliminated and replaced with a single 2 condition. We did distribute copies of this to the 3 applicant this evening. And the condition would read, 4 "Application approval by City is subject to parcel map 5 being submitted to the city engineer for checking and 6 approval . It should be based on field surveys of the 7 subdivision and city ordinances . Furnish documentation 8 with the subdivision map act and the city ordinances . " 9 Okay. In conclusion, city attorney advises 10 that while the City is limited as to whether the 11 conditions may be imposed if they are addressing issues 12 of a public existing health and safety condition or 13 matters submitted by the government code, commission 14 should weigh the testimony supporting the conclusion of 15 the staff against the applicant ' s concerns. 16 So with that, we are recommending approval of 17 the map subject to the conditions as I noted as are 18 included in the packet, with the exception of the 19 changes to the public works condition. If you have any 20 questions, I would be please to try to respond. 21 MR. HARGREAVES: I would like to clarify on the 22 issue with respect to the meeting tonight. Subsequent 23 to the last meeting, we reviewed the (unintelligible) 24 act . And there ' s a certain round of ambiguity with e-- 25 respect to when the time limits begin to when we believe 7 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 the best interpretation is that they should start to 2 run, which is after the Planning Commission has made a 3 CEQA determination, which it hasn' t done . So we more 4 than likely would have been all right . Because of the 5 contingency of this issue and abundance of caution, we 6 scheduled the meeting tonight. We asked the applicant 7 to basically waive the issue, and they declined. That ' s 8 why we ' re here. It ' s our belief and our opinion it 9 could have waited until January. But out of abundance 10 of caution, we decided to go forward tonight . I 11 apologize for the inconvenience . 12 MR. JONATHAN: We really didn' t have anything else 13 to do, so that ' s fine. Thank you. 14 Mr. Smith, thank you. 15 Questions for Mr. Smith? 16 I just want to make sure I fully understand the 17 Department of Public Works decision for the deceleration 18 lane in the sidewalk. They had a change of heart there? 19 MR. SMITH: They reviewed the matter further and 20 decided they could eliminate it. 21 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. We also have as part of 22 the staff report I think discussion by -- is it Jose 23 Angeo (sic) ? Did I get that right? 24 MR. ANGEL: Close enough. 25 MR. JONATHAN: Water Quality Control Board. If you 8 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 could give me the name and address for the record. 2 MR. ANGEL: Thank you. Can you hear me okay? My 3 name is Jose Angel, A-n-g-e-1 . I 'm the acting executive 4 officer for the Board. Our position is the water 5 quality control for the region. It does so by regulated 6 discharge of waste. The contents of the item before 7 you -- we provided your staff with general concerns 8 about discharges from septic systems . In particular, 9 discharges of waste where you have a high density of 10 units per acre, such as in this case . 11 It is our recommendation this report is -- 12 staff recommendation will bring in the matter in any 13 event pursuant to the federal requirement that we review 14 regulations every three years . The problem with the 15 discharges from this type of development and units is 16 that you' re basically concentrating about 50, 000 gallons 17 per day of waste water in a very small area. And some 18 of this waste water contains certain chemicals such as . 19 nitrates in other locations that could impair water 20 quality. 21 What you're trying to do when you percolate the 22 waste water is diffuse it. Make no mistake about it, 23 the impact is there. It may take ten, fifteen years, 24 but it will reach ground water. This system is 25 upgraded. It ' s a significant concern to us . The system 9 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 is readily available and your recommendation to approve 2 the condos, we certainly support that the system be 3 hooked up to the city' s collection system. Otherwise, 4 they're going to have to come to us for a permit. 5 Under current regulations, they probably would 6 not be able to have the number of septic tanks that they 7 have right now. We would require that they install 8 more. We would also recommend to the board that they 9 test the ground water for the site. In my opinion, it 10 is best for the developer to hook up to the existing 11 collection system. 12 By the way, I 'm a civil engineer. I have over 13 15 years of experience in waste water. I would be happy 14 to answer any particular concerns . 15 MS . FINERTY: I just have a couple questions. You 16 said that you would recommend that they would need more 17 septic pits? 18 MR. HARGREAVES: They don' t have sufficient area. 19 But by your standards, current standards to percolate 20 the waste, the current volume generated, it is not 21 enough. So they would need additional septic pits, 22 whatever you want to call it, additional disposal area. 23 24 MS. FINERTY: What else did you say? The ground 25 water monitoring? 10 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION n A I% .,I r VI 1 MR. ANGEL: Ground water monitoring wells so they 2 can -- currently what they were required to do -- if I 3 may suggest, keep in mind that the system grandfather, 4 it was installed in the ' 70s . So it gives you an idea 5 how long this has been in operation. 6 MS . FINERTY: -This particular system was installed 7 in the ' 70s? 8 MR. ANGEL: In the ' 70s . 9 MS . FINERTY: And how long do septic systems 10 generally last before they -- 11 MR. ANGEL: In California, I believe the average 12 failure is 5 percent per year. 13 MS. FINERTY: So 5 percent of the -- 14 MR. ANGEL: That ' s with adequate operation and 15 maintenance. Out of a hundred systems, five are going 16 to fail no matter what. That is to say you' re going to 17 see the discharge from the septic tanks surface. And 18 you get other complaints with that type of thing. Or at 19 least, it loses its percolation acid. 20 MS. FINERTY: Okay. And that usually occurs in how 21 many years? 22 MR. ANGEL: Five per year. If you have a hundred, 23 five per year. 24 MS. FINERTY: And you' re talking about five septic 25 pits per year? 11 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. ANGEL: Five septic -- the septic -- in a pit 2 system, you can think of it as sort of a football 3 field -- 4 MS . FINERTY: Yes . 5 MR. ANGEL: -- versus a septic pit, a well, a hole 6 in the ground. So it ' s more concentrated. You 7 typically will not see the septic pit fail because it 8 won' t surface. What happens is the soil gets saturated 9 and it loses its ability to provide treatment to the 10 discharge . 11 MS . FINERTY: No matter how much you treat it, it ' s 12 incapable -- 13 MR. ANGEL: Right . And to give you an idea what 14 you' re dealing with, the discharge from septic -- from . 15 the septic system, all things being equal, has twice as 16 much of as the pollutants as the ground water treatment 17 ground discharge . The typical sanitary treatment plant 18 provides secondary treatment . So they provide 19 treatment. They provide better treated waste water. 20 Again, the main problem is the density. 21 MS . FINERTY: Right . I understand. 22 MR. ANGEL: They don' t have the septic pits . And 23 second, they are upgraded municipal water supply. Now, 24 if you decide to recommend approval, the concern 25 remains . And we ' re willing to work with the residents 12 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In . nv ■ rvl 1 out there. We have done so with the City of Desert Hot 2 Springs . So we can defer the costs to the municipality 3 collection systems. 4 MS . FINERTY: So you've done this before where you 5 phased out -- say we're dealing with 50 septic pits. 6 And you would set up a program whereby so many would be 7 eliminated each year, and those would be hooked up to . 8 the sewer system? 9 MR. ANGEL: Yeah. It could be done that way. Or we 10 could give them a deadline: The systems should be 11 eliminated by this date. For example, in Desert Hot 12 Springs Water District, that ' s what they' re doing. We 13 gave them 12 years so they could eliminate all the 14 septic system that are within 200 feet of the collection 15 system. Just a date. You can give them a time schedule 16 where you face a particular number per year. 17 MS . FINERTY: Okay. 18 MR. ANGEL: The way our board does that, they adopt 19 a condition. And it says something to the effect, like 20 this day, the discharge has ceased, something like that. 21 In the meantime, we work with the communities to make 22 sure that they move along. 23 MS. FINERTY: So there are grants available? 24 MR. ANGEL: There are grants available. The Board 25 of California proposed proposition since 2000, 13 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Proposition 13, 40, 50 . Apply for grants to address on 2 this water quality problem. They are concerned. Make 3 no mistake about it. It ' s a matter of time before the 4 impact shows. Our experience with septic systems is -- 5 MS. FINERTY: We know eventually it' s going to be 6 impacted. 7 MR. ANGEL: Correct . Particularly here. You have a 8 municipal water supply. 9 MS . FINERTY: Especially with the density. 10 MR. ANGEL: The density is a particular concern for 11 us. 12 MS. FINERTY: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. ANGEL: You' re welcome . 14 MR. JONATHAN: Other questions for Mr. Angel? 15 MR. TSCHOFF: Yes . Are you the agency that would 16 field any complaints or concerns about this particular 17 development? 18 MR. ANGEL: Yes, we do. Within the last -- I would 19 say within -- I don' t want to go over. In the history, 20 we have had one complaint about the septic tanks . We 21 have had ongoing series of noncompliant requirements -- 22 minor things, nothing series regarding the supplemental 23 monitoring reports . And in fairness to the owners of 24 the site, they have been responsive to our concerns . 25 But it ' s an ongoing battle . The time maintenance. They 14 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 require monitoring and require pumping, so -- • 2 MR. TSCHOFF: So you have at least one complaint? 3 MR. ANGEL: One complaint and at least a dozen 4 noncompliance issues with this site. 5 MS. FINERTY: Do you have any copies of those 6 noncompliance issues? 7 MR. ANGEL: Our records are public records . I can 8 give you dates, if that helps your deliberation. Going 9 back to ' 93 , May. February 11, ' 94 . March 4, ' 94 , 10 failure to submit a report . April 12, ' 94, failure to 11 submit a report. February 8 , ' 96, failure to submit a 12 report. January 4, ' 98, noncompliance because they 13 didn' t make a certain number of tanks accessible for 14 inspection. Same thing on April 30, ' 98 . 15 December 2nd, ' 98 . December 29, ' 98 . Our particular 16 concern was one citation where we cited the owners 17 because the discharge had (unintelligible) in it. 18 MS. FINERTY: It had what? 19 MS. CAMPBELL: (Unintelligible) , things that they 20 make -- clean the toilets essentially. We found organic 21 (unintelligible) . Not to be too descriptive, the little 22 (unintelligible) that you find in the urinals, that ' s 23 where it comes from. They' re added to make sure that 24 the system washes out . 25 Going on with the noncompliance issues . 15 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 January 10th, 2002 . February 27, 2003 . The most 2 recent compliance inspection shows compliant. We have 3 problems . They're not major, but they are problems . 4 But they have problems over there. No questions about 5 it. 6 MS. FINERTY: Okay. Thank you. 7 MR. JONATHAN: Other questions for Mr. Angel? 8 MR. TSCHOFF: Well, we were given in our packets an 9 inspection of maintenance report apparently done in, it 10 looks like, November of ' 04 . Have you seen these? And 11 the reason I ask is not being a water engineer, I don' t 12 know how to read them. Have you seen these? 13 MR. ANGEL: Not the most recent one. Basically what 14 they' re reporting -- what they' re required to report is 15 they have to tell how much waste water they' re 16 discharging on the average on a daily basis . How much 17 nitrate the discharge has, how much total nitrogen. And 18 also -- and we use those as indicators to the water 19 quality. In addition to that, they let us know which 20 number of -- how many number of septic tanks are 21 accessible for inspection. And they also samples for 22 (unintelligible) . 23 MR. TSCHOFF: Based on your expertise, in looking at 24 this, does it appear to have a potential to harm the 25 ground water supply at this time? 16 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. ANGEL: Yeah. To be more blunt about it, all of 2 this discharge where you have a high density poses a 3 threat to water quality. There is water drinking supply 4 in any event. It ' s readily available.. We see no reason 5 why, particularly if the commission recommends that it 6 be approved, the new ownership should bear the 7 responsibility. It makes sense to me. It ' s just 8 practical. 9 MR. TSCHOFF: I know that industrial corporations 10 and so forth bear responsibility for clean-up when 11 there ' s spills that. affect the ground water. So I 12 assume it ' s not the same in a mobile home park or in a 13 septic tank situation. 14 MR. ANGEL: The owners would be responsible. The 15 owners of the site would be responsible. If it ' s a 16 water quality impact, the way our goal works, we go 17 directly towards the discharge . And we call them 18 discharges . They' re responsible parties . It would be 19 the primary responsible party. Once the air pollution 20 spreads, , the board has the prerogative to ask additional 21 entities, to -- let ' s say one of the wells gets impacted, 22 and we suspect it ' s coming from there. The board can 23 ask the City to conduct the investigation and pay for 24 the investigation. Clearly, the lawyer uses some common 25 sense and tries to find the most responsible party. But 17 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 it would be our prerogative to require any entity to 2 clean up when it comes to water quality. We have those 3 situations . 4 For example, in Palm Springs, the water agency 5 has to have -- has borne significant cost with one of 6 the wells that was purchased by a dry cleaner. But they 7 ended up paying the bill. Now, for us -- I would just 8 add, and try to grab from my perspective, our current 9 permit for this site is a general permit. It covers 10 many other sites . It ' s general . And it ' s very loose, 11 in my opinion. And we ' re also recommending to the board 12 that it revise that permit. So whether you act in a 13 particular way or not, this permit has to be revised. 14 It goes along with the recommendation. So the owners of 15 the site are going to have to face additional 16 requirements . 17 MR. TSCHOFF: Can you give me any idea what that 18 might be? 19 MR. ANGEL: We may address the density for one. And 20 it goes back to -- we work with them with a time 21 schedule and try to find resources to help the citizens 22 out there to help with the costs . We ' re not trying to 23 put people out of business or give them a hard time . 24 But there are significant water quality concerns with 25 this type of development. 18 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION to w uv , cv1 1 MR. TSCHOFF: So your capacity -- you' re saying over 2 time, the high density will result in a problem? 3 MR. ANGEL: That' s our experience. 4 MR. LOPEZ: The records we have here for maintenance 5 and inspection, when these are conducted, who pays for 6 these? 7 _ MR. ANGEL: In essence, the discharger. Because 8 they pay an annual fee for their permit. 9 MR. LOPEZ : Oh. 10 MR. ANGEL: They pay somewhat . They don' t cover all 11 the staff costs, but it helps . They submit a fee to the 12 agency. And the rest of it is borne by the citizens of 13 California to the general fund. 14 MS. FINERTY: We ' re not schooled how to read these. 15 But I 'm noticing for the various contaminants, it looks 16 like two out of the 191 spaces were checked. 17 MR. ANGEL: Right. We don' t necessarily check all 18 of them. The cost would be significant. But just to 19 give you an idea what you' re looking at, they're 20 required on the fifth item where it lists organics, 21 hydrogen and nitrate, the drinking water standard for 22 nitrate is (unintelligible) . Some of the discharge here 23 is 8 milligrams per liter. For nitrogen, it ' s 45 . In 24 some areas, they' re okay. But if you look at this 25 report, it ' s 46 . 70 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MS. FINERTY: Okay. So what is -- let me go back to 2 the middle of the page, which is 74 . 7 and 22 . 5 . What 3 are we expecting to see for total -- 4 MR. ANGEL: I believe the drinking water standard -- 5 the maximum contaminant for water is five parts per 6 billion. 7 MS. FINERTY: Five parts per billion. 8 MR. ANGEL: What you' re looking at is 75 there. 9 Almost 75 . 10 MS. FINERTY: And that ' s in one of the spaces . 11 MR. ANGEL: One of the spaces . 12 MS . FINERTY: We don' t know about -- 13 MR. ANGEL: It could come from gasoline or 14 something, some other solvents and people might dump 15 some in the drain. 16 MS . FINERTY: But it ' s not something that we should 17 have in our water. 18 MR. ANGEL: None of this should be in your drinking 19 water. It should not be occurring. This is synthetic 20 made compounds, industrial solvents and that kind of 21 thing. 22 MS . FINERTY: Five parts per billion is what we 23 should be seeing? 24 MR. ANGEL: Right . 25 MS . FINERTY: If you go down to the nitrate at the 20 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 bottom, then they can tell you about the total nitrogen. 2 . �. 3 . MS. FINERTY: I'm assuming those are high as well . 4 MR. ANGEL: They're relatively low. 5 MS. FINERTY: They' re low. 6 MR. ANGEL: Relatively low, yes . 7 MS. FINERTY: What are we looking to see? 8 MR. ANGEL: The standard for nitrate is 10 9 milligrams per liter. 10 MS. FINERTY: 10 . 11 MR. ANGEL: Or 45 for total nitrogen. 12 MS. FINERTY: Or 45 . 13 MR. ANGEL: Right . 14 MS. FINERTY: And so the way that they keep these 15 contaminants out is by continuing to pump? 16 MR. ANGEL: Correct. 17 MS. FINERTY: And so then -- 18 MR. ANGEL: And also the septic tank -- within the 19 septic tank, there' s some microorganisms that digest or 20 turn this into less threatening consistency. 21 MS. FINERTY: If we go a few pages back. This is 22 what I 'm not too sure about understanding.. But it talks 23 about the date that -- it ' s under maintenance and 24 inspection. And it talks about space number 30 to 50 . 25 And it has an inspection date . November 17th. And ' it 21 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION to w n v I r vl 1 says the thickness inlet, and they just have pumped, and 2 then they have thickness and then they have a previous 3 date. So does that mean between October 6th, which is 4 the previous date, and November 17th, there was enough 5 stuff in there that they needed to pump it out? 6 MR. ANGEL: Right. They at least try to pump out 7 each septic system every year. They build up in the 8 septic tank. You' re going to have significant water 9 quality problems. So periodically, you have to check 10 how much are accumulated within the septic systems and 11 how much has to be pumped up. In fairness to the 12 owners, they have done a decent job in that regard. 13 Having said that, it still poses a water quality 14 problem. 15 MS. FINERTY: It' s not that it has, it' s when it 16 will. 17 MR. ANGEL: Correct. 18 MS . CAMPBELL: Okay. Mr. Angel, also on this 19 schedule, you have a pumping schedule here that I 'm 20 looking at. And on the space number 159, it seems like 21 the -- I don' t know how many in that 159 -- how many 22 people are involved in that tank. I mean, they had two, 23 four, six, eight, ten, twelve pumpings like from 10-27 24 to 11-2, 11-19, 11-26 . Why is that? 25 MR. ANGEL: Some septic tanks receive more waste. 22 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 It ' s a good observation. Some septic systems -- some 2 septic tanks have more units connected to them. So 3 there' s a rapid buildup -- more rapid buildup of 4 solvents. 5 MS. CAMPBELL: So they're not equally divided. 6 MR. ANGEL: Not necessarily. They have a total of 7 44 pits out there for on the average -- I suppose you're 8 looking at about -- if my math serves me, about five 9 units per, thereabouts. A little bit less than five 10 units per pit. 11 MS. CAMPBELL: Per tank. 12 MR. ANGEL: Yes . Per pit . I 'm sorry. And if 13 there ' s any consultation in your deliberation, you' re 14 not alone facing this, this issue. It ' s throughout 15 California and the Inland region. It' s a problem. So 16 our board is going to take a broader look at the 17 regulation regarding septic systems. 18 MR. JONATHAN: Mr. Angel, the applicant claims that 19 the Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require 20 abandonment of the septic system without substantial 21 evidence that such septic system will cause water 22 quality damage. 23 MR. ANGEL: That' s correct . The law prevents the -- 24 prevents the regional board. 25 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. My question to you is, does 23 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 the Regional Water Quality Control Board, in fact, have 2 substantial evidence that the septic system in question 3 will cause water quality damage? 4 MR. ANGEL: We don' t have ground water data for the 5 site to address your question. The answer is no. 6 That ' s what we want. When I said that the permits are 7. going to be revised and get tighter, we will recommend 8 that the ground water be made for the site. 9 MR. JONATHAN: You' re in agreement that the Board 10 cannot require abandonment without substantial evidence. 11 And you' re saying that you do not have substantial 12 evidence? 13 MR. ANGEL: That is right. 14 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. So would you agree with the 15 applicants that the Board cannot at this time require 16 abandonment of the septic system? 17 MR. ANGEL: That ' s correct . 18 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. 19 MR. ANGEL: And if you notice in my remarks, either 20 way, they' re going to have to deal with us or revise the 21 permit . If you don' t approve this, the permit, they' re 22 going to get title. 23 MR. JONATHAN: I understand. You' re recommending 24 that it be done. 25 MR. ANGEL: Right . 24 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. JONATHAN: You' re also saying that the Board is 2 not in a position to require. 3 MR. ANGEL: That ' s correct. 4 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 5 Any other questions for Mr. Angel? 6 Thank you very much. We appreciate that. 7 Mr. Smith, anything else from the staff ' s 8 perspective? 9 MR. SMITH: No. 10 MR. JONATHAN: Then we will go ahead and declare the 11 public hearing to be open. And let me just -- since we 12 have so many people here that perhaps are not familiar 13 with our procedures, let me take a quick moment to 14 explain those procedures in the public hearing section. 15 We will go ahead and first give the applicant an 16 opportunity to address the commission. We will then 17 open it up to anyone present who wishes to address the 18 commission. We will start with those that have 19 submitted cards . First those in favor. Then those in 20 opposition. And then those that did not indicate either 21 way. 22 The testimony that' s given tonight is limited 23 to five minutes or less . So we ask you to please keep 24 that in mind. We also ask everyone present to limit 25 their comments to those issues that we planning the 25 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION IA . A V• r..t 1 commission have authority over. So if it is not in our 2 realm, if you don' t like the -- you know, the height of 3 the trees or the color of your unit, don' t talk to us 4 about it because we don' t have any authority over that. 5 And the other thing that we would ask, out of 6 deference to everyone here, is for everyone to remain 7 polite and try not to be redundant. If you agree with 8 the previous speaker, let us know that and move on 9 rather than repeat what has just been said. 10 Other than that, everyone here is certainly 11 free to address the commission tonight. Once the other 12 public testimony is given, our procedure requires that 13 we give the applicant a final opportunity to address any 14 comments that have been made. And then we' ll close the 15 public hearing, possibly continue it, and then the 16 commission will have discussion. That' s what ' s going to 17 happen at this point . 18 .Having declared the public hearing to be open, 19 we ' ll go ahead and ask the applicant to address the 20 commission, remembering to please give us your name. 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could you put your mike a 22 little closer. 23 MR. JONATHAN: I will do that . 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. 25 MR. JONATHAN: Remembering to please give us your 26 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION to w o v e a vl 1 name and address for the record. 2 MS. LOFTIN: Sue Loftin, 5760 Fleet Street, 3 Suite 110, Carlsbad, California, 92008 . 4 Good evening and happy holidays . The hearing 5 tonight is one that we certainly appreciate everyone ' s 6 work. And I 'm sure everyone has issues like we all do 7 in terms of having houses full of company here or off on 8 trips . 9 First of all, I would like to -- for the 10 purposes of this evening, so that I don' t reiterate 11 anything that I stated last time is to incorporate all 12 testimony from the October 7th hearing, all written 13 material submitted at that time to the planning 14 commission, including, without limitation, the two 15 correspondence from Gilchrist & Rutter, dated 16 December 6th and December 22nd; the letter from 17 Tristar, dated December 3rd; the letter from James & 18 Associates, dated December 2nd. 19 And I would like to incorporate the materials 20 that we have submitted this evening, the letter that 21 you -- or the materials that you took the opportunity to 22 talk to Mr. Angel about were actually submitted by us to 23 establish that we have clearly conformed to the 24 regulations that the discharges are within the water 25 quality control limits . It did get a little confusing 27 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 when we were talking about comparing drinking water with 2 septic water, but it ' s clear that we have complied with 3 that. 4 I also submitted a binder that shows that since 5 1997, the park has been in full compliance with all 6 aspects of the requirements and conditions . I was a 7 little surprised to hear about citations, because we 8 have no records of those. And it ' s clear that we have 9 passed each and every year since that point in time. 10 The applicant, as evidenced by the testimony last time, 11 has spent $300, 000 in upgrading the 1970 system so that 12 it will be in the upgraded and current condition for 13 purposes of operation. 14 The applicant requests this evening approval of 15 the map as recommended by staff, with the exception of 16 condition 5, that reads, "Pursuant to the general water 17 resources element policy number 4 and municipal code 18 chapter 8 . 60, the subdivider prior to the sale of each 19 unit shall connect said unit to the sewer and provide 20 evidence of the same to purchaser. " 21 First of all, I want to just review what we ' re 22 talking about . We have a private septic system that at 23 least since 1977 we have provided documentation that 24 there is no current health and safety problem to the 25 residents on site. There is no problem that -- and the 28 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In • n u I r vl 1 ground water is tested. It' s included in those reports, 2 as well as the one that you were discussing earlier, 3 that there has been no contamination. It ' s been within 4 the -- all numbers are within the range or of the low 5 range of what is required. And therefore, there is no 6 existing health and safety problem on site for the 7 existing residents . 8 The issue then turns to is there an existing 9 health and safety problem off site. And the answer 10 again is no, not from this specific septic system. 11 There are septic systems from the RV parks and other 12 areas of the desert that have created some significant 13 problems. They have not been maintained properly. In 14 this property, it is pumped annually. The regulations 15 require every three years . Annually is what my client 16 believes is appropriate, as evidenced by the prior 17 speaker. 18 What the -- what this section is requesting is 19 prior to sale, the septic system be replaced with a 20 private sewer system. That entails taking out all the 21 streets, all of the connections for the sewer hookups to 22 the homes are in the back of the homes . It requires 23 tearing up all of the yards . It requires installation 24 of the septic -- or the sewer mains through the streets, 25 and then connecting from the street to the home . And it 29 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1. is our clear position that you do not have the authority 2 under either your ordinance, nor more importantly under 3 state statute, to require that a private sewer system be 4 installed at the sole cost and expense of the parties 5 involved. 6 According to your ordinance 743, which enacted 7 chapter 8 . 60, it was not intended to be a blanket 8 ordinance. It clearly stated that the properties that 9 were intended were those that would be attended by and 10 encumbered by a certificate of requirement . This is 11 contained in your staff report and your internal 12 memorandum that was dated as of October 6th, 1993, in 13 item number 1 on page 2 . 14 Looking further at your minutes and your office 15 memorandums, on February 18th, ' 94 , to address the 16 concerns of counsel at that time that it was going to be 17 a blanket encumbrance, the staff recommendation gives, 18 under background comment, Exhibit A is the final 19 property address list which are the parcels that are 20 then later attached to the ordinance. I think it ' s • 21 important to note that this property was not listed and 22 is not and never had a certificate of requirement . 23 Further in your submittal, we, as part of the 24 application, submitted the preliminary title report, 25 which only confirms that a certificate of requirement 30 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION • IV. . re no. r vl 1 was never recorded against the property. 2 The preamble to the ordinance does state that 3 it ' s to apply to all properties. However, "Property" is 4 later defined as those properties on Exhibit A. So your 5 ordinance by -- on the face of it does not apply to our 6 particular property. Assuming argument that it would 7 under certificate of temporary exemption, the property 8 meets three out of the four exemption criteria. There 9 is a sewer connection along 74 . Most of these 10 properties are beyond 200 feet. So you' re not requiring 11 a connection, you would be requiring the construction of 12 the sewer main lines throughout the property and require 13 that to be born solely by the property owner and then 14 maintained later. 15 Condominiums which share a common septic system 16 is another basis for the ordinance not being applicable 17 and requiring a septic. 18 The fourth is financially feasible. This 19 project will cost approximately $4 million to create a 20 private sewer system. That ' s $21, 000 approximately per 21 lot. That upon the purchase residents obviously would 22 be paying for that . They have to pay a monthly fee of 23 $9, approximately, for the sewer connection to the city. 24 Then in their homeowners ' association dues, they also 25 have to pay for the annual maintenance of those lines 31 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 and for a reserve and replacement, which we 're 2 estimating will add about $90 to their monthly HOA dues. 3 By comparison, a septic system that has been 4 updated, that is operative for which it has been in full 5 compliance, there is no additional cost. The total per 6 month cost for the operation and the preventative 7 maintenance is $8 .45 a month. That ' s what they would 8 pay, plus their reserve in order to build up for the -- 9 all of the items of approximately $90 . That ' s a 10 significant dollar amount in cost, asking private 11 households to pay for a full public sewer system that 12 they' re actually privately going to own. 13 Notwithstanding any of that, the state statute 14 66428 . 1 was enacted for the specific purpose of 15 requiring or letting attain what cities or other local 16 jurisdictions can do on conversions . This was a 17 critical component . One of the things that it 18 specifically disallows is that any units cannot be 19 eliminated, that you can only address off-site 20 improvements. You cannot require interior improvements. 21 There ' s off-site improvements that must be made that 22 create an existing health and safety hazard. You have 23 from this property no existing health and safety hazard 24 from either of the existing residents, nor the 25 surrounding properties. The improvement request is for 32 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In • n .,■ �.,I 1 improvement totally on site, and therefore is 2 prohibited. 3 Lastly, the statute requires that it be an • 4 unsecured agreement cannot be a condition of a final 5 map. And in this case, you have written it has a 6 condition of the final map. 7 In conclusion, on the face of the ordinance and 8 the legislative history that the staff has provided, it 9 is clear that this property is not subject to an 10 ordinance. Even assuming if it did apply, three out of 11 the four listed exemptions apply to this property. The 12 state statute 66428 .1 (d) and (e) preempt local 13 ordinances in terms of what you can require. You cannot 14 require on-site improvements for upgrades . You can 15 require off-site improvements only if they address an 16 existing significant health and safety issue. There is 17 no evidence of such in this matter. 18 Lastly, the residents are rightfully concerned 19 that if we go through with this conversion -- and then 20 in listening to Mr. Angel speak, I can understand their 21 concern -- that there is a possibility that this could 22 come hit them at a later point in time. And I -- the 12 23 years and the grants and all those things are 24 irrelevant . It ' s not what is being proposed tonight. 25 But as to those residents, we ' re requesting a specific 33 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 finding that the ordinance is not applicable to them. 2 And a specific finding, factual finding, that there was 3 no evidence presented of an existing health and safety 4 problem from this sewer system. 5 As you have heard from Mr. Angel, they do not 6 have facts nor the authority to require a hook-up due to 7 malfunction. The materials that they submitted were 8 very general in nature. As to this property, if it ' s 9 not maintained and if this happens and if that happens, 10 then we could have a problem. And certainly that ' s true 11 of all systems, including a sewer system. If they 12 didn' t maintain that, there would be problems . 13 Lastly, or additionally in terms of those 14 comments, we need to keep in mind that what -- what is 15 the balance here? They have a system that works . They 16 have a system that ' s been upgraded. The trade-off, the 17 way the condition is drafted and what the intent is 18 creates a considerable ongoing financial issue for these 19 residents . And there is -- we need to make sure that ' s 20 protected as well as we need to make sure that they' re 21 protected in the future that because this is a good 22 system does not create the problems, that they don' t get 23 penalized in the future either. 24 With that, I have with me this evening Larry 25 Owens, who testified last time . He is the engineer who 34 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Ir. . w v• mt.1 1 did the upgrades. And Ms . James of James & Associates. 2 She' s the property manager who has been in charge since 3 1995 of maintaining the system and can answer any 4 questions that you might have in that regard. 5 Thank you for your patience. And I would be 6 happy to answer any questions . 7 MS. FINERTY: Ms. Loftin, you had talked about the 8 difference financially for the owners . So that I 9 understand, you' re representing the owner of the mobile 10 home park? 11 MS . LOFTIN: That ' s correct. I represent the owner 12 of the mobile home park. 13 MS. FINERTY: And is there any representation for 14 the individual owners of the mobile homes? 15 MS . LOFTIN: They do not have their attorney with 16 them this evening. They are going to be speaking. 17 MS . FINERTY: Okay. And you alluded to the cost of 18 it being $4 million to hook up -- or to create, 19 actually, a sewer system. 20 MS. LOFTIN: Correct. 21 MS . FINERTY: Is that based on competitive bids that 22 the owner has gone out and solicited? 23 MS . LOFTIN: Those are numbers that have been 24 provided by engineers who work in the area. It ' s not 25 a -- you know, it ' s not -- we haven' t sent it out for a 35 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 formal bid where they had time to look everything over. 2 They' re familiar with the property. That does include 3 the hook-up fees payable to the different agencies . 4 MS . FINERTY: So that -- 5 MS . LOFTIN: But it ' s -- in terms of is it a 6 reliable number, it is a very reliable estimate . 7 MS . FINERTY: But the point is that it ' s has not 8 gone out to bid and there hasn' t been somebody out to 9 look at the property and scrutinize what exactly needs 10 to be done. The owners made no effort to do so. 11 Correct? 12 MS . LOFTIN: Not correct. Let me clarify my 13 statement. The bid numbers and the information was 14 requested from engineers who do this type of work and 15 who have had an active participation in this particular 16 property so that they had information such as where are 17 the connections to the homes, where are the septic -- 18 you know, where are the leech fields, where are the 19 tanks? What needs to be put into the road? What ' s the 20 capacity? So it is -- it was not like nobody knew what 21 was going on. So there was a significant historical 22 background of information that went into these bids . 23 MS . FINERTY: And into these bids that are 24 nonexistent though. I was led to believe that this is 25 just a verbal number. Or do you actually have bids in 36 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 writing to confirm this $4 million figure? 2 MS. LOFTIN: I need to ask. 3 MR. OWENS: I wouldn' t say it would be in writing. 4 But we look at all the links to the roads. 5 MR. CLOSE: There' s a court reporter here. Go to 6 the microphone. Identify yourself. 7 MR. OWENS: Larry Owens . 77545 Robin Road, 8 Palm Desert. 9 And we did an estimate based on the lineal feet 10 of the road there, all the conversions, digging up the 11 roads, putting them all back, engineering, estimating 12 engineering costs. We have the diagrams and plans . 13 MS. FINERTY: Mr. Owens, is it fair to say that you 14 did a verbal estimate? There ' s nothing that you 15 provided in writing; is that correct? 16 MR. OWENS: Correct . 17 MS. FINERTY: Okay. And I don' t know if you can 18 answer this. To your knowledge, are there any other 19 company that' s were asked to look at this? 20 MR. OWENS: I don' t know if there was or not . 21 MS. FINERTY: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. JONATHAN: Are there questions for the 23 applicant? 24 MS. FINERTY: Yes . Ms . Loftin, are you aware of 25 anyone other than Mr. Owens having looked at the 37 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 property and given some sort of a bid? 2 MS. LOFTIN: I just clarified that with Ms . James. 3 She handles the bids. She did have a bid -- a bid, it 4 was also verbal, from another company. It was prior to 5 Mr. Owens ' bid. 6 MS . FINERTY: So we have no written bids? 7 MS. LOFTIN: That ' s correct. 8 MS. FINERTY: Okay. And you also talked about a 9 possible increase of $90 in the residents dues both for 10 a sewer hook up maintenance of lines and reserves . 11 MS. LOFTIN: Correct. 12 MS. FINERTY: Now, it ' s interesting to me to note -- 13 MS. LOFTIN: It does not include the sewer hookup. 14 The sewer hookup goes on -- 15 MS. FINERTY: On their bill, on the water bill . 16 MS. LOFTIN: Well, the -- it ' s not how the utilities 17 work in the property. The water bill goes -- would go 18 to the homeowners ' association. 19 MS. FINERTY: Uh-huh. 20 MS . LOFTIN: Then it ' s divided among each of the 21 households. 22 MS . FINERTY: So that they don' t get billed. 23 Because there is not a map, as the water meters are not 24 submetered in this particular property, it ' s just 25 divvied up between 191 units . 38 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In a ri i i r vI 1 MS. LOFTIN: Correct. 2 MS. FINERTY: Okay. Aside from that, you' re 3 estimating that the maintenance of lines and the 4 reserves would be an additional $90 per unit per month; 5 is that correct? 6 MS. LOFTIN: That ' s correct. 7 MS . FINERTY: Okay. And where did you come up with 8 those numbers? 9 MS. LOFTIN: They are done based on -- they were 10 done by a CPA. I don' t do those kind of numbers . And 11 based on costs, repairs, building up reserves and so on. 12 MS. FINERTY: Okay. So if you didn' t have a written 13 bid for the sewer system, how would a CPA then go ahead 14 and determine that it would be about $90 to put aside 15 for the maintenance of the lines? 16 MS. LOFTIN: The $90, again, there are three parts 17 to -- and I' ll get to your question. There are three 18 parts to a homeowners ' association budget that relate to 19 any specific item. There ' s the monthly fee, which in 20 this case is around $9 . There is the annual divided by 21 monthly operating cost to do the general maintenance. 22 Then there is an amount set aside based upon a lifeline 23 that is established by the Department of Real Estate -- 24 MS . FINERTY: Uh-huh. 25 MS . LOFTIN: -- that then has to be set aside. You 39 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 determine that by estimating the number of miles of 2 pipe, the number of homes, the number of connections and 3 so on. The number of miles are done by looking -- you 4 take the number of miles of the road, the pipe is going 5 to go through the road. The laterals are going to come 6 off of the road. In this case, the laterals are longer 7 than usual because of all of the sewer connections into 8 the homes are at the back of the homes . 9 MS. FINERTY: Uh-huh. 10 MS . LOFTIN: And so it is an estimate based on those 11 kinds of numbers . 12 MS . FINERTY: Okay. So the CPA based this 13 $90-a-month increase on verbal bids -- one from 14 Mr. Owens and one that the property manager had 15 solicited prior to Mr. Owens? 16 MS . LOFTIN: No. The -- whether the bids were to 17 build the -- to build the system from the ground up. 18 MS. FINERTY: Yes . 19 MS. LOFTIN: When the DRE budget preparers prepare a 20 budget, they look first at past operating to get the 21 operating. In this case, there is no past operating 22 costs for a sewer system. So they look at and use what 23 is in their -- I don' t know what to call it . They have 24 averages for what it costs to maintain and operate. 25 That is based on linear feet of pipe, connections, 40 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In . e. to■ r vl 1 number of connections and so on. And based on each 2 year, those are revised because you assume that you' re 3 going to replace if you built a sewer system in one 4 year, materials change over time and they update it to 5 do that. So the dollar amount of the bid was not 6 relevant to -- and was separate from the calculation to 7 come up with what it would cost from the DRE. 8 MS. FINERTY: I understand how reserve studies work. 9 But typically it ' s been based on what ' s actually been 10 spent, and then you project how long the life will be -- 11 MS . LOFTIN: Uh-huh. • 12 MS. FINERTY: -- and how much you need to set aside, 13 given a certain escalation in fees that you know are 14 going to happen. 15 MS. LOFTIN: Right . Plus, in this type of area, you 16 have -- for example, all utilities have a shorter life 17 line because of -- which I 'm sure you're familiar with, 18 because of the soil here and your wide range in 19 temperatures . So those things are taken into 20 consideration. You' re correct. But in this instance, 21 that ' s not how it was done because we don' t have 22 something that ' s been built yet . 23 MS . FINERTY: Right . And I understand that. Okay. 24 So then you were talking about $8 .45 per unit . That ' s 25 to maintain the septic system now per unit? 41 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MS. LOFTIN: Correct . And I can give you the exact 2 numbers on that if you would like. The annual cost of 3 pumping over the last three-year average is $10, 300 . 4 The annual repair maintenance when there ' s a problem 5 with a leech line, those kinds of things happen. 6 MR. JONATHAN: Ms. Loftin, let me interrupt you for 7 a second. We understand that you don' t have a firm bid 8 for the 4 million. We understand that you've estimated 9 $90 a month for the fees . 10 MS. LOFTIN: Right. 11 MR. JONATHAN: And do we need to get into the 12 details, Mr. Finerty? 13 MS. FINERTY: No. I was just trying to understand 14 how -- I understand the concern to residents . And it ' s 15 because of the sewer system controversy as to why so 16 many people are here and why so many people are 17 concerned. I 'm trying to understanding how a sewer 18 system -- they' re talking about $90 per month. And to 19 maintain it is only $17 .45 per month. I 'm just not 20 getting that connection. If I had the $10, 300 annual 21 pumping and whatever the repair and maintenance has been 22 over the last couple of years, I 'm trying to understand 23 how they can get by on $17 per month. 24 MR. JONATHAN: Let ' s address that question. Can you 25 account for the difference? 42 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION IoAnVI rVI 1 MS. LOFTIN: Sure. Going back to all of the 2 repairs, it ' s $9, 070 . For an annual cost -- and that ' s 3 an average over seven years . This does not include the 4 300, 000 in upgrades that was just completed. 5 MS. FINERTY: That would have been from reserves; 6 correct? 7 MS. LOFTIN: That would have been from reserves, 8 correct . So we have an $8 .45 per month that would go 9 into the operating, split into the two categories . And 10 then you would need a reserve to build up to redo the 11 $300, 000 over time. And that ' s where you get the dollar 12 amount. 13 MS. FINERTY: Is that the $90? 14 MS. LOFTIN: Yes . There ' s a significant difference 15 between when in this instance the septic system goes 16 down, it affects a small -- a small number Of homes . 17 You go in, it' s a small repair. On the sewer systems, 18 the repairs are not done in the same fashion. And when 19 there is a problem, the problems tend to be more 20 expensive. And looking at the lifeline of hard pipes as 21 opposed to the leech lines, given the particular soil 22 that you have, the expenses on that type of construction 23 over time is more expensive than you have on the 24 septic -- the current septic system. 25 MS . FINERTY: Okay. Changing the subject, can you 43 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 tell me what the plan is to establish the lot lines? 2 MS. LOFTIN: Sure. The plan is -- in your staff 3 report, you received a flier -- a copy of a flier that I 4 sent out to the residents. 5 MS . FINERTY: Yes. 6 MS . LOFTIN: The lot lines are established on and 7 for the condominium plan. Once the City has approved 8 the one-lot subdivision so that we have the outer 9 monuments established, then there will be -- actually a 10 three-part process for establishing the lines on for the 11 condominium units . First step is to do an aerial 12 fly-over. 13 MS . FINERTY: Uh-huh. 14 MS . LOFTIN: Put the aerial fly-over into the 15 computer. And then there is a lot of vegetation out 16 there. So you cannot do a condominium plan or a site 17 plan strictly from an aerial photo. The engineer will 18 come out with a survey crew. The engineer will mark 19 temporarily the front and the back lot lines. Then the 20 residents will have the opportunity to comment on those. 21 You know, it ' s typical that there' s going to be some 22 issues . If you look at an aerial or an engineer goes 23 out and they say we think this tree goes on that site 24 and the resident says, "No, that ' s my tree, " that 25 process usually takes 30 to 60 days to get through and 44 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 resolve with all the residents . Then the map is 2 prepared. It is sent with the DRE package. And between 3 the time that it is sent to the DRE and the time that we 4 get ready to close escrows, the markers for the front 5 and back lot lines are replaced. 6 MS. FINERTY: So it ' s your intent to have the lot 7 lines established before escrows are to close? 8 MS . LOFTIN: Oh, obviously. 9 MR. JONATHAN: Ms . Loftin, I 'm going to ask you -- 10 let me ask you: The process that you just described is 11 not part of our proceeding tonight; is that correct? 12 MS. LOFTIN: That ' s correct. 13 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. So we 're just here to 14 establish a one-lot subdivision, not get into the 15 individual lots themselves. 16 MS . LOFTIN: That ' s correct. 17 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Let me find out if there are 18 other commissioners that have questions for you. 19 And if necessary, Ms . Finerty, we' ll come back 20 to you. 21 Are there any other questions from the 22 commissioners of the applicant? 23 I do have a question having to do with process . 24 Condition number 5 that you refer to, Ms . Loftin, 25 indicates that the subdivider -- subdivider prior to the 45 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 sale of each unit shall connect said unit to the public 2 sewer and so forth. So mechanically, is this a cost 3 then that the applicant will bear prior to any sale of 4 any unit? 5 MS. LOFTIN: Mechanically how it would have to work 6 is because most the units are more than 200 feet away 7 from Highway 74 . So if this stays as drafted, the 8 applicant would have to go in, tear out -- you know, 9 tear out the streets, put in the sewer lines . Then each 10 lot would be -- there would be -- they would have to put 11 a lateral all the way down -- 12 MR. JONATHAN: I understand that . What I 'm saying 13 is the work would be done by the applicant and paid for 14 by the applicant prior to the sale of any unit. 15 MS. LOFTIN: As this condition is drafted, I would 16 assume that ' s what it contemplates . 17 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. And would there be an 18 expectation that that cost would then be somehow 19 transferred to the individual home buyer through escrow 20 or whatever? 21 MS. LOFTIN: Assuming -- well, I 'm going to make it 22 clear for the record that we don' t agree with the 23 condition. But assuming that the condition went through 24 and it was done, the answer is yes . 25 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. So what I 'm understanding -- 46 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 and who pays for this is kind of secondary to what we're 2 being asked to consider. But I want to make sure that I 3 understand the dynamics . Ultimately, the individual 4 buyer of a unit will be the one that would pay their ' 5 proportion of share of cost in Condition 5, creating an 6 internal sewer system, connecting to the public system. 7 MS. LOFTIN: That ' s correct. 8 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Any other questions for the 9 applicant? 10 Okay. 11 MR. HARGREAVES: With respect to that last remark 12 about passing the cost through to the applicant -- or to 13 the buyer, my understanding is that there ' s an appraisal 14 done which sets the value for the lots. And that ' s what 15 the individual buyer -- is that correct? Does that 16 process have within it the ability to pass through costs 17 apart from the appraised values? 18 es . ose, attorney for the 19 applicant. 1299 Ocean Boulevard, Santa Monica, 20 California. 21 To answer your question, the prices are set 22 pursuant to the state requirements . And they would 23 include all additional improvements, assuming that 24 Condition 5 is a valid condition. 25 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Mr. Close. 47 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 There being no further questions for the 2 applicant, thank you. 3 MR. TSCHOFF: If I can ask Mr. Close a question. 4 MR. JONATHAN: Sure. 5 MR. TSCHOFF: It' s been my experience in appraisals 6 though, they'll typically deduct for being on a septic 7 system as opposed to on a sewer system and will deduct 8 for cost of improvements down the road for the value of 9 the property. Is that something that you would see 10 happening in this case? 11 MR. CLOSE: I wish I could comment. I don' t have 12 the credentials to be able to answer that question. 13 MR. TSCHOFF: Thank you. 14 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. Okay. We will then, as I 15 mentioned, ask for testimony from the nonapplicant 16 public . And then following that, we will give the 17 applicant an opportunity to readdress the Commission. 18 We' ll start with comments from those in favor from whom 19 I have a blue card. And I will then remind you to limit 20 your comments to five minutes, please. 21 The first card I have is from John Tessman. If 22 you would please step forward. And for the record, you 23 know, we do record this for purposes of minutes. If you 24 could state your name and address again for the record. 25 Thank you. 48 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. TESSMAN: My name is John Tessman. And I live 2 at 49-305 Highway 74, space number 172, Palm Desert. 3 The reason I marked that I'm for it is because I would 4 like to go on record that I completely support the owner 5 in this proposition that he ' s doing here for the condos . 6 I 'm sure it ' s a tough decision on your part, 7 Mr. Chairman and Members, whether or not to enforce this 8 ordinance or not in this situation. It ' s a tough 9 decision. This being a clear yes or no answered to, 10 hopefully whether you' re going to force us to hook up 11 the sewer now or force us to hook up the sewer later. 12 It may be easier to push the small guys later to comply 13 at that time when we get ready to sell . 14 This ordinance was meant to protect the health 15 and safety of the welfare of our people in the greater 16 Palm Desert area. That' s why I didn' t mind when I sold 17 my house and moved up into the mobile home park, which 18 was incidentally hooked on the sewer, but after 27 years 19 to hook up to the sewer. Because I knew it was a thing 20 to do. Even though I didn' t financially gain from it, 21 gee, I wish I could have that money back in the bank. 22 But speaking of money, .one of the meetings that 23 we had with the Loftin firm at the clubhouse -- and you 24 just heard it today, the testimony on retaining the 25 sewer and how it was going to save us money versus 49 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 hooking up to the public sewer system. Incidentally, 2 the public sewer system is not maintained by the city. 3 You know that. It' s maintained by Coachella Valley 4 Water District. I don' t think the City would ever want 5 to get into the sewer business . It seems to me the 6 figures that they've thrown out and navigating they 7 started at $23, 000 to hook up each unit. Well -- and 8 then they ended up with 25, 000 and said it ' s going to be 9 added to the cost of what we' re going to pay. Part of 10 that quote was the $4 , 000 to pay Coachella Valley to 11 hook up. Well, I did a little checking on my own and I 12 happen to work for a water company. The person at 13 Coachella Valley Water, he said that the range generally 14 would be $6, 000 to $10, 000 . And this would be -- $6, 000 15 would be basically to hook up to what they would 16 consider the private system, which is what I 've heard 17 testimony tonight. $6, 000 tonight . Not $21, 000 . 18 That meeting scared me and it probably scared 19 everybody. And incidentally, the hookup fee is not 20 $4, 000 . It' s $2, 991 for Coachella Valley Water. As far 21 as a hookup, there is -- there was a hookup provided to 22 both Mountain Back, which is the condominium right below 23 us . And at that time, that hook up was also made for 24 guess who? Our park. The hookup to the sewer may 25 require the park -- because it ' s down between mountain 50 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 back and us, it may require the entry come between two 2 units . And this is probably no problem right now 3 because we don' t have lot lines defined. Well, I would 4 recommend that the committee at this time define on that 5 perimeter map, where is that hookup before they would 6 even consider approving this perimeter map. Because 7 here ' s what they said in the meeting. They would 8 require us after these lot lines are drawn an act of 9 congress in order to do something like this . 10 So really what is it now? It really comes down 11 to is it time to enforce this ordinance now when it ' s 12 easy and it doesn' t cost very much money, or do it 13 later? Thank you. 14 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 15 (Applause) 16 MR. JONATHAN: the next card I have is for Sandy 17 Simonton. 18 MS . SIMONTON: Hi. Good evening. My name is Sandy 19 Simonton. I live at 49-305, unit 95 . I 've been -a 20 resident of Indian Springs for about five years . I am 21 pleased to be able to speak to the Planning Commission 22 tonight while lines are open and decisions have not been 23 made. 24 At the December 7th planning meeting, 25 . Attorney Sue Loftin requested that the City of 51 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION. 1 Palm Desert remove all rental control lots from 2 Indian Springs . That would be after the first sale of 3 the subdivided lot. This park is for anyone over 55 4 years of age. Many of the homeowners who live in 5 Indian Springs are well into their 70s or 80s. I 6 respectfully request that rent controls stay intact as 7 long as is needed. Keeping the rent control would 8 protect the elderly would be displaced and not able to 9 pay more than their fixed income would allow. Please do 10 not remove rent control from Indian Springs Park. 11 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 12 I have -- next is Pat Bell . 13 MS. BELL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and 14 Counselors . My name is Pat Bell. I 'm currently the -- 15 I live at 49-305 Highway 74, unit 171 . I am currently 16 the president of the Indian Springs Homeowners ' 17 Association. Tonight I 'm here representing all of the 18 residents in our park, not just the membership of the 19 homeowners ' association. 20 But I would first like to say a few words to 21 the seniors who are here, if you don' t mind. Last 22 night, a last-minute-meeting was called by the park 23 owner' s representatives . They' re also present here 24 tonight. The purpose of last night ' s meeting was to 25 discuss this night ' s meeting. It is the holiday season. 52 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION. 1 The hour was late. People had family visiting. And it 2 was pouring rain. Nevertheless, the room was full of 3 concerned residents . Once again, we were told of the 4 magnificence of their current septic system and how it 5 will last absolutely. They used the word forever. Once 6 again, we were given outrageous cost estimates to hook 7 up and maintain. By the way, which you've been told is 8 not the case, a sewer system instead of the septic 9 system that we have. But last night, they had a new 10 wrinkle to their request . What they said was and what 11 would be the City' s motive asked the park observer' s 12 legal representative? This was a rhetorical question 13 actually because he answered his own question. And he 14 said money. They want money. I 'm paraphrasing their 15 words, but that ' s what they meant. To their credit, 16 this group of people remained polite and attentive any 17 way. 18 To the Palm Desert planning commissioners, the 19 seniors in our park have had absolutely renovations . 20 We ' re getting the same evasive answers regarding the 21 sewer situation. Every time that we talk about sewer, 22 they talk about septic and tell us it ' s better than 23 sliced bread. Yes, we ' re worried about the costs . 24 We ' re worried about the cost of the land that we ' re 25 going to be required to buy. We don' t even know what 53 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 this land will cost until the conversion is nearly 2 completed. And we' re worried about infrastructure, 3 particularly the septic system that is part of their 4 proposal . IIf in the prime location, it is hard to 5 fathom how the park owner could be allowed to let a 6 30-year-old system be left in. Yes, we worry how we 7 will pay for the sewer. Many of us are on limited 8 income. Many of us . Maybe there are options, but let ' s 9 find out. Most of the park residents feel that keeping 10 the old septic system is not a viable option. That 11 would be equivalent to keeping the old outhouse after 12 septic tanks had been invented. But let ' s move on to 13 the future. 14 Both the city and state laws say abandon the 15 old septic system, and so do we. Shame on those of you 16 who are spending big bucks to convince these seniors 17 that some standard is good enough for them. And thank 18 you to the City of Palm Desert for having the courage of 19 your convictions . We insist that ordinance 743 and the 20 state code be complied with. I ask that this be entered 21 into the record, into the permanent record. And thank 22 you. 23 (Applause) 24 MR. JONATHAN: Listen, I 'm going to ask that we try 25 to refrain from applauding or booing or anything like 54 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 that. It will keep us moving faster, if you don' t mind. 2 The USC game is coming up next week. You can cheer 3 then. 4 You heard testimony tonight that it appears 5 that the unit purchasers will very likely pay. 6 MS. BELL: Yes . 7 MR. JONATHAN: -- for the sewer installation. Do 8 you think -- as president of the homeowners ' 9 association, is it your sense that most owners would 10 nevertheless still favor the improvement, the 11 installation of the sewer system, in spite of the strong 12 possibility that they might have to ultimately pay for 13 that? 14 MS . BELL: It ' s a problem for a lot of people. As I 15 said, a lot of us are on limited incomes. It ' s by far, 16 I see and from speaking to people, better to do this in 17 advance as your ordinance requires because at this 18 point, we have no price on the land. And should the • 19 park owner be required to pay for it, could that -- we 20 know there ' s no free lunch. Could that cost not be 21 passed on and amortized over a number of years, making 22 it much easier for us to pay for that? Don' t you think? 23 MR. JONATHAN: You mean through a mortgage or 24 whatever? 25 MS. BELL: Yes . 55 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. So your sense is yes, people 2 understand that, but nevertheless are in favor of the 3 sewer installation? 4 MS . BELL: Yes, I do. 5 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 6 MS. BELL: I have one other comment to make. And 7 it ' s a comment on what was said about the section 8 . 60 8 in your ordinance 743 . The legal rep for the park owner 9 referred to Exhibit A and seemed to -- maybe I have it 10 wrong. And perhaps your legal rep for City will clarify 11 this . But as I see it, the -- the Exhibit A of the 12 ordinance is a list of residences that it not hook up, 13 did not abandon the septics, but that the City kept a 14 list of these people expecting that they should hook up 15 in the future because this paragraph reads as follows : 16 "The properties listed in Exhibit A of this ordinance or 17 the recorded certificate of requirement, " which I have a 18 copy of, by the way, "or the lack of any of the above, 19 notwithstanding, " important clause, "it shall be the 20 property owner' s responsibility to comply with the full 21 intent of this ordinance, which is to assure any new 22 property owner or buyer that prior -- that prior to the 23 sale or transfer of ownership to that new property owner 24 or buyer all structures on that property are lawfully 25 connected to the public sewer and all subservice septic 56 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 tanks seep pools are lawfully abandoned. " 2 It seems to me that Mr. Close or Sue -- I 've 3 forgotten who is saying that this is going to be a huge 4 expense to us residents because the system is -- the 5 hook up is at Highway 74 . And each owner, each resident 6 now would have to go all that way down to Highway 74 . 7 I 'm not quite sure. But this perhaps they can clarify 8 that. 9 MR. JONATHAN: Perhaps the applicant will chose to 10 address that in their readdress . 11 MS. BELL: Thank you. 12 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. The next card I have is 13 from Terrence Ryan. 14 MR. RYAN: Good evening. My name is Terrence Ryan. 15 I live at 49-305 Highway 74, Number 164 . Most of the 16 comments I had have already been addressed by Mr. Angel 17 and Pat Bell. But the one question I did have is what '®1<- 18 is the average lifetime of a septic system? The 19 representative last night, as Pat said, said it would 20 last forever. But nothing is forever. And even with 21 the regular upgrades and maintenance, the septic system 22 is still over 30 years old. I wonder how long it will 23 be in the future before we have major problems . That ' s 24 the only comments that I have because most of it has 25 been addressed already. 57 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. JONATHAN: Since you've been so brief, let me 2 take a quick moment and see if Mr. Angel is available to 3 answer that. 4 MR. RYAN: Thank you. 5 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 6 MR. ANGEL: Thank you. Jose Angel with the water 7 board. 8 The typical life expectancy is 25 years . 9 Again, the decision that you're facing is whether to pay 10 now, from our perspective, or later. 11 MR. JONATHAN: The average life is 25 years -- 12 MR. ANGEL: Right. 13 MR. JONATHAN: -- for a septic system. This one is 14 approximately 30 years . 15 MR. ANGEL: What is unique to this system is that 16 you do not have leech fields . You have seepage pits, 17 essentially just a hole in the ground conveying the 18 input downward. So what you' re likely to see first is 19 impacts on the water wells . It was mentioned also that 20 they monitor ground water. They don' t have ground water 21 monitoring requirements. If they do, they will be 22 dealing with us in a different capacity. 23 MR. JONATHAN: Is it possible that the septic system 24 has failed already and may be leeching contaminants into 25 the ground water now? 58 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. ANGEL: It' s not a question of failure . It ' s 2 how much can they remove, what kind of contaminants they 3 can remove. It' s a passive system. It does not require 4 removal some of the things that we ' re monitoring., 5 Granted, they can remove some of the pathogens, 6 material . Granted, they can remove some of the oxygen. 7 But by a chemical oxygen, they' re not removing salts 8 make no mistake about it, they' re not removing the 9 (unintelligible) 10 MR. JONATHAN: Does a properly septic system remove 11 those items? 12 MR. ANGEL: Those -- not all the septic systems 13 remove those items that I mentioned. It ' s a passive 14 system. 15 MR. JONATHAN: The question that I asked is do we 16 have an indication of the septic system is either 17 operating properly or not as we sit here today? 18 MR. ANGEL: The evidence, the site does not have a 19 clean bill of health when it comes down to compliance 20 with the requirements . On behalf the district, they 21 have been responsive to the noncompliance issues . As 22 far as answering the ultimate question of whether we 23 have any evidence that they' re polluting ground water, 24 no, we don' t have that evidence. 25 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. But the answer to the earlier 59 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 question is average life, 25 years . This one is around 2 30. 3 MR. ANGEL: Right. 4 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. 5 Let ' s see. The next card that we have before 6 us is Ed Devonne. I apologize if I mispronounced that. 7 MR. DEVONNE: You did great. I 'm Ed Devonne. I 8 live 49-305 Highway 74, space 132 . I heard what Pat 9 said tonight. And I 'm confused. I understand your 10 ordinance and the State of California' s ordinance when 11 the owner sells the property, they have to hook up the 12 sewer line. And now I think we ' re being railroaded to 13 trying to get us to own the sewer line and go along with 14 this condominium deal . I don' t like being railroaded. 15 Eight or nine years ago -- I 've been in the property 16 almost ten years -- the streets were in disrepair and 17 the clubhouse was in disrepair. They spent a quarter of 18 a million dollars, as I understand it, and they tried to 19 put it on us. It' s their responsibility to fix it . He 20 lost that one. And I 'm skeptical of the man. And 21 that ' s all I have to. Thank you. 22 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 23 Next card that we have is from Mary -- is it 24 Wiley? Is Mary Wiley -- or is it Willy? 25 MS . WILEY: It ' s Wiley, but I wrote "No comment. " 60 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. JONATHAN: You did. Okay. I didn' t see that on 2 there. 3 MS. WILEY: But since you called my name, I will 4 speak. We talked about it. We should have said 5 something. I 'm Mary Wiley, W-i-l-e-y, 49-305 Highway 6 74, space 81 . And what we were discussing is that our 7 septic system -- we are all seniors . We do not use a 8 great deal of water. Flushing our stools, for instance. 9 Most of us I think we may run our dishwashers once a 10 week and do our laundry once a week. It ' s not like we 11 have families of three or four that the washer is going 12 every day and the dishwasher is going every day. So I 13 was a farmer. I had a septic tank. In 23 years, I only 14 had to have it pumped once. We were a family of four. 15 So I know that our soil here in California is a 16 lot different than in the midwest, it goes out . It goes 17 down quickly. It doesn't absorb. But I still think for 18 a senior citizen park, we do not use our septic system 19 tanks like a family does . That was our discussion. 20 MR. JONATHAN: Your preference is not to replace the 21 septic system? 22 MS. WILEY: My concern is with the use that we give 23 our septic tank that there wouldn' t be any major problem 24 for years to come. 25 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Thank you. 61 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Next is Mary Schmidt. 2 MS . SCHMIDT: Good evening. I 'm Mary Schmidt. I 3 live at Indian Springs at space 86, 49-305 Highway 74 . 4 I have a prepared statement. And I 'm representing more 5 than myself. So I would appreciate a little indulgence. 6 A few minutes after, not many. And if you would like 7 some copies, I have them. 8 I also have an observation that I think is 9 important based on what I 've heard this evening. When 10 the conversion takes place, we have to remember that the 11 current park owner will retain ownership of a number of 12 properties because there are low and low-low income 13 renters who will remain. And there will be market value 14 renters who will remain, which means that the park owner 15 will be an owner also. And depending on how quickly 16 those sales occur, he will or the owner will have to pay 17 his fair share of any sewer hookup. 18 I said the other night at a meeting, this is 19 really about money. And I mean that . The bottom line 20 is how much money and who is going to pay it? And it ' s 21 really important that we stay straight on that. With 22 that, I ' ll read what I have. 23 I have a statement which I wish to read into 24 the permanent record of this public hearing on the 25 conversion of the Indian Springs Park from rental space 62 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 to condominiums . Personally, let me say that I 2 understand that the Planning Zoning Commission conveyed 3 this evening that the purposes of this public hearing is 4 an advisory commission to the city council and that your 5 purview is to study the proposed application for 6 conversion and make recommendations to the city council. 7 And it is the city council ' s decision after due 8 consideration to either accept or reject the application 9 submitted by the applicant. We also know you want to 10 pass this on as soon as possible to the council. Please 11 be aware that this is very clear to us in the park. And 12 particularly those who are here tonight. 13 Secondly -- 14 MR. JONATHAN: Ms . Submit let me interrupt you 15 briefly. I want to make sure that we're all clear on 16 this . Our role tonight is not to make a recommendation 17 to council, but to approve or disapprove the parcel map. 18 MR. SMITH: That ' s correct . 19 MR. HARGREAVES: The planning commission has the 20 full authority to approve or disprove. It would go to 21 the city council on appeal if -- 22 MS . SCHMIDT: I 'm glad you cleared that up. That 23 has never, ever been articulated to any of us. 24 MR. JONATHAN: It ' s in all the reports and public 25 notice . But go ahead. 63 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MS. SCHMIDT: Secondly, I wish to thank you for your 2 position on the sewer/septic issue pertaining to the 3 park conversion. Let me share with you that the 4 residency at Indian Springs is fully in favor of your 5 requirement that the park ownership be required to 6 convert the entire park to the city sewer systems before 7 being allowed to sell any lots . We sincerely hope that 8 the City will hold firm to that decision and we fully 9 support new that decision. 10 It is extremely important to place in the 11 record of this system that this conversion application 12 process that the septic systems operating in Indian 13 Springs require constant maintenance and hampering. 14 There are over 30 years old and failing. And they do 15 pose, in my view, a potential health hazard to at least 16 the residents . It is simply a matter of time before we 17 will be required to commit to the sewers. Since the 18 park ownership has opted to convert the park and sell 19 off the lots, it should be their responsibility and the 20 expense to uphold the law and connect to the sewer 21 system. It would be particularly interesting to learn 22 from park records the increasing frequency that these 23 systems must be pumped. I can personally tell you that 24 it is often an ongoing. 25 Thirdly, I feel it ' s very important for me to 64 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 speak briefly to several other issues imperative to the 2 application. Regarding -- number one, regarding the 3 preliminary cloud. In the early part of April 2004, we 4 were informed by the owner' s representatives that a 5 letter of intent to convert the park had been filed with 6 the City of Palm Desert . This caught most of us -- most 7 everyone by surprise and created great unrest in the 8 community. The homeowners ' association board appointed 9 five residents to form a conversion committee. We felt 10 it was important to work with the owner' s 11 representatives to avoid any pitfalls that we might 12 encounter and keep a direct line of communication with 13 the owner during the process . We waited most of the 14 summer. Communications dwindled. And then without much 15 notice to the association, the owner' s representatives 16 called for several resident meetings, the timing of 17 which is somewhat suspect. 18 Long story short, the residents are totally 19 confused by the process . We were told that the 20 preliminary survey clout was in the park management 21 office for inspection by the residents to see if the 22 plat was correctly drawn with regard to individual lot 23 lines . The packet of documents sat in the office from 24 September 8th until mid-October without any notice to 25 the residents from the park ownership that it was there 65 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION • 1 for the resident ' s inspection. I will add that both Pat 2 Bell and I received similar packets in September, but 3 without the map. Not until our November general 4 homeowners meeting did we learn that our residents truly 5 had no idea that they had the opportunity to view these 6 documents, as the park ownership had not informed them 7 that these documents were available to them for viewing. 8 It certainly was not incumbent on the homeowners ' 9 association to announce the purpose of these documents. 10 Due to the many, many questions we received 11 from residents, the homeowners ' association composed and 12 circulated a firm that allowed the residents to comment 13 on whether or not their lots looked properly drawn. We 14 received 64 responses to that form, a copy of which is 15 attached and recapped. You will see that these 64 16 residents in the park filled out the homeowners ' 17 association form and returned it to Pat Bell . I have 18 attached a color-coded map showing where these inquiries 19 occurred. And the results are -- I don' t know if you 20 want know read them, but various assumptions . 21 MR. JONATHAN: You are addressing the issue that we 22 indicated we' re not here tonight to address? 23 MS. SCHMIDT: Perhaps . 24 MR. JONATHAN: If you want to keep talking about, 25 I ' ll give you leeway. I ' ll note that you are well over 66 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In A n SO rvl 1 the five minutes. 2 MS. SCHMIDT: With all due -- 3 MR. JONATHAN: Excuse me, lot lines, the CC&Rs 4 encumbrance that is stated in the letter is nothing that 5 we have anything to do with. 6 MS . SCHMIDT: Who does? 7 MR. JONATHAN: I wouldn' t know. We're here, again, 8 to address the approval of the parcel map and the 9 conditions that the city staff is recommending. 10 MS. SCHMIDT: This is the one-lot parcel? 11 MR. JONATHAN: Exactly. 12 MS . SCHMIDT: And what happens to it if you approve 13 it? Where does it go? 14 MR. JONATHAN: I assume the process will continue in 15 terms of converting these units to saleable lots . 16 MS. SCHMIDT: Is it through with the City? Does it 17 then go to the DRE? 18 MR. JONATHAN: No. I think the applicant' s attorney 19 addressed that to some extent . Maybe you want to 20 contact her after the meeting or the staff . Again, it ' s 21 not our area. 22 MS . SCHMIDT: So what I assume you are doing -- and 23 correct me if I 'm wrong -- is that you' re deciding 24 whether a piece of paper in front of you is properly 25 marked for boundaries? Is that the extent of it? 67 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. JONATHAN: We ' re approving the parcel map that 2 establishes a one-lot subdivision. This is all part of 3 the packet. I would ask to you acquire one, if -- 4 MS. SCHMIDT: I have it. 5 MR. JONATHAN: There are conditions of approval that 6 the staff has recommended. That ' s what we ' re addressing 7 tonight. Just that. 8 MS. SCHMIDT: I 'm also a little bit confused. At 9 the beginning of the meeting, there were some changes to 10 that prior packet . I 'm not sure everybody quite 11 understood what those changes represented. Would it be 12 appropriate to understand what you changed of the 13 condition? 14 MR. JONATHAN: There was an elimination of the 15 deceleration lane, the sidewalk requirement. 16 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. 17 MR. JONATHAN: All of those questions are public 18 documents and will be available following tonight ' s 19 meeting. 20 MS . SCHMIDT: Well, you know, when people come to a 21 public hearing, it ' s my understanding that the public 22 hearing is just that, it ' s for the public to hear what ' s 23 going on. And I would wonder if everybody in this room 24 really understands what ' s going on because I have a long 25 history of this kind of procedure. And I do not 68 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In Aovl evl 1 understand what you're doing. 2 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Do you have anything else to 3 say to address the commission? 4 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I would like to address -- we 5 would all like to understand. 6 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. 7 MS. SCHMIDT: I came here tonight thinking after 8 reading everything that I could find to read that you 9 were imposing conditions on certain things and that it 10 would go onto city council for passage. Now, I learn 11 this evening that is not the case; that you will make 12 some ultimate decision that is going to impact 190 13 homes. That ' s a big -- this is a big thing that ' s going 14 on. 15 MR. JONATHAN: We all understand that. Do you have 16 a specific question that we can answer? I have given 17 you leeway. I' ll give you a little more because we ' re 18 all trying to be helpful to everyone here. Beyond what 19 you've addressed already, do you have a specific 20 question or a specific comment? 21 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, yes . I have a specific comment. 22 If this body is -- if you five people are going to 23 decide our future, I want you to very, very carefully 24 consider and please don' t rush because there ' s some -- 25 that ' s something else I don' t understand is the time 69 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 frame. You know. The way this hearing has evolved, 2 December 7th, January 18th, December 29th, it does 3 not sit well with your constituency. It is just not 4 proper. 5 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Thanks very much. Those are 6 all the cards that I have. Those are all of the cards 7 that I have. I would ask if there is anyone else at all 8 present who would like to address the commission, if so, 9 please step forward. Give us your name and address for 10 the record. 11 MR. BURTON: Good evening. My name is Charles 12 Burton. And I live in Indian Springs, at space number 13 110 . I don' t know the street address . So any way, it 14 seems like to me that what I 'm hearing here is that we 15 have a septic system that is 30 years old. And we have 16 testimony by Mr. Angel that they normally last 25 years . 17 Let me give you an example of what happened to 18 my roof on my house. I moved into a home in 1973 with a 19 shake roof . In 1993 , my shake roof leaked and failed 20 and had to have a new roof . Two years later, my 21 neighbor' s failed. These were tract homes . They all 22 had shake roofs . Two years later, they all have 23 brand-new roofs on them. So this septic system is only 24 a matter of time before it fails . My question is, who 25 pays for the clean up once it fails? And it should be 70 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION IDADV1 CVI 1 probably a massive clean-up. Will the current owner pay 2 or will the new owners of the lots pay it? 3 Thank you. That ' s all I have to say. 4 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. Anyone else? 5 MS. WEISERMAN: My name is Margaret Weiserman. I 6 live at number 79. I have no buts about what -- I 'm not 7 on the side of management. I 'm just on my own side. 8 First of all, Mr. Angel talks about the land up there. 9 He talks about density. That -- you have to remember -- 10 again, someone else mentioned it . The majority of the 11 people are over 65 . Probably 75 percent of them are. 12 There' s probably -- it ' s just a guess, maybe 50 percent, 13 one person in one unit. At the most, there ' s two in the 14 other units . We don' t have residents a proportion of 15 the year because of the fact we have people that only 16 come from the season. In my looking at it, the septic 17 system is not a problem at all. They' re not used like a 18 usual home situation. We have five units on -- I was 19 told 47 septic areas . Sometimes there may be only two 20 people that are using that. Again, Mary mentioned that, 21 you know, we ' re older people . We don' t do ten tons of 22 wash a week because we've got kids . We don' t have all 23 that. 24 Another thing that was mentioned -- but I do 25 agree with Mary Schmidt back here that says we can do it 71 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 now in the management and the owner will pay for it. 2 That' s a good deal. Somebody mentioned -- I think the 3 gentleman over here talked about adding the $20, 000 -- 4 we ' ll just use it as a figure. I don' t know if that ' s 5 correct or not -- onto a mortgage. That may not be 6 possible because the mortgage company may decide that 7 they will not -- let' s just pick out $100, 000 . And you 8 add another 20, 000 onto it . Gee whiz, that ' s really 9 nice. We're only to give you the money for 100, 000 . 10 We' re not going to give you the other 20, 000 . Let ' s say 11 that they do that. Do you want to pay 8 or 9 percent 12 interest on that 20, 000 for the next 30 years? It makes 13 no sense. Financially it doesn' t. 14 I happen to be one of the low income people. 15 This is going to wipe me totally out . I haven' t got the 16 $20, 000 to put upfront . And I 'm sure there are other 17 people in here that are -- that feel the same way as I 18 do. And why have a bigger mortgage? That means bigger 19 payments. So I 'm not siding with management . I 'm just 20 telling you my personal perspective and other people 21 that I have talked to. The newer sewers -- I mean, we 22 don' t use the septic tanks like a normal community 23 would. Mr. Angel did not tell you one thing that said 24 that we needed them or any of the standards were being 25 broken. He can tell you that there ' s a couple of 72 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION. IDADvU cvl 1 noncompliances. Maybe a report wasn't in on a time. 2 Maybe it wasn' t done on a specific date. That ' s all he 3 can tell you. Gee whiz, we went there and your ground 4 was contaminated and this that and the other. It has 5 never happened. And it might in 20 or 30 years, but it 6 won' t matter because we ' ll all be dead. That ' s it. 7 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Anyone else? 8 MR. SMITH: J.C. Smith. I live in space number 167 . 9 Recently, I had the pleasure of having my yard and 10 driveway in front torn up while they replaced my 11 particular septic system. I will say that the 12 management of the park did an excellent job. They were 13 very, very cooperative. But while they were doing this, 14 I got to examine what they were carrying out . And I 15 believe it would be unfair to the citizens of 16 Palm Desert, also to Indian Springs Mobile Home Park, if 17 an impact study was not done before any decision was 18 made on the sewer system. Because as Mr. Angel said, 19 these systems do fail and we could have a great deal of 20 ground water containment and contamination. I know that 21 the Planning Commission' s ultimate responsibility is to 22 protect and look after the interest of all the people. 23 And I believe this is something that should be done 24 before any decision is made on the sewer system. 25 Thank you. 73 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In . nv • •-vl 1 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, sir. 2 Actually we don' t take repeat testimony. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh. 4 MR. JONATHAN: Is there anyone else present who has 5 not addressed the commission? 6 MS. BYRON: My name is Carol Byron. I live at 7 49-305 Highway 74, space 104, Indian Springs. I 'm on 8 the board there. I know all these people out here and 9 those that haven' t come. I've been watching -- I 10 watched them dig up J.C. ' s yard. And it was an extreme 11 inconvenience for the man and a real mess . I realize 12 the fact that these folks over here are trying to tell 13 you that it' s a wonderful system and it ' s going to go on 14 forever. That is such B.S. Sandy Simonton, who you did 15 not allow to come up a second time, Mark 16 (unintelligible) visits her backyard every morning to 17 check the septic, the magnificent septic that is going 18 to last forever. Why would he be checking it? They 19 have replaced things in the green belts -- excuse me. 20 In the green belt that have to do with the magnificent 21 septic that is going to last forever. You folks really 22 have to pay attention to what ' s going on here. Please 23 do that. Thank you. 24 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else 25 present who wishes to address the planning commission 74 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION IReDVI iv1 1 regarding this matter? 2 MR. HANMOND: Good evening. My name is 3 (unintelligible) Hammond. I live at space 170 . I've 4 lived there for 28 years. It ' s been a marvelous place 5 to live. Believe me. Thanks to rental control. You 6 don' t know what it is to walk out of the back end of 7 your house, and you get this odor. You get this 8 tremendous odor. Okay. I call the manager. I have to 9 say this about the Indian Springs ' managers : They were 10 wonderful . They never ignored me once. But I went 11 outside, all of the sewage was running under my mobile 12 home. I called Mark. He comes there. He pumps it out. 13 It ' s not very long, he comes again, and he has to pump 14 it out. It ' s running -- four people are on my septic 15 tank. When they finally found it -- after all these 16 years, they never pumped it for 10, 12, 15 years . They 17 finally found it, broke the concrete, cleaned out the 18 septic tank. I haven' t had any problem. However, when 19 they took and cleaned it all out, they looked down and 20 they saw water running into the septic tank, complete 21 just running. That could be one toilet that somebody is 22 gone and it' s just leaking, just running, running, 23 running. 24 Nobody has ever told me about anyone who has 25 had a problem with it. I haven' t had a problem since, 75 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In w n v I owl 1 but those managers were very good. They never put me 2 off. Never. Not once. If it was a Sunday, they came 3 the following Monday morning. If they told me 4 something, they did it . And I have to give them credit 5 for that. But it is not too nice to walk out -- I can 6 just detect that odor. Nobody has told you about that. 7 But I have to tell you about this because it ' s very 8 important . And I wouldn' t like anybody else to go 9 through it. However, for 28 years, I 've lived in this 10 city and I 've worked here, the Old Village Market. I ' ll 11 tell you, this is really paradise. And that ' s the only 12 complaint I have. I don' t have any complaints anymore 13 because they fixed it and they did take care of it . But 14 for 10, 12 years, they didn' t know where it was until 15 the engineering company came, broke the concrete and 16 found out where our septic tank was. And it wasn' t too 17 bad. Just only that little bit of experience. And I 18 don' t want any of these people to go through this. And 19 especially when you're going to sell the place and 20 you' re going to move on somewhere. You don' t want that 21 for the next man that comes in or even for these people 22 that have been here just for several years . 23 Thank you very much. 24 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 25 Yes? 76 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. LETONZO: Good evening. Gregory Letonzo 2 (phonetic) . I 'm here with Sandy tonight. And she has a 3 problem. The septic tank is on her property. If it 4 becomes private ownership, the other three or four units 5 that dump their septic onto their property, are they 6 responsible for the clean-up? Who shares in the cost of 7 replacement at some future date? Does she go it alone? 8 Is her property contaminated alone, or do all four pay 9 the bill? 10 Thank you. 11 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. 12 Is there anyone else present who wishes to 13 address the planning commission? 14 MR. WISNER: My name is Len Wisner. 49-305 Highway 15 74 , Indian Springs, unit 112 . One of our ladies said 16 something about there ' s only a little bit here and a 17 little bit here and there ' s a few people living here and 18 they don' t use the water that much and all this . Well, 19 when we moved into Indian Springs, there were men and 20 wives all around me. And up until about a year ago, 21 there was just a lot of women around me, besides my 22 wife, God bless . Now, there are more couples around me. 23 So we talked about the difference of a septic tank and a 24 sewage system. We need the sewage system. 25 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Is there 77 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION le w n v I c vl 1 anyone else present who has not addressed the planning 2 commission who wishes to do so at this time? Everybody 3 has had an opportunity to speak who wants to? 4 MS. MANN: My name is Ester Mann, resident of 5 Indian Springs, in space 134 . I 'm concerned about the 6 impact that the septic system has on the environment. 7 Maybe not now, maybe three or four or five years from 8 now, the City of Palm Desert or whoever controls the 9 rules about septic tanks will decide enough is enough. 10 We have grown so rapidly in such a short period of time. 11 And I have been here for the last 23 years . And I have 12 seen this area grow. I know it has made an impact on 13 the environment one way or the other. And having all 14 this garbage seeping into the soil, I don' t know how 15 that can help the environment. There has to be some 16 ruling down the line by the City to consider the health 17 and welfare of the people around and also the plants 18 that are growing and the animals that are here. And 19 that ' s on behalf of the environment. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. Anyone else? No worries. 22 Anyone else? 23 Okay. Then we ' ll go ahead and give the 24 applicant an opportunity to once again address the 25 commission. 78 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. CLOSE: Richard Close. I just want to make a 2 couple observations. Number one, Mr. Angel talked about 3 the average life of a septic system is 25 years . Of 4 course that means that some will fail in ten years and 5 some will fail in five years . It ' s an average. I think 6 what ' s important to recognize is what is a septic system 7 when we talk about failure . A septic system is a 8 concrete box, okay, which is fairly easily dug up and 9 replaced. There ' s no technology. It ' s not a building. 10 It' s a concrete box. So that ' s a failure and a method 11 of solving the failure is to replace the concrete box. 12 Number two, it has lines -- pipes that go out 13 to disperse the liquids that have been dealt with by 14 the -- within the tank itself by the -- and all the 15 other stuff that does its business within the concrete 16 tank. So it goes out in pipes . Well, those pipes are 17 going to get clogged or fail . So what will be done by 18 companies like the former testimony you had, it will be 19 dug up and replaced into a different section of the 20 green belt. Not difficult. Not a sophisticated 21 process . It ' s digging up the pipes and relocating them. 22 So a failure of a septic -- septic system is not a 23 difficult problem to solve. It ' s not an expensive 24 problem. That ' s why the testimony earlier about the 25 $8 . 60 cost to maintain the system is such, because these 79 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 are not complicated systems. That ' s number one. 2 Number two is a general observation. What is 3 unfair here -- this is not within your purview directly, 4 but what is unfair is throughout most cities, the 5 infrastructure of the street is put in by a city or a • 6 water agency, and the residents merely have to hook up 7 their home to that line that ' s in the street . What ' s 8 being asked of the park and the residents of the park in 9 this situation is to pay for the whole system, all of 10 the pipes within the streets . That is a burden that ' s 11 usually borne by the general public because of concerns 12 and desires to get homes off of septics onto sewer. So 13 maybe in the bigger picture of the city council, there 14 should be thought on how to solve this problem, be it a 15 problem, with a solution that ' s more of the nature of 16 what ' s done in other areas, I 'm sure in this city, as 17 well as other cities . 18 Sue? 19 MS . LOFTIN: Sue Loftin. Thank you all for the time 20 this evening. I just want to highlight a couple of 21 things . First of all, I think this is -- the sewer 22 septic issue is a very confusing issue and, at times, an 23 overwhelming issue. One gentleman testified that he 24 called, and the water district told him it would be 6- 25 to 10, 000 to hook up to a private system in the street . 80 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Iw • w .i. so 1 And that ' s true. What the person answering the question 2 didn' t understand is there ' s no hookup in the street. 3 That has to be built. So that ' s why there' s such a 4 significant difference in cost in this project than in a 5 more typical project. 6 The last kind of item, some of the things that 7 have been commented on are part of the day-to-day 8 maintenance, such as every day the manager does check 9 every septic connection as part of his job, that ' s part 10 of his duties and that' s part of the management . 11 I want to answer one question for the audience. 12 It came up last night and I answered it, but I want to 13 answer it again. Who pays for repairs after this is a 14 condominium project? Whether it ' s septic or it ' s sewer, 15 the homeowners ' association will pay for the repair 16 without regard to whose lot the problem occurs on. That 17 is the moneys that we were discussing earlier that go in 18 and are calculated into the homeowners ' association 19 dues . 20 In closing, we would like to reiterate our 21 request that you approve the project and delete 22 Condition 5 . We want to thank you and everyone who came 23 out tonight to give input on this matter. 24 MR. JONATHAN: Thank you, Ms . Loftin. 25 With that, we ' ll go ahead and declare the 81 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In . n is• r v1 1 public hearing to be closed and ask the commissioners 2 for comments . I do -- before we do that, I have a 3 question for counsel and questions on some possible 4 legal ramifications. And I don' t know whether we should 5 very briefly convene into a closed section or whether we 6 can discuss that here. 7 MR. HARGREAVES: Well, without hearing the question, 8 it ' s kind of hard. Why don' t you go ahead and ask the 9 question. And if I feel it' s more appropriate handled 10 in closed section, we can adjourn to a closed session. 11 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Hopefully this is appropriate, 12 and you can kind of guide us from there. But in my 13 opinion, the applicant has made it clear that should we 14 not make the decision that the applicant is happy with, 15 that it ' s very likely that some level of litigation or 16 legal action may >0.1. Have you considered that? And 17 do you feel that we would be acting within our legal 18 authority regardless of which way we -- regardless of 19 what our decision is tonight? 20 MR. HARGREAVES: Yes . I think first of all that the 21 applicant has made it clear one way or the other that 22 litigation could be the result of the decision that they 23 feel is adverse. 24 Number two, we have viewed the recommendations 25 of staff and prospectus, and we feel that the actions 82 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION In a n v. r vI 1 would be within the jurisdiction and power of the City 2 if -- as a factual matter, you' re requiring the sewer is 3 a health and safety issue. If it' s a factual 4 determination that needs to be made there, that ' s your 5 determination. As far as legal is concerned, if you 6 determine that the requirement is necessary to address 7 the health and safety issue, then we feel that the law 8 would support you in that decision. 9 MR. JONATHAN: Is it a health and safety issue or is 10 it an existing health and safety issue? 11 MR. HARGREAVES: It ' s an existing health and safety 12 issue. 13 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Well, you've answered it. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. HARGREAVES: Thank you. 16 MR. TSCHOFF: Also, Counsel, given the staff ' s 17 recommendation, I take it then that it ' s your and staff 18 opinion that the city code does apply to in particular 19 development? 20 MR. HARGREAVES: Yes. I had an opportunity to talk 21 to Mr. Conlin, who is the one that -- the staff member 22 who developed the ordinance through the process of the 23 city council . I asked him that question. And he 24 responded with these materials . And his response, based 25 on what he intended and what his understanding of what 83 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 the council intendzO, he ordinance was intended to•.....mm_ 2 anyone who was on the septic system. The list there was 3 a list for -- on which property that encumbrances could 4 be filed. Those were property owners that were 5 officially put on notice. I think there was allusion to 6 this in the testimony. Whether you' re on that list or 7 not, it ' s the property owner' s responsibility. 8 MS. FINERTY: I would comment that it seems like the 9 Planning Commission has heard Ms . Loftin and Mr. Close ' s 10 case as argued in court. And we always need to have the 11 other side of the story. And what we have as far as 12 this, your opinion is the staff report, because they 13 cited a bunch of reasons why this wouldn' t apply and why 14 that wouldn' t apply, even if it didn' t apply, it was 15 because these other three conditions were not met. And 16 we are not -- it ' s a lot to follow in the gist. 17 MR. HARGREAVES: If you would like, I can go -- and 18 I apologize for not having a memorandum to that effect . 19 If there 's a particular concern, I ' ll address it . If 20 you would like me to go to the correspondence and 21 respond to particular points, I would be happy to. 22 MR. JONATHAN: I guess maybe it might suffice if you 23 could tell us if -- that you have viewed the legal 24 issues raised by the applicant ' s representatives and 25 after reviewing those issues, your answer is still the 84 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ID • n to rvl 1 same, which is we would be acting within your 2 interpretation of the law and within our range of 3 ' authority to make whatever decision we make tonight. 4 MR. HARGREAVES: That is my opinion. That ' s what I 5 intended to express earlier. 6 MR. JONATHAN: Having reviewed the issues . 7 MR. HARGREAVES: Having reviewed the various issues. 8 We've had an opportunity to discuss the matter, and 9 we've agreed to disagree somewhat. But there again, I 10 could respond to the issues . Obviously with respect to 11 number of legal issues. You never know for sure one way 12 or the other until you go into court. In this case, we 13 feel reasonably confident that the City would be well 14 based with the decision that the staff has proposed from 15 a legal standpoint. There again, I 'm not going to 16 comment on the factual process because that ' s not my 17 position. 18 MR. JONATHAN: Ms . Finerty, is that adequate in your 19 mind? 20 MS. FINERTY: Yes . Thank you. 21 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Discussion. 22 MR. TSCHOFF: Well, I ' ll start off . Personally I 23 would like to see in the Indian Springs park tentative 24 to the city' s sewer system. I think that would be good 25 for not only the homeowners, but the city also. The 85 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 issue is ranting the overlay. Can the city require the 2 applicant to hook up the sewer system? And from the 3 applicant, we had a lot of argumentative legal substance 4 that the City could not require. And quite honest, 5 hearing the attorney' s opinions moments ago, it ' s my 6 feeling that the city code then applies and that the 7 mobile home park should be hooked up to the city sewer. 8 And that' s what I would have to go on because that is 9 the city' s code. That ' s how we would treat all 10 applicants to place a condominium overlay map on a 11 project like this . That ' s what I would go on. I would 12 be in favor of the staff ' s recommendation. 13 MR. HARGREAVES : If I could address that issue too, 14 just to clarify. The city code requires hookup. And 15 the city code exists whether or not the applicant goes 16 through this process . And the city code is there 17 whether or not you make that a condition of approval . 18 The city code is somewhat apart. The process that we 're 19 actually going on is a subdivision map process, a parcel 20 map process, where there' s the ability to 21 (unintelligible) the parcel map on the specific existing 22 health and safety issues . So if you' re going to move 23 forward and put that condition on the parcel map, I 24 would suggest that ' s the test you need to meet, whether 25 or not it addresses an existing health and safety issue, 86 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 not whether or not it ' s required by the city code. 2 MR. TSCHOFF: You know, it would be helpful if we 3 actually had the city code then in front of us, the 4 actual verbiage. 5 MR. HARGREAVES : The code sections, I believe, are 6 in the report. There again, I would suggest that the 7 issue here is whether or not if the code applies in this 8 proceeding. The issue is whether or not you have a 9 health and safety issue here that needs to be addressed. 10 MR. JONATHAN: I think if I understand you 11 correctly, you've established in your mind that the City 12 has the authority to condition the parcel map request on 13 connection to the sewer system. And we would endorse 14 that recommendation if we make a factual finding or 15 determination that there is an existing health and 16 safety issue. 17 MS. CAMPBELL: That is correct . 18 MR. JONATHAN: And that is unrelated to the code. 19 MR. TSCHOFF: All right. So it would be have to be 20 an existing safety condition. 21 MR. JONATHAN: Health and safety. 22 MR. TSCHOFF: Health and safety. 23 MR. HARGREAVES: It also suggests that existing can 24 be narrowly broadened. If you have an existing 25 condition that threatens the health and safety at some 87 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 point, then now would be the time to address it. 2 MR. TSCHOFF: Well, the confusion is in the 3 California government codes . The city states that it 4 must use substantial evidence and it ' s necessary to 5 mitigate an existing health or safety hazard. Is that 6 how we are to apply that same to our decision tonight? 7 MR. HARGREAVES: Can you repeat the question? 8 MR. TSCHOFF: The California code specifically 9 states that in order for us to require the applicant to 10 hook up to the sewer system, that we must -- the 11 California Water Board would have to require substantial 12 evidence and it ' s necessary to mitigate a public health 13 or safety concern. Is that the same standard that we 14 are applying here on the state code? 15 MR. HARGREAVES: The statement that you just read is 16 the standard that I suggest that you go by tonight. The 17 city code, that standard is not the standard that the 18 city code necessarily sets up. The city code itself 19 says you have to connect. And then there' s a process ._ 20 But the finding of a substantial -- it' s not -- it 21 doesn' t say substantial -- there needs to be substantial 22 evidence that there ' s an existing health and safety 23 concern. There' s nothing that says there has to be a 24 substantial health and safety concern. 25 MS. FINERTY: I think by the very nature of the 88 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 septic tank, there is an existing health and safety 2 hazard because that ' s what they' re known for. The 3 letter from Coachella Water District dated 4 December 21st says that they are well-known sources of 5 ground water contamination and that that becomes even 6 more apparent when the density such as that exists at 7 Indian Springs is such that it is . So that they, Indian 8 Springs, has an increased of ground water contamination. 9 So there is an existing -- I mean, it ' s common sense 10 given the age of it, given that it is a septic tank, 11 given that we know nitrates are going to -- I mean, we 12 can wait until the nitrates have fouled everyone ' s 13 drinking water, but I don' t think that' s when you decide 14 to move. I think you know there ' s going to be a problem 15 by the very nature of the septic tank, and especially a 16 septic tank of this age with this density. 17 MS . CAMPBELL: We also have heard testimony in the 18 previous meetings of December 7th and some of the 19 owners that were here complaining about their septic 20 tanks overflowing -- their toilets overflowing every few 21 days because there was only one large septic tank for so 22 many units. Before, it was stated that a septic tank is 23 a block of cement and you have pipes running to it . If 24 they get clogged, then you go ahead and put new pipes so 25 they can go in a different location. So all of this 89 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 ground underneath there where the pipes are going are 2 being saturated and can be contaminated. So that is 3 seeping into our ground which is just like sand. We 4 know it ' s sand. So it ' s just reaching all of us . And 5 it ' s being* -- the water is being contaminated. And 6 eventually, we have to go ahead and think about the 7 welfare of all the people in not just Palm Desert, but 8 all the Desert. 9 MR. JONATHAN: Here ' s a question -- and I don' t 10 disagree with anything that ' s been said. Following up 11 on Commissioner Tschopp' s inquiry to counsel. And it ' s 12 my concern as well, which was the point of my earlier 13 questions . I asked Mr. Angel of the Regional Water 14 Quality Board whether or not the board had substantial 15 evidence that the septic system of Indian Springs will 16 cause water quality damage. He answered that no, he did 17 not. So I guess my question to counsel is, if we lack 18 substantial evidence, are we still able to make a 19 determination that there is an existing condition that 20 threatens the health and safety of the residents? 21 MR. HARGREAVES : As I understood -- as I understood 22 Mr. Angel ' s statement, he -- they do not have water 23 monitoring system in place, so they do not have actual 24 evidence. Okay. I believe he testified that in his 25 opinion, the system represented a substantial threat to 90 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 water quality. Based on the age of the system, the 2 density of the system. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. So the fact that the board 4 doesn' t have the evidence, doesn' t mean that the 5 evidence doesn' t exist or that there isn' t an existing 6 condition that threatens the health and safety of the 7 residence? In fact, he felt that there was. 8 MR. HARGREAVES: It would be circumstantial evidence 9 rather than physical evidence. 10 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. In spite of that, I guess what 11 I 'm saying, the lack of substantial evidence doesn' t 12 preclude us from reaching a conclusion? 13 MR. HARGREAVES: You said lack of substantial 14 evidence would. The question is, do you have -- you 15 don' t -- I 'm suggesting you don' t necessarily need -- 16 the water monitoring system is not in place . If it was, 17 you would have physical evidence. That substantial 18 evidence could be other things . 19 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. 20 MR. LOPEZ : Okay. Wow. Well, first of all, I want 21 to thank you all for coming out tonight and expressing 22 your concerns . This is part of the process. I commend 23 you all in your conduct as we went through part of the 24 procedure here tonight and we appreciate your patience 25 and your courtesy to your fellow speakers and also to 91 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 the applicant . 2 This is -- as mentioned earlier this evening, 3 this is a difficult decision. There ' s a lot of legality 4 involved in it . There ' s a lot of common sense that 5 needs to be applied to it . I think we 've heard 6 enough -- at least from my perspective, I 've heard 7 enough information in the case that septic systems in 8 general over a long period of time create dangerous 9 situations for our ground water, our drinking waters . 10 And at times -- they do at times do fail which causes 11 and creates pollution within our ground water. I 'm 12 concerned more about what ' s going to happen in the 13 future. 14 I think a couple of you mentioned this evening 15 it ' s not so much what ' s going to happen right now or 16 what ' s going to happen two years or three years or 30 17 years from now. But we are concerned with that. I 18 think we all have to be as residents here and as human 19 beings have to be concerned what ' s happening to our 20 environment. We 've seen how in many instances if you 21 avoid or ignore situations such as what we 're talking 22 about this evening, that in the long run, something is 23 going to happen and create a very difficult environment 24 or environmental problem for all the residents in Palm 25 Desert, whether it be in Indian Springs or the rest of 92 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 the residents in Coachella Valley. I think that knowing 2 that the City has created problems in the past, I think 3 it ' s appropriate that Condition number 5 be part of this 4 application. 5 The decision we have to make tonight are those 6 that impact all of us . And I know that before we vote 7 on this, I would like to make sure that we have all of 8 the changes before us so that we understand what has 9 been changed and what has been added. And it would be 10 simple to do that. From my perspective, I think we are 11 moving in the most appropriate direction, that is to 12 approve the application with Condition number 5 13 incorporated in it. 14 MR. JONATHAN: I think, by the way, that the only 15 change from the staff report is the conditions of 16 approval from the Department of Public Works, 17 elimination of the deceleration lane and the sidewalk. 18 MR. HARGREAVES : Mr. Chairman, I would suggest 19 actually if you are going to go forward and impose 20 Condition number 5, that there be a specific finding by 21 the planning commission that Condition number 5 is 22 necessary to address the existing health and safety 23 condition based on the events presented tonight 24 regarding the nature of the system, the history of the 25 system, the density of the system and the age of the 93 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 system, something to that extent. So if anyone ever 2 questions the decision, there can be a determination by 3 the commission that they can refer to and have some 4 sense of what you based that decision on. 5 MS . FINERTY: Okay. All right. 6 MR. JONATHAN: Commissioner Tschopp, do you want to 7 incorporate that into a motion? 8 MS . FINERTY: Are you done speaking? 9 MR. JONATHAN: No. I 'm asking for his motion. 10 MR. LOPEZ : That was my opinion. 11 MR. JONATHAN.: No. There will be further 12 discussion. 13 MR. TSCHOFF: I don' t want to be redundant, 14 Counselor, but I want to clarify for my own mind, 15 dealing with both state and local ordinances and laws, 16 again, your opinion is Ordinance 8 . 6 applies to this 17 property? 18 MR. HARGREAVES: Yes . 19 MR. TSCHOFF: And that it should be considered with 20 California Water Code? 21 MR. HARGREAVES: I don' t know that the California 22 Water Code addresses the issue definitively one way or 23 the other. 24 MR. TSCHOFF: Well, the California Water Code 25 prohibits that the regional board cannot establish a 94 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 prohibition of waste -- it must provide substantial 2 evidence for the record to show that such discharge will 3 result in water quality objectives and on and on and on. 4 MR. HARGREAVES: That ' s the Water Code. And that ' s 5 the provision that applies to the regional board. They 6 have a different process that they need to go through 7 before they can impose that kind of requirement . Now, I 8 would suggest that to some extent you operate under 9 similar provisions that you would need substantial 10 evidence of an existing threat to health and safety. 11 The water board, I believe, would go forward -- 12 actually, there' s a state law that mandates that they go 13 forward and review that situation with respect to septic 14 tanks . And they come up and address the perceived 15 threat there through a monitoring system. But the water 16 board cannot require that they remove the septic system. 17 MR. TSCHOFF: Setting aside, the city ordinance 8 . 6 18 simply states that prior to the sale of properties will 19 be hooked up to sewer. 20 MR. HARGREAVES: Correct. 21 MR. TSCHOFF: And you are saying that that applies 22 to this property. 23 MR. HARGREAVES: Correct. 24 MR. TSCHOFF: Thank you. 25 MR. HARGREAVES : But there again, that applies to 95 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 the property. It does not apply necessarily to this 2 proceeding. This proceeding is approval of a parcel 3 map. 4 MR. TSCHOFF: Okay. 5 MR. HARGREAVES: And it has, by the state statute, a 6 very limited window for making conditions . And the fact 7 that the City has an ordinance one way or another would 8 not be a sufficient basis to apply that condition to 9 this parcel map. 10 MR. LOPEZ: I would like to make one more statement . 11 I think as any application comes before us, we rely on 12 staff report as well as testimony, whether it be more or 13 against the application itself . I think what I 've heard 14 from the applicant any testimony given to us that there 15 are -- there are situations where there are malfunctions 16 within the septic system that currently exists today. 17 Those malfunctions have been addressed by the management 18 of the park, but nevertheless there are malfunctions 19 that occur. When those occur, however long it takes you 20 to discover those occurrences, there is something that ' s 21 going on that ' s going out into the earth. And whether 22 it ' s a day or two days or a week or however long it 23 takes to repair this, from my perspective at least, that 24 is an indication there is an existing danger to health 25 and well being. From my perspective . 96 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MS. FINERTY: I would concur because our job is 2 to -- we' re not experts in this area. But we need to 3 rely on the information given. And whether it ' s the 4 testimony from Mr. Angel or the letter from CVWD or the 5 letter from the California Regional Water Board, there' s 6 no question as to what they' re telling us with regard to 7 septic tanks being the leading cause of ground water 8 pollution. Locally they talk about the discharge from 9 the septic tank they feel have a concern because the 10 discharge contains pollutants that migrate to the 11 surface to our sand is basically what they' re saying. 12 And there ' s no question but this is a concern for the 13 entire city. And if septic tanks were so adequate, you 14 know, it' s hard to imagine why, you know, we have -- 15 everybody goes to sewer. 16 It' s in Palm Desert ' s interest that everything 17 go to sewer. And I think that ' s the purpose of our 18 ordinance. And I want to say if this is a sale, it ' s 19 going to happen because this is a good thing. It ' s the 20 right thing. 21 MR. JONATHAN: Okay. Well, you know, I don' t want 22 to let the opportunity go without saying thank you again 23 to all of you, as Commissioner Lopez indicated. It 24 helps us make better decisions when we hear from more 25 and more people. You've taken your time this evening, 97 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 and we appreciate it. Incidentally, when you go through 2 this process, you come away with the conclusion that we 3 have a very dedicated staff that has devoted a great 4 deal of time and expertise to this matter and that you 5 have volunteer citizens from your community that are 6 taking their time as well to listen to everyone that is 7 affected by this matter and just make the best decision 8 that they can given the information that is made 9 available to them. When we come up here and we make a 10 decision, some people are happy with the decision, some 11 people are unhappy. But I certainly hope that all of us 12 focus on the process and we are pleased that everyone 13 has had a chance to be heard and be part of that 14 process . 15 Having said all of that, you know I'm certainly 16 in favor of approval of the parcel map. It seems to 17 come down to the one condition, Number 5, which is the 18 requirement to replace the septic system with the sewer 19 system. It is something that inevitably will need to be 20 done. The question is does it need to be done now as 21 part of this parcel map or some later time? It 22 certainly would be my preference that it be done now 23 because it seems to me this is inevitable. So let ' s 24 deal with it now and before a potential for disaster at 25 a later time. 98 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 In order to sustain a condition the staff is 2 recommending, Condition Number 5, I think we have to 3 come to a conclusion that there is an existing health 4 and safety situation, an existing condition that 5 threatens the health and safety of the community. I 6 believe that we do, in fact, have that situation. And 7 the reason I feel that way is that we 've gotten 8 testimony from individuals here about leaky septic tanks 9 and malfunctioning septic systems. We 've received a 10 recommendation from Coachella Water District that the 11 septic system needs to be replaced because it threatens 12 the health and safety of the community. We 've received 13 a recommendation from the Regional Water Quality Control 14 Board to the same effect, that there is an existing 15 threat to the health and safety of the community. And 16 we 've received that recommendation from the staff after 17 they've reviewed all those recommendations and come to 18 their own conclusion. 19 In my own mind, there ' s enough information and 20 indication to us that there is an existing health and 21 safety issue out here that makes it appropriate to 22 sustain Condition Number 5 . And therefore, I would be 23 in approval or in favor of approving the parcel map. 24 MS. FINERTY: With that, I would like to make a 25 motion that we accept Staff ' s findings that the 99 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 commission does believe there ' s an existing health and 2 safety condition due to the age of the septic system, 3 which we know to be at least 30 years old, the density 4 of the Indian Springs Park, the very nature of a septic 5 tank, which contaminates the ground water due to 6 nitrates, the testimony received from Mr. Angel, the • 7 letter from CVWD, and the letter from the California 8 Water Quality Board. 9 MR. JONATHAN: There ' s a motion. 10 MR. TSCHOFF: I ' ll second it . 11 MR. JONATHAN: There ' s a motion and a second. 12 Is there any further discussion? 13 All in favor please say aye. 14 MR. TSCHOFF: Aye . 15 MR. LOPEZ : Aye. 16 MR. JONATHAN: Aye. 17 MS . CAMPBELL: Aye. 18 MS. FINERTY: Aye . 19 MR. JONATHAN: Any opposed? 20 Motion passes . 21 MS . FINERTY: Motion to adopt Planning Commission 22 Resolution, approving parcel map 31862 , subject to 23 conditions . 24 MR. TSCHOFF: I ' ll second that. 25 MR. JONATHAN: All in favor say aye. • 100 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MR. TSCHOFF: Aye . 2 MR. LOPEZ : Aye. 3 MR. JONATHAN: Aye . 4 MS . CAMPBELL: Aye . 5 MS . FINERTY: Aye . 6 MR. JONATHAN: Any opposed? 7 Motion passes unanimously. 8 Thank you again everyone . Have a happy new 9 year. 10 (Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting 11 adjourned at 8 : 36 p.m. ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 3 4 I , ,L.D1(A[ , Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter, Certificate No. VIES'5 , for the State of 6 California, hereby certify: 7 I am the person that stenographically recorded 8 the Transcript of proceeding held on December 29. 2004 9 The foregoing transcript is a true record of 10 said proceeding. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dated 01-14-05 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 [BARKLEY'