Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appeal - Res 05-18 PM 31862 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park 49305 Hwy 111 APN 652-120-007
REQUEST: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission approving 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). SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Indian Springs, Ltd. A California Limited Liability Company c/o James and Associates, Inc. 255 N. El Cielo Road, Suite 286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 CASE NO: PM 31862 DATE: February 10, 2005 CONTENTS: Recommendation Executive Summary Project Description City Attorney Response to Appeal Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal Planning Commission Staff Reports dated December 7 and December 29, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes of December 7 and December 29, 2004 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319 Exhibits submitted by Applicant/Appellant Letters and Exhibits from Residents Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-18 ' denying the appeal, affirming the decision of the Planning Commission approving PM 31862, Staff Report Case No. PM 31862 Page 2 February 10, 2005 subject to conditions, and amending Condition No. 5 as described in the City Attorney's response. Executive Summary: The applicant requests approval of this one -lot parcel map with a condominium overlay to change the ownership structure from rental mobile home park to single family manufactured housing condominium units. The proposed map will not alter the existing 191-unit density or impact the physical appearance of the park. Residents will be able to purchase their condominium unit as described in the legal description of their space "from below grade level of 18 inches to above grade level of 40 feet, along with a 1 /191 st interest in the common areas and facilities, and a membership in the homeowners association." There will be no displacement of residents. Residents will be able to choose to 1) buy their condominium unit; or 2) continue to rent their space. The appellant basically challenges the City's legal basis to impose the condition requiring that the Park be connected to the sewer system on the parcel map and claims that the system is in good working order. The City Attorney in his response to the appeal concludes that state law allows the City to impose the condition requiring "connection to the regional sewer system, if the City finds that sewering is necessary to mitigate an existing health and safety condition." Testimony on the Planning Commission record supports inclusion of the condition because of the age of the system and the nature of the system is such that even when it operates perfectly, it does not remove salts or nitrates which are a threat to groundwater resources. Staff Report Case No. PM 31862 Page 3 February 10, 2005 Background: At the Planning Commission hearings no one objected to the conversion of the park. The issue before Planning Commission was whether to impose a condition requiring connection to the sewer system. Planning Commission, following hearings held December 7 and December 29, 2004, adopted on a 5-0 vote its Resolution No. 2319 approving the parcel map, subject to conditions. January 10, 2005 this timely appeal was filed relating specifically and only to the inclusion of Condition No. 5 of the Planning Commission Resolution which states: "That the subdivider, prior to the sale of each unit, shall connect said unit to the public sewer system and provide evidence of same to the purchaser." The City Attorney has provided a response to the appeal, a copy of which is attached. Summary of Testimony Presented to Planning Commission: Over the course of two hearings, the Planning Commission heard approximately three and a half hours of testimony from 20 individuals. Speaking for the applicant were two attorneys (Loftin and Close) and Larry Owens, an engineer who maintains the septic system at Indian Springs Mobile Home Park. Mr. Jose Angel, Acting Assistant Executive Office for the Water Quality Control Board, discussed at length the issues relating to septic systems. Fifteen residents of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park also spoke. Mr. Angel said that there are several areas of concern. First, the system is old. It is at least 30 years old. The average life of a septic system is 25 years. The system is dense in that there are 44 systems serving 191 units on a 34.7- acre property. Staff Report Case No. PM 31862 Page 4 February 10, 2005 Next the septic system does not have leach fields. It has seepage pits which are essentially a hole in the ground conveying the effluent downward. They wouldn't see a failure unless there is a back up inside a house. Even when these systems work perfectly, they do not remove salts or nitrates. The park does not have a water monitoring system in place, so they do not have the actual physical evidence, but based on his 15 years of experience in the field it was his opinion that 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. Mr. Angel's testimony is found in the December 29, 2004 minutes at pages 4 thru 16 and pages 35 and 36. Ms. Loftin advised Commission that the park owner has spent $300,000 upgrading the 1970 septic system. To connect to the sewer will be expensive, approximately $4 million or $21,000 per unit because the sewer would need to be extended from Highway 74 into the park and all of the connections were in the backs of the units. Ms. Loftin's comments were reported in the December 7 minutes at pages 36 thru 39, and in the December 29 minutes at pages 16 thru 29 and pages 47 and 48. Mr. Owens said that he had provided a verbal cost estimate to install the sewer system (page 22 of the December 29, 2004 minutes). December 7, 2004 (page 39) Mr. Owens reported that his firm had upgraded the septic system, that it is in good working order and that it should last indefinitely. Mr. Close in his December 7, 2004 comments (pages 40 and 41) said that the City, by State Law, was limited in the conditions which can be imposed on a conversion. These limitations were upheld by the appellate court in recent litigation with the City of Palm Springs. December 29, 2004 Mr. Close at pages 46 and 47 of the minutes reminded Commission that septic systems are not technically complex. When they fail, they are easily fixed for a very reasonable cost. Staff Report Case No. PM 31862 Page 5 February 10, 2005 The comments of the 15 park residents are found at pages 42 thru 46 of the December 7, 2004 minutes and pages 29-46 of the December 29, 2004 minutes. • One gentleman said he had contacted CVWD and they indicated that cost to connect to the sewer would be $6,000 to $10,000 per unit, not $21,000 per unit. • Several residents supported requiring the sewer connection as a condition of this approval. • Several residents said that the occupants of these units are only one or two person households who use very little water (i.e., they only use the washing machine/dish washers once per week). They requested that the sewer connection requirement be waived. • Several residents indicated that they had experienced septic system malfunctions. They noted that the management had been responsive to performing pumping when needed, performing repairs and installing a new tank. One gentleman explained that he had odor issues for many years and that sewage ran under his unit. Prior to Commission acting on the application, City Attorney Hargreaves responded to Commission questions and clarified that the City Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.60) which requires properties to connect to the sewer prior to sale, applies to this property, but it did not necessarily apply to this proceeding. This proceeding is approval of a parcel map and it has by state statute a very limited window for making conditions. 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. If Commission intends to impose Condition No. 5, Mr. Hargreaves advised 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 regarding the nature of the system, the history of the system, the density of the system, and the age of the system. Accordingly, the Commission on a motion by Finerty, second by Lopez, determined that there is an existing health and safety condition due to the age Staff Report Case No. PM 31862 Page 6 February 10, 2005 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 nitrates, the testimony received from Mr. Angel, the letter from CVWD, and the letter from the California Water Quality Board, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319 approving PM 31862, subject to conditions as amended. Motion passed unanimously 5-0. Submitted by: Planning Manager Approval: >AA, Hohier Croy ACM for Development Services Itm Department Head: LIXJ� Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approval: Carlos L. Orte City Manage (Wpdocs\tm\sr\pm31862.cc4) RESOLUTION NO. 05-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHICH APPROVED, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, A PARCEL MAP CREATING 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). CASE NO. PM 31862 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm. Desert, California, did on the 10th day of February, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a California Limited Liability Company, as it relates to the inclusion of Condition No. 5 of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319 which requires that the subdivider, prior to the sale of each unit, shall connect said unit to the public sewer system and provide evidence of same to the purchaser; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th and 29th days of December, 2004, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider the request of INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a California Limited Liability Company, for approval of PM 31862; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did by its Resolution No. 2319 approve PM 31862, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, this timely appeal was filed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Planning Commission has determined that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify retention of Condition No. 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319 and denial of the appeal: The Indian Springs septic system represents an existing health and safety condition that needs to be mitigated by a requirement of connection to the sewer system because: • It is a high density system, serving 191 units on a 34.7-acre site. • Septic systems, by their nature, threaten groundwater resources, because of pass through of nitrates and certain organic compounds. • The septic system is 35 years old, where the average useful life is 25 years. RESOLUTION NO. 05-18 • The septic system has had a history of problems and poor maintenance. • The Acting Assistant Executive Officer for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board testified that the system poses a threat to groundwater resources. Correspondence from both the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Coachella Valley Water District documents the threat that septic systems pose to groundwater resources and recommend that septic systems be discontinued. • Testimony of the residents regarding a history of problems with the system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the appeal to the inclusion of Condition No. 5 in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319 is hereby denied and the approval of PM 31862, subject to conditions, is upheld, as modified in Exhibit 'A' attached. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor RESOLUTION NO.05-18 EXHIBIT 'A' Condition of Approval No. 5 contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319 is amended to read: 5. Prior to the recording of the parcel map, subdivider shall enter into an improvement agreement committing subdivider to install park -wide sewer infrastructure to connect to the public sewer system within one year. Each unit sold during the first year of the improvement agreement shall be connected to the sewer system within the first year of the agreement. After the first anniversary of the agreement, each unit shall be connected to the sewer prior to sale of that unit. 3 MEMORANDUM_ To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, City of Palm Desert FROM: Robert W. Hargreaves, Assistant City Attorney DATE: February 2, 2005 RE: Appeal by Indian Springs Ltd; PM31862 Appellant Indian Springs, Ltd., has appealed the Planning Commission's imposition of Condition No. 5 on Parcel Map 31862. The approval of the parcel map is a precondition to appellant's conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park to resident ownership. Condition No. 5 provides that all homes within the park be connected to the sewer prior to sale. The Planning Commission imposed the sewer condition pursuant to Government Code section 66482.1(d), which provides that a local agency may condition a parcel map for mobile home conversion only with "offsite design or improvement requirements ... necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition." In its appeal, appellant challenges the city's legal authority to impose Condition No. 5. First, appellant argues that Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 (Sewer Connection Requirements Prior to Property Sale or Transfer of Ownership) applies only to properties listed in "Exhibit A" of the Chapter, which does not include Indian Springs. As a preliminary matter, the Commission imposed Condition No. 5 pursuant to Government Code section 66428.1, not Chapter 8.60. Chapter 8.60 will apply to the sale of homes within the Indian Springs Mobile Home park regardless of whether that requirement is imposed as a condition of the parcel map pursuant to Section 66428.1. Furthermore, Chapter 8.60 clearly establishes the City's long-term policy that septic tanks be eliminated upon change of ownership of property. Staff and the city attorney both interpret Chapter 8.60 to apply regardless of whether the particular property is listed on Exhibit A. Ultimately, the City Council would be the final arbiter of it's intent in adopting the ordinance. But that is an argument for another day. Condition No. 5 is imposed pursuant to Government Code section 66428.1(d), not pursuant to chapter 8.60. Next appellant claims that the City does not have jurisdiction to impose the sewer condition because the California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobile home park. To the contrary, Section 66428.1(d) provides explicit authority to impose that type of condition in the context of a mobile home park conversion. Section 66428.1(d) requires that a condition be (1) an offsite improvement; and (2) necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. The statute does not explicitly define "offsite improvement requirements" or "existing health or safety conditions". The sewer requirement has both offsite and onsite characteristics. We have found some indirect guidance of legislative intent in the legislative history of Section 66428.1. The section was intended to C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT Memorandum re Indain Springs.doc facilitate mobile home conversions by limiting the procedural and substantive requirements for such conversions. The legislature was concerned that local agencies not capriciously impose conditions that would make conversions unnecessarily expensive. In one version of the bill, the proposed legislation distinguished between concerns under which parcel maps would be required (adequate fire flow and water facilities to service the park, sanitary disposal facilities adequate to service the park, and flood water drainage control designed to accommodate 100-year floods) from relatively less significant concerns for which parcel maps would not be required (interior street widths and size, interior street lights and trees, set -back requirements, individual sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, and television services, interior paving design, interior parking requirements, etc.") It appears that the Legislature ultimately generalized the first set of conditions as being "offsite improvements necessary to mitigate existing health and safety concerns". The sewering of the whole park would be consistent with the first set of concerns, in that "sanitary disposal facilities adequate to service the park" are specifically mentioned. The sewer infrastructure would be a park -wide facility, necessary to address health and safety concerns both within the park, and the region generally. Numerous residents have commented on continuing problems with the park's current septic system. Additionally, both the Regional Water Quality Control Board and CVWD have expressed concerns that the high density discharge from the park's sewer system constitutes a current threat to the quality of the ground water, upon which the Coachella Valley depends for its drinking water. Under these conditions, we believe that the requirements of Section 66428.1(d) are satisfied. Appellant further argues that the Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot "require abandonment of the septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage." Representatives of the Regional Water Quality Control Board have indicated that the Board would likely require abandonment of the Indian Springs septic system in the future, if the city ultimately decides not to impose the sewering condition. But the fact that Regional Water Quality Control Board has not yet acted does not limit the City's ability to do so, given that Section 66428.1(d) provides explicit authority to do so. Consequently, it is our opinion that the City is within its jurisdiction to condition Parcel Map 31862 on connection to the regional sewer system, if the City finds that sewering is necessary "to mitigate an existing health or safety condition." We do recommend that Condition No. 5 be modified to reflect additional restrictions of Section 66428.1(e). That subsection provides that, if the city does impose conditions on the parcel map, the city must enter into an unsecured improvement agreement that allows the applicant one year to install any required improvements. Condition No. 5, as currently worded, requires that each unit be connected to the sewer prior to sale, which may occur prior to the expiration of the first year. Consequently, we recommend that the condition be modified to provide: "Prior to the recording of the parcel map, subdivider shall enter into an improvement agreement committing subdivider to install park -wide sewer infrastructure to connect to the public sewer system within one year. Each unit sold during the first year of the improvement agreement shall be connected to the sewer system within the first year of the agreement. After the first anniversary of the agreement, each unit shall be connected to the sewer prior to sale of that unit." -2 C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT Memorandum re [ndain Springs.doc LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 January 31, 2005 VIA FEDEX Mayor Buford A. Crites Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert. City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Wilma Michelson Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 City Council Hearing: Thursday, February 10, 2005 TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclosa®9rlawyers.com rn coo Dear Mayor Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson and Councilmembers Benson, Kelly and Spiegel: Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Appeal by Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs") of Condition No. 5 imposed by the Planning Commission on its parcel map application to convert the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park to resident condominium ownership. The City Council is scheduled to hear the Appeal on February 10, 2005. Condition No. 5, which is the only issue raised on appeal by Indian Springs, purports to require the costly removal of the Park's septic system and the construction of a private sewer line within the Park and connection to the City's sewer line. Our engineer and construction company has estimated that the cost of the project will be approximately $4,270,000. We have also received a second proposal for $4,800,000. It is unfair to require Indian Springs and its residents to pay for sewer system infrastructure that is normally provided by the City. Despite the disruption and collateral costs to Indian Springs inherent in a sewer connection, however, we would cooperate in such a project if the costs and expenses of constructing the sewer line were borne by the City and/or other public Mayor Buford A. Crites Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert City Council January 31, 2005 Page 2 agencies. Such a compromise would be fairer to the Park and its residents and would enable the conversion to proceed without delay and without litigation. However, any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and will be vigorously challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage and harm to its residents. As set forth in detail in the attached Appeal, the City does not have the legal authority to impose Condition No. 5 to its approval of PM 31862. City Municipal Code Section 8.60 (the "Ordinance") is not applicable to Indian Springs as it is not one of the properties identified in the Ordinance or its attachment. Furthermore, even if the Ordinance did purport to compel Indian Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such a requirement would be illegal and unenforceable for several reasons. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation pursuant to Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. In addition, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewer systems, or other exactions from the parks. Accordingly, City Municipal Code Section 8.60 is void on its face (for the reasons explained above and in the Appeal), and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will force a challenge to the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. In addition, its enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable regulations. Mayor Buford A. Crites Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert City Council January 31, 2005 Page 3 As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club ("El Dorado") was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4th 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. If Condition No. 5 is not removed it will necessarily result in litigation, which will delay the conversion of the Park and the residents' ability to purchase their lots. Given the current trends in real estate prices and interest rates, a delay of two years will cause the lot prices to increase further to the harm of the residents, as occurred in El Dorado. In addition, mortgage interest rates could be substantially higher. Although Indian Springs has been told the City is interested in exploring a solution to everyone's benefit wherein public funds may be made available to finance the sewer system construction, we have yet to hear anything further. We look forward to working with you to avoid litigation, satisfy the desire of the residents and to benefit the City of Palm Desert. Very truly yours, GILCHRIST & RUTTER Profess enaY rporation Richard H. Close Of the Firm COPY TO Opt^ "ft TWC:twc/112473_1.DOC/122104 3416.006 Enclosure cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express — w/encl.) Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express — w/encl.) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express — w/encl.) DATE a—�. �s llDec-07-04 12:39pm From -PALM DESE CITY CLERK T603400574 • T-703 P.01/01 F-62B CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION (Name of Determining Body) Case No. PM. 31862 Date of Decision: Name of Appellant Indian Springs, Ltd. Phone (310) 393-4000 Richard H. Close, Esq., Gilchrist & Rutter Address, 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 900 Santa Monica CA 90401 Description of PM 31862 to convert rental mobilehome park to condominii Application or Matter Considered: park. 12/29/04 4,1 vz--, Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets If necessary): Please see attached sheets 1-3 Oink See Attached (Signature of Appellant) FOR OFFICIAL. USE ONLY ao Date Appeal Fled: �— I - Ci 5Fee Received: , ! �� Treasurer's Receipt No. O SP Received by: c' -i ate _ Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: Action Taken: Date: Rachelie D. Klassen, City Clerk HArkleoefeWPastieNPDOCSAFORMSNeppi aacee►.wca CO Y Rev sneraz • • ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER: PM 31862 Reason for Appeal: Applicant and Appellant is Indian Springs, Ltd., owner of the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park in Palm Desert ("Indian Springs" or the "Park"). Applicant hereby appeals the approval by the Planning Commission of PM 31862 on December 29, 2004 only as to Condition of Approval Number 5 ("Condition No. 5"). Condition No. 5 states: "That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element 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 same to the purchaser." Despite the fact that the septic system currently operating at the Park functions properly, is not in violation of water discharge requirements and does not represent a health hazard, Condition No. 5 would require the costly removal of the septic system and the construction of a private sewer line within the Park and connection to the City's sewer line. Our consultants have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would cost in excess of $4,000,000. Indian Springs recognizes the general policy of the City and the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD") to encourage connection to the sewer system, and we are amenable to working with the City and others toward that goal. However, the cost to it of connecting to the sewer system is not merely that of a single connection from a building to the City's sewer main as with most other developments, but rather would require expensive construction and maintenance of a private sewer line within the Park, connection of each of the 191 Park homes to that sewer line, and connection of the private sewer line to the City's main sewer line, in addition to the expensive procedures required to remove the septic system. In fairness to Indian Springs and its residents, they should not be required to pay for sewer system infrastructure that is normally provided by the City. Despite the disruption and collateral costs to Indian Springs inherent in a sewer connection, however, we would agree to cooperate in such a project if the costs and expenses of constructing the sewer line were borne by the City and/or other public agencies. Such a compromise would be fairer to the Park and its residents and would enable the conversion to proceed without delay and without litigation. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and will be vigorously challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage. [TWC:twc/111575_1.DOC/010305/3416.006] 1 • • The City does not have the legal authority to impose Condition No. 5 to its approval of PM 31862. The application of Section 8.60 (the "Ordinance") is limited to those properties listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment. In addition, the Comprehensive General Plan/Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 ("Policy No. 4") does not require new or existing developments to be connected to the CVWD sewage treatment system. Furthermore, even if the Ordinance or Policy No. 4 did purport to compel Indian Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such a requirement would be illegal and unenforeceable for several reasons. First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer system. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks. In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage.' In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section 13360. The State Water Board stated: "Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate. If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section 13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board Water Code §§ 13280-13284. [T WC:twc/ 111575_1.DOC/010305/3416.006] 2 1 may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied." Testimony by Mr. Jose Angel of the Regional Water Quality Control Board at the December 29, 2004 hearing regarding PM 38612 made clear that Indian Springs' septic system is functioning properly, is not in violation of water discharge requirements and does not represent a health hazard. He further stated that the Board had no authority to require the Park to connect to the sewer system. Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will force a challenge to the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60 is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable regulations. As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Snrinas,_Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4a' 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Applicant appeals as to the imposition of Condition of Approval Number 5. [TWC:twc/111575_1.DOG010305/3416.006) INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a California limited partnership By: Goldstein Properties, Inc., a California corporation Its: General Partner : James . Goldstein ts: President PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARCEL MAP CREATING 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). CASE NO. PM 31862 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the 7th and 29th days of December, 2004, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider -the-request-rf-IN-DIAN SPRINGS TD:, a California--Limited-Liability-Company, for approval of PM 31862; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has preliminarily determined that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said parcel map and conditions imposed thereon: 1. The project as it exists and as it will continue to exist with 191 units complies with the medium density provisions of the General Plan. 2. The project as conditioned complies with the General Plan and with the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5. 3. The Indian Springs septic system represents an existing health and safety condition that needs to be mitigated by a requirement of connection to the sewer system because: • It is a high density system, serving 191 units on a 34.7-acre site. • Septic systems, by their nature, threaten groundwater resources, because of pass through of nitrates and certain organic compounds. The septic system is 35 years old, where the average useful life is 25 years. • The septic system has had a history of problems and poor maintenance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319 • The Acting Assistant Executive Officer for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board testified that the system poses a threat to groundwater resources. • Correspondence from both the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Coachella Valley Water District documents the threat that septic systems pose to groundwater resources and Teicommend-that-septic-systems-be discontinued. • Testimony of the residents regarding a history of problems with the system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA. 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve PM 31862, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 29th day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ SCHOPP, JONATHAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: STEP EN . SMITH, ActingS- - Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 SABBY J • NA N, Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PM 31862 Department of Community Development: The-application-d€scribed-herein-shatl-be-subject--to the -restrictions -and -limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), the subdivision shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. Subdivider to provide the City with a certified statement as to the date of delivery of said offer. 3. That pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all non purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. 4. That pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all non purchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. 5. That the subdivider, prior to the sale of each unit, shall connect said unit to the public sewer system and provide evidence of same to the purchaser. 6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission, any City Board, or the City _Council-conceming this subdivision, which action is brought -within the time 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319 period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. This section shall not apply to any action brought by the applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter. The City shall promptly notify Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b). This section shall not apply to any action brought by applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter. Department of Public Works: 1. 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. // CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 29, 2004 CASE NO: PM 31862 REQUEST: 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). APPLICANT: Indian Springs, Ltd. A California Limited Liability Company c/o James and Associates, Inc. 255 N. El Cielo Road, Suite 286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 BACKGROUND: This case was originally before Planning Commission at its December 7, 2004 meeting at which time, at the request of the City Attorney, the matter was continued to January 18, 2005. The reason for the continuance was to permit staff and the City Attorney to review in depth concerns which the applicant had raised with respect to certain conditions of approval staff had imposed in the draft resolution. Following the December 7, 2004 meeting, the City Attorney determined that due to unforeseen circumstances related to the permit streamlining act, the project needed to be acted upon earlier than January 18, 2005. Consequently, staff renoticed the case for hearing December 29, 2004. All tenants in the park were notified, as well as property owners within 300 feet. II. DISCUSSION: In correspondence received December 6, 2004 and in testimony presented at the December 7, 2004 hearing, the applicant's legal representative raised concerns with respect to several of the conditions of approval. A. CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 3 3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all non purchasing residents who are not lower income households, STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 29, 2004 as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process. The applicant's representatives challenge the inclusion of the last sentence. "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." Their reasons are delineated in their letter dated December 6, 2004 (copy attached). The City Attorney has reviewed this issue and concludes that jurisdiction of the City's rent review process terminates upon sale of the first unit and that the last sentence of the condition should be deleted. B. CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 5 5. That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element 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 same to the purchaser. The applicant challenges this condition on a variety of grounds (see December 6, 2004 letter). The mobilehome conversion law authorizes the City to impose offsite design or improvement requirements if "necessary to mitigate an existing health and safety condition." The City will be presenting testimony supporting the necessity of connecting the park to the sewer system. This testimony is contained in written correspondence attached hereto from the Coachella Valley Water District and the California Water Quality Board. C. CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 6 6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 29, 2004 any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission, any City Board, or the City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall promptly notify Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b). The applicant requests that the scope of said condition be limited by adding to the end of the first sentence the words, "except as to any claim, action, or proceeding brought by the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void, or annul any of the Conditions of Approval." The City Attorney advises that, in all fairness, the applicant should not be required to fund the City's defense of an action brought by the applicant to challenge the City's actions, unless ordered to do so by a court. The City Attorney recommends that the condition be modified to add: "...this section shall not apply to any action brought by applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter." D. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 1. Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot/parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. And Condition No. 2, which was requested by Public Works to be added at the December 7, 2004 meeting. 2. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 29, 2004 • Deceleration lane required on Highway 74. • 8' sidewalk required on Highway 74. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. The applicant questioned whether these conditions were addressing "existing health and safety conditions". The Public Works Department has prepared a response supporting the conditions of approval (see memo attached). III. CONCLUSION: The City Attorney advises 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 permitted directly by government code. Commission should weigh the testimony/reports supporting the inclusion of the conditions against the applicant's concerns. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No , approving PM 31862, subject to conditions. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Public Works memo dated December 6, 2004 D. Applicant's correspondence of December 3 and December 6, 2004 E. Letter from James & Associates, Inc., dated December 2, 2004 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 29, 2004 F. Letter from Larry Owens, Tri-Star, dated December 3, 2004 G. Notice to Indian Springs Residents of Tentative Map Hearing for December 29, 2004, signed by Sue Loftin H. Report from CVWD I. Report from California. Water Quality Board J. Report from Public Works K. Staff Report from April 14, 1994 regarding Sewer Ordinance L. December 7, 2004 Staff Report Prepared by: Steve Smith Planning Manager Review a Concu k omer Croy ACM for De /t m pment Services 5 Reviewed and Approved by: Phil Drell Director of Community Development PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARCEL MAP CREATING 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). CASE NO. PM 31862 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 29th day of December, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability Company, for approval of PM 31862; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has preliminarily determined that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said parcel map: 1. The project as it exists and as it will continue to exist with 191 units complies with the medium density provisions of the General Plan. 2. The project as conditioned complies with the General Plan and with the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of'the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA. 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve PM 31862, subject to conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 29th day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PM 31862 Department of Community Development: 1. The application described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), the subdivision shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. Subdivider to provide the City with a certified statement as to the date of delivery of said offer. 3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all non purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. 4. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all non purchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. 5. That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element 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 same to the purchaser. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission, any City Board, or the City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. This section shall not apply to any action brought by the applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter. The City shall promptly notify Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b). This section shall not apply to any action brought by applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter. Department of Public Works: 1. Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot/parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. 2. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Deceleration lane required on Highway 74. 8' sidewalk required on Highway 74. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. // MY Of PRIM IJESERT 73-51C . _0 WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX' 76D 341-7098 InfoInfo0 p,lm-deserr o,g CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PM 31862 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability Company, for approval of a parcel map to establish a one (1) lot subdivision with a condominium overlay to change the ownership structure from rental mobile home park to single family manufactured housing condominium units at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007). The initial hearing on December 7, 2004, was continued to January 18, 2005; however, due to unforeseen circumstances, the hearing will now be held on Wednesday, December 29, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. SUBJECT PROPERTY tr sr 71'l 475 111111 /t j , /111111 SLUE 10GE IIII tr 0 OM ED1YE , 'l E*i 1 SAID public hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 29, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary December 17, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission SCALE: 1" = 200' z y ,W%I T � M.OL410I0 A[ £r06,, R • E T75. 9 2 z 7 £o rs 6f • (1) ieeordcd Itan,:.. I S T N cs 00 it a ft as a 86'LZ£t 300,05000 S i// 1-3 . / I a g Q- -P / 5�344 / ts1 Oh 4 / E tom- .. 1 > i p. '0 -. A 7 - , nl / tee A 1 u ` 1.00.11000 S ,LL'91£1 M..00.11.00N 4 Z`I .Z9'£ZZ s Instrument # 1 1 108 (12) Coachella Vallee Water District Easement Reworded June 6. 1981 N 89°15'30"W 1227.84' F °z • ^Nr+. er 4),O VD00r O N Ose n ON 0) ��a g ^NM ono C Order# 42010273 - K04 Plotted SHEET 1 OF 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK DATE: December 6, 2004 L 2004 :014tfr'.\iTV DEVELCPME\T DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above referenced project: (1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. (2) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Deceleration lane required on Highway 74. 8' sidewalk required on Highway 74. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Mark Green ood, P.E. G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval \PMAPS\TPM 31862 revised.wpd CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM IVE REVISION #3 DEC 2 9 2004 "OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Department of Community Development/Planning CITY OF PALM DESERT Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK DATE: December 29, 2004 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above referenced project: (1) 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. fszMark Greenwood, P.E. G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval\PMAPS\TPM 31862 3rd revision .wpd ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTR POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711 DIRECTORS: JOHN W. McFADDEN, PRESIDENT PETER NELSON, VICE PRESIDENT TELLIS CODEKAS RUSSELL KITAHARA PATRICIA A. LARSON Carlos Ortega, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 December 21, 2004 RECEIVED JAN 2005 Dear Mr. Ortega: CO MIJNrTy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY OR PALM DESERT CITY MANAGER Subject: Parcel Man No 31862 Indian Strings Mobile Home Park It is our understanding that the referenced parcel map is for the purpose of creating a condominium project from an existing mobile home park. The City of Palm Desert is recommending that the conversion include the connection to the local sewer. On -site sewage disposal systems (OSDS), including septic tanks, are well know sources of groundwater contamination. The most studied contaminate is nitrate, which is a byproduct of wastewater treatment in OSDSs. Nitrate leaving OSDS mixes with groundwater and can contaminate nearby drinking water wells. When nitrate levels exceed drinking water standards, the contaminated wells are either treated to remove the nitrate, which can be cost prohibitive, or replaced by new wells drilled in uncontaminated areas of the groundwater basin. There are many factors that influence the impact OSDSs have on the quality of groundwater, including density, population served, water levels, wastewater volume, maintenance frequency and soil conditions. Often, the OSDS density the number of OSDSs per unit of land area) is a driving factor that is used by regulatory agencies to control adverse water quality impacts from OSDSs. One such control to protect groundwater in the Desert Hot Springs area is prohibiting more than one OSDS per one-half acre of land area, which translates town OSDS density of 2 per acre. We understand Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has 191 equivalent dwelling units served by OSDS, within a land area of about 35 acres. This equals an OSDS density of approximately 5.5 per acre. Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has a high density of OSDSs, which represents an increased risk of groundwater contamination. It is for this reason that the connection to the community sewer is recommended. OFFICERS: STEVEN B. ROBBINS, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER MARK BEUHLER, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER JULIA FERNANDEZ, SECRETARY DAN PARKS, ASST. TO GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS File: 0721.1 TRUE CONSERVATION �y USE WATER WISELY DATE%V'd C/ P RECEIVED DEC 2 7 2004 GIVEN TO. ! ___ Carlos Ortega, City Manager -2- December 21, 2004 Sewer service may be provided from existing sewers located on the north and east boundaries of the existing parcel. The District's Engineering Department is available to provide the necessary technical information required to connect the park to the existing sewer system. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact either Bruce Clark, Principal Sanitation Engineer, at extension 2266, or Steve Bigley, Water Quality Specialist, at extension 2286. BC:mdlenglsan\declortega Yours very truly, 134(496,--( r Steve Robbins General Manager -Chief Engineering COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUT'1'LR PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 3, 2004 VIA FEDEX David J. Erwin, Esq. Best, Best & Krieger LLP 74-760 Highway 111 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Dear Mr. Erwin: TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: roloss@grlawyers.com RECEIVED A: 0 7 2€004 COIvMMUNITY DEVELCPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT On November 29, 2004, Sue Loftin and I met with Philip Drell and Stephen R. Smith of the City of Palm Desert (the "City") Planning Department regarding Indian Springs' Parcel Map Application Number 31862 (the "Application") to be heard by the Palm Desert Planning Commission (the "Commission") on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. They stated that staff would recommend to the Commission that it condition approval of the Application on Indian Springs' abandonment of its septic system and construction of a sewer system within Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("the Park") that would connect to the City sewer system. They contended that Palm Desert Municipal Code section 8.60 ("Section 8.60" or the "Ordinance") requires the sewer condition. To the contrary, by its very terms, the application of Section 8.60 is limited to those properties listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment. Furthermore, if the City were to contend that its Ordinance compelled Indian Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such an ordinance would be illegal and unenforeceable for several reasons. First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer system. ` The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RtJPTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 2 or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks. In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage.' In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section 13360. The State Water Board stated: "Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate. If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section 13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied." Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will force us to challenge the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60 is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable regulations. Water Code §§ 13280-13284. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 3 Our consultant's have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would cost in excess of $4,000,000. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system will be vigorously challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage. As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Accordingly, we expect that you will advise the Planning Commission at its Hearing on December 7, 2004 that it must not impose a sewer connection as a condition of approval of parcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIST : • ' TER Prof sue" Corpor. ion Richard H. Close Of the Firm RHC:aap/110644 1 /120304 3416.006 cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) Sabby Jonathan, Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Sonia Campbell, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Jim Lopez, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 6, 2004 VIA FEDEx Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: relose@grlawyars. corn RECEIVED EEC J 7 2004 0M,MUN?TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty: We have reviewed the Department of Community Development Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staffs proposed Resolution to approve the Application with the attached Conditions of Approval. Following are our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on the Application on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. Condition of Approval No. 3. Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code section 66427.5(f)(1), rent for non -purchasing residents may increase upon conversion to market levels over four years. However, the last sentence of Condition No. 3 as drafted states, "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." In fact, upon conversion, state law governs the four-year increase to market rents, and the City's rent control rules and LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 2 jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4` 1153, 1178 (4th Dist. 2002) conversion occurs, and local rent control terminates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no circumstances ... is it left to local governments to legislate when state law takes effect." (Id. at p.1179.) Accordingly, the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deleted entirely. Condition of Approval No. 5. For the reasons stated in our letter to the City Attorney dated December 3, 2004, a copy of which each Planning Commissioner received, proposed Condition of Approval No. 5, which purports to require Indian Springs to abandon its septic system and connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and improper, and must be removed as a condition of approval. Condition of Approval No. 6. Draft Condition of Approval No. 6 would require Indian Springs to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the Application by the City or the Commission. The Staff Report recognizes that the City's action with respect to the Application has the potential to result in litigation. However, given the illegal Conditions of Approval discussed above (as well as Condition of Approval No. 6 itself as currently drafted), litigation against the City regarding its approval of the Application very possibly would be initiated by Indian Springs itself or by residents of the Park who object to the conditions which will interfere with and delay the Park's conversion and their ability to purchase lots in a timely manner. Although it may generally be appropriate to require, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, that an applicant agree to defend the City against attacks from others regarding its approval, the City certainly may not require an applicant such as Indian Springs to agree to defend the City against challenges to Conditions of Approval which the applicant objects to and regarding which the applicant itself initiates an action to void or annul. Accordingly, Indian Springs requests that the Commission amend Condition No. 6 as currently drafted to include the following language at the end of the first sentence therein: "... except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void or annul any of the Conditions of Approval." LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 3 For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIS & RUTTER Pro oration Richard H. Close Of the Firm T W C: t we / 110716_ 1/ 120604 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. December 2, 2004 City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Re: Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Conversion, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66425.1, PM 31862 Public Hearing: December 7, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Requested Action: Request Approval of Parcel Map, Without Sewer Condition Dear Mayor, and Honorable City Counsel Persons: The purpose of this correspondence is to request you approve the Parcel Map ("PM") 31862, without the imposition of a condition to connect to sewers. I am President of James and Associates, Inc., and have been involved with the management and maintenance of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 for the last eighteen (18) years, including without limitation, the Septic System. We became aware 10 years ago through the Southern California Water Quality Control Board and the Coachella Valley Water District of the seriousness of ground water contamination in the Coachella Valley. We agreed to a program to raise all lids and risers on the septic tanks to above ground levels, making the maintenance and testing easier, and the tanks more accessible to pumping. The project cost was approximately $300,000 and was completed in 2003. Pursuant to the requirements of the Water Quality Control Board, all tanks were to be pumped at the end of this project and will continue to be pumped on a scheduled three year cycle. We had discontinued the use of chemicals because of possible ground water contamination, using pumping as an alternative to break up scum layers. This resulted in the rotation program referred to above. 255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588 E-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.e io n of.: e p,ow .. _ i he— Coa he a1e working District With the completion of the program, the Coachella Salle �Jater ct confirmed that as long as the Septic System is maintained in goodg condition, there is no basis, environmental or otherwise, to require hook up to sewer. The septic system consists of a solid cement tank with two separate compartments, with a line from the home entering the tank on the solid waste side, letting the liquid flow through the outlet side of the tank to a leach field or seepage pit, which filters through gravel and sand. We have 46 tanks ranging from 1,500 to 2,500 gallons, depending on location, and serving 3-5 spaces per tank. Our maintenance program includes a routine of checking the septic tanks for scum and water levels, and inspecting the leach fields. In addition to daily inspections and monitoring by park staff, Coachella Valley Water District requires annual testing, done by ATS Laboratories, who take random samples and submit the test results to Coachella Valley Water District. This testing helps protect the environment. We have always been in compliance and within the required range, with no citations for contamination. Letters are sent periodically to the Residents to remind them of how to maintain and protect the septic system, and the ground water table from contamination. A binder with Map Locations, Septic Schedules and Annual Inspections is available upon request. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Anne James President Cc: James Goldstein Richard Close, Esq. L. Sue Loftin, Esq. G:1Documents\Properties\lndian Springs 452\Septics\Letter re Maintenance 12-2-04.doc 255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588 E-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net •ri �./i (.v Vt Vl. VV rt . I NV(. �J1J`2.lO .yJ vvr: vv� Contracting, Excavation, Grading "We dig the Coachella Valley" Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Palm Desert, California To whom it may concern, Friday, December 03, 2004 In 2003 Tri-Star Contracting completed an extensive program to locate, inspect and install manholes and risers on all 46 systems within the park This project having been completed along with any repairs necessary to the leaching areas makes this an up to date and good working system. Any repairs that have been made to the leaching system are relatively simple since there is sufficient room for further seepage area expansion. Furthermore these repairs are made with the most current materials and up graded standards with in the industry. As an example, seepage pits have been installed and are buried straight down into the ground leading to a prolonged seepage area out of reach of landscape problems. In my opinion the septic systems are in good working condition and with the parks stringent maintenance and pumping program along with an occasional repair these systems should last indefinitely. Sincerely, Larry J. Owens Bus (760) 251-5454 15-501 Little Morongo Road, Desert Hot Springs, Gi 92240 Fax (760) 251-5458 e-onaikinfo@Tri-Star.info NOTICE TO INDIAN SPRINGS RESIDENTS OF TENTATIVE MAP HEARING Continued upon City Attorney and Staff Recommendation and Approved by the Planning Commission C ?7 2004 ili\E:PMNsi .:Y OE PALM DESERT TO: 'FEE OCCUPANTS OF INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILEIIOME PARK Located at: 49-305 Highway 74, Palm Desert, California, 92260 APN No. 6 52 r120-007-3 HEARING: Planning Commission Hearing Continued from December 7, 2004 DATE: December 29, 2004 TIME: 6:00 p.m. THAT the owner of this mobilehome park, located at the address indicated above, in the City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California will be appearing before the Planning Commission for the City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, on December 29, 2004, at 6:00 P.M., (December 7, 2004 Hearing Continued) TO REQUEST THE TENTATIVE MAP BE APPROVED BY SAID BODY, to convert this mobilehome park to condominium form of ownership. The 180 days notice to convert has been previously served on all residents. Furthermore, if you still reside on your unit at the issuance of the Final Public Report, you will be given an exclusive right to purchase your unit. Dated: December 15, 2004 C/:1sLis/Notices/ 11.22-4 By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq. THE LOFTIN FIRM Attorneys for Applicant L SUE LOFTIN JOSEPHINE E. LEWIS ARIEI. R. BEDELL AVNEET SIDHU WEB ADDRESS: www iawyers.torgloRintinnc„ �m THE LOFTIN FIRM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5760 Fleet Street, Suite 110 Carlsbad, California 92008 TEL11PHONE (760) 431-2111 FACSIMILE (760)431.2003 WHAT AND WHEN OF LOT LINES At the Planning Commission Hearing on the application to convert the Park from a rental park to a resident owned park, one resident indicated that approximately 64 households were objecting to their Lot Lines. • Lot Lines have NOT been set at this time. Lot Lines will be set by the creation of the Condominium Plan. • The Condominium Plan is NOT before the City of Palm Desert. The One Lot Subdivision Map is before the City of Palm Desert. • As part of the preparation of the Otle Lot Subdivi ion Man, the City requires that a!"Site Pike be prepared and submitted. A "Site Plan" may look like a Condominium Pign to some people, but it is not. A Condominium Platt does NOT depict the structures on the Lot. • The Condont,nium Plan must establish the Lot Lines in conformance with the original plan submitted to the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development. • Overtime, the original plan generally is different than the actual use on the ground. How is that dealt with? encroachment easements are granted for actual use. • If a new home is installed to replace an old home, then the Lot Lines would apply. • Installation, including without limitation, of a new home or an. addition will be governed by California Administrative Code, Title 25 (just the same as now) and the Rule and Regulations (just the same as now). • After the Condominium Plan is prepared and posted for your review and BEFORE the Condominium Plan is recorded, you will have an opportunity to meet with the Engineer who prepared the Condominium Plan to explain your issues and concerns. • The Condominium Plan will NOT be started until sometime after the first of the year 2005. Therefore, you have NOT missed your opportunity to comment on the Lot Lines. Dec-22-04 08:52am From -WATER DISTF""T/COACHELLA VALLEY +7602983711 T-706 P.02/03 F-509 DIRECTORS: ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (780) 398-3711 JOHN W. MCFAD�EN. PRESIDENT PETER NELSON. VICE PRESIDENT TELLIS CODEKAS RUSSELL kITAHARA PATRICIA A, LARSON Carlos Ortega, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Ortega: December 21, 2004 OFFICERS: STEVEN B. ROBBINS, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER MAIRX BEUHLER, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER JULIAFERNANDEZ. SECRETARY DAN PARKS. ASST. TO GENERAL MANACER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS File: 0721.1 Subject: Parcel Map No. 31862. Indian Springs Mobile Home Park It is our understanding that the referenced parcel map is for the purpose of creating a condominium project from an existing mobile home park. The City of Palm Desert is recommending that the conversion include the connection to the local sewer. On -site sewage disposal systems (OSDS), including septic tanks, are well know sources of groundwater contamination. The most studied contaminate is nitrate, which is a byproduct of wastewater treatment in OSDSs. Nitrate leaving OSDS mixes with groundwater and can contaminate nearby drinking water wells. When nitrate levels exceed drinking water standards, the contaminated wells are either treated to remove the nitrate, which can be cost prohibitive, or replaced by new wells drilled in uncontaininated areas of the groundwater basin. There are many factors that influence the impact OSDSs have on the quality of groundwater, including density, population served, water levels, wastewater volume, maintenance frequency and soil conditions. Often, the OSDS density (i.e., the number of OSDSs per unit of land area) is a driving factor that is used by regulatory agencies to control adverse water quality impacts from OSDSs. One such control to protect groundwater in the Desert Hot Springs area is prohibiting morc than one OSDS per one-half acre of land area, which translates to an OSDS density of 2 per acre. We understand Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has 191 equivalent dwelling units served by OSDS, within a land area of about 35 acres. This equals an OSDS density of approximately 5.5 per acre. Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has a high density of OSDSs, which represents an increased risk of groundwater contamination. It is for this reason that the connection to the community sewer is recommended_ TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Received Dec-22-2004 09:01 From-+T603983711 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 Dec-22-04 08:52am From -WATER DIST:"^T/COACHELLA VALLEY +7603883711 T-706 P.03/03 F-509 Carlos Ortega, City Manager -2- December 21, 2004 Sewer service may be provided from existing sewers located on the north and east boundaries of the existing parcel. The District's Engineering Department is available to provide the necessary technical information required to connect the park to the existing sewer system. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact either Bruce Clark, Principal Sanitation Engineer, at extension 2266, or Steve Bigley, Water Quality Specialist, at extension 2286. BC:mdlanesgu decbisegt Yours very truly, __p r. Steve Robbins General Manager -Chief Engineering COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Received Dec-22-200A 09:01 From-+7603983711 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 California R aional Water Quality ontrol Board Colorado River Basin Region Terry Tamminen Secretary for Environmental Protection 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, California 92260 (760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341-6820 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7 Arnold Schwarzeneggei Governor The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, visit our website. December 21, 2004 Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: WASTE DISCHARGES FROM SEPTIC SYSTEM LEACH FIELDS Dear Mr. Drell, Thank you for your interest in ground water quality and concerns regarding waste discharges from septic tank leach -field systems. This letter briefly discusses current septic system regulation and potential water quality impacts posed/caused by discharges of wastes from septic tank-Ieachfield systems. Our parent agency, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), is currently drafting regulations to address water quality threats from septic tank leach fields, pursuant to. Assembly Bill 885. These regulations and policy should be finalized and adopted by the State Board in 2005. You may contact Todd Thompson of the State Board at (916) 341-5518 for more information on this matter. Current Regional Board policy regarding septic system waste discharges and relevant provisions of the California Water Code are as follows: • The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region, the 'Basin Plan", is the Regional Board's master document that guides our regulatory efforts for water quality protection throughout the region. The Basin Plan specifies, in part, surface and water quality protection standards for all waters of the region, the beneficial uses to be protected, and the Board's implementation strategy to do so. The Basin Plan is available on our website at http://www. waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/downloads.html. • As indicated in our Basin Plan, local governments, generally the County, regulate septic system waste discharges for volumes under 5,000 gallons per day. The Regional Board regulates volumes equal to or greater than 5,000 gallons per day via General Waste Discharge Requirements (Board Order No. 95-500). • Federal and state law require Regional Boards to periodically review basin plans to evaluate adequacy of water quality standards for protecting beneficial uses, and emerging water quality threats/issues. State law requires these reviews every three years (i.e., triennially). We initiated a Basin Plan Triennial Review in November 2004. Waste discharges from septic tank leach fields are on the 2004 Triennial Review list of water quality issues we are recommending the Regional Board address, because of their threat to water quality (see attached copy of the Public Notice). California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper Mr. Phil Drell - 2 Director of Community Development • The California Water Code (CWC) prohibits the Regional Board from specifying the method of compliance (e.g., design, location, or type of treatment and disposal system) for discharges of domestic wastewater from residential developments (CWC Sec. 13360). Also, the CWC provides that, before the Regional Board establishes a prohibition against discharges of wastes from septic system in any particular area, it must provide substantial evidence for the record to show that such discharge will result in a violation of water quality objectives, will impair present or future beneficial uses of water, will cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination, or will unreasonably degrade the quality of any waters of the state (CWC See. 13280). With the exception of leaking underground storage tanks, septic systems are the leading cause of ground water pollution nationwide. Waste discharges from Ieachfields may degrade ground or surface water quality with pollutants such as nitrates, pathogens, salts, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) if systems are improperly sited, operated or maintained, or occur in high density. We support and encourage local governments and other stakeholders to develop and implement community sewage collection, treatment, and disposal systems in unsewered areas (i.e., publicly owned treatment works, POTWs), particularly in regions with high quality drinking water aquifers vulnerable to degradation from septic tanks. Where the POTWs are readily available, we believe the Ieachfield discharges should be phased out as soon as practicable. Locally, the discharge from septic tank-leachfield systems is a concern because (1) the discharge contains pollutants that migrate in the subsurface due to the permeable unconsolidated soils characteristic of the area; (2) the Coachella Valley aquifer is used for drinking purposes; and (3) certain parts of the Valley have high densities of septic tank-Ieachfield systems. The Colorado River Basin Regional Board recently adopted Resolution Nos. R7-2002-0184 and R7- 2004-0017 amending section "H. Septic Systems" of the Basin Plan to prohibit discharges of wastewater from existing or new individual disposal systems for Cathedral City Cove, Mission Creek Aquifer and Desert Hot Springs Aquifer, with certain conditions. This amendment will prevent further and future aquifer degradation; protect the health and safety of residents consuming ground water from the Upper Coachella Valley Ground Water Basin, achieve applicable water quality objectives protective of beneficial uses, and comply with CWC Section 13281. We appreciate your concerns on this matter and look forward to working with you to protect and enhance water quality in the Coachella Valley. In the meantime, we suggest you submit your Triennial Review comments for the record so that we can elevate your concerns directly to our Board. If you have further concerns or questions, please contact me at (760) 776-8982. Sincerely, • -. ,......„4:- „rit.....:.:...---,-?E(i ". .., JOAN STORMO Senior Engineering Geologist HS/js Attachment: as stated above File: Basin Planning General Correspondence California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper California It..gional Water Quality ,;ontrol Board Colorado River Basin Region Terry TammmInternetAddress: en ' ghttp://vAvw.swrc b.ca.gov/—rwqcb7 Arnold • Schwarzenegger Secretary for 73-720 Fred Warm Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, California 92260 Governor Environmental Phone (760) 346-7491 • FAX (760) 341-6820 Protection Date: November 17, 2004 Public Notice No. 07-04-33 To: Interested Persons PUBLIC NOTICE 2004 TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE BASIN PLAN The Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region (Regional Board) is reviewing the Water Quality .Control Plan (Basin Plan) pursuant to Section 13240 of the California Water Code, and Section 303(c)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for ground and surface waters in the Colorado River Basin Region, and establishes water quality objectives and implementation plans to protect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan is reviewed for adequacy approximately every three years, hence the term "Triennial Review". The objective of the Review is to reaffirm water quality standards and parts of the Basin Plan that effectively protect water quality, and to identify potential water quality problems that may result in Basin Plan amendments. Regional Board staff has prepared a draft list of potential water quality problems for the 2004 Triennial Review (see attachment). Staff is soliciting public input, an integral part of the Triennial Review process, for recommendations or revisions to the draft 2004 Triennial Review list. The comment period for the Review will extend from November 17, 2004 to January 3, 2005. A Final Draft Triennial Review List and staff report will be prepared at the conclusion of the public comment period (approximately mid -January 2005), and provided to the Regional Board for consideration for adoption at a public hearing conducted during a regularly scheduled Regional Board meeting in early 2005. The time and day of the hearing will be indicated in a "Notice of Public Hearing" as soon as practicable. California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper 2004 Triennial Review November 17, 2004 page 2 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS To obtain the most current information on the Triennial Review process, please contact us by: U.S. mail: Ms. Ivory Reyburn California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado -River. Basin Region 73720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100 Palm Desert, California 92260 Telephone: Ms. Ivory Reyburn at (760) 776-8933 e-mail: irevburnawaterboards.ca.00v Triennial Review documents also may be reviewed by appointment at the Regional Board office at the above address. Jon Stormo Senior Engineering Geologist Attachment: Draft Triennial Review List File: BP 2004 Triennial Review California Environmental Protection Agency Q5 Recycled Paper California Regional Water Quality ontrol Board Colorado River Basin Region Terry Tamminen 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, California 92260 Secretary for (760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341-6820 Environmental http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7 Protection Draft 2004 Triennial Review List November 17, 2004 Arnold Schwarzenegge Governor Attachment Issues under consideration for Basin Plan review/update: • Beneficial Use Designation of Surface Waters — Staff proposes to update results from the " 1999 Surface Water Survey: Salton Sea Watershed, Imperial Valley Waterbodies" and incorporate the updated information into the Basin Plan. This document is part of the reaffirmation requirements for current water quality standards. • Beneficial Use Designation of Aquifers — Staff proposes to review available groundwater data to identify beneficial uses of individual aquifers within hydrologic units. (Beneficial uses of groundwater in the Colorado River Basin Region are based on hydrologic units.) • Guidelines for Sewage Disposal from Land Developments - Staff proposes to evaluate and revise as necessary the guidelines and Basin Plan to account for population increases, distance to underground utilities, potential receptors, high density housing developments, sewer versus septic waste disposal systems, and the need to limit or prohibit septic tanks if reasonable/feasible alternatives are available. The current 1979 guidelines for sewage disposal do not consider these factors. • Water Quality Objectives for Nitrates and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) - Staff proposes to review water quality objectives for nitrates and TDS in groundwater to determine their adequacy for protecting water quality and beneficial uses, particularly in areas (Pinyon Pines, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, and others) with recent, significant increases in these parameters. • Removal of Fecal Coliform - Staff proposes to remove the fecal coliform monitoring requirement from the Basin Plan for discharges of wastewater treatment plant effluent, and instead focus monitoring on better pathogen - indicator organisms. Studies show that indicator organisms that correlate best California Environmental Protection Agency f % Recycled Paper Draft 2004 Triennial Review List with illness and disease are enterococci and E coli for fresh waters, and enterococci for marine waters. • Re-evaluation of All Portions of the Basin Plan Pertinent to the Salton Sea Staff proposes to assess Basin Plan policy, plans, and guidelines designed to benefit water quality associated with the Salton Sea. This includes: beneficial use designation, water quality objectives, monitoring and water quality assessment, and implementation. • Saltwater Discharges — Staff proposes to develop policy to address saltwater discharges from swimming pools and other sources, to ground and surface waters. • New River Pollution from Mexico - Staff proposes to review current policy to address pollution in the New River at the International Boundary, and, as necessary, develop new strategies for Board consideration to expedite cleanup. California Environmental Protection Agency r � Recycled Paper CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM REVISION #2 TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK DATE: December 22, 2004 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above referenced project: (1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. JIA/L/a Mark GreenWood, P.E. C:\WINDOWS\TEMPOR-110LK4352\TPM318-1. W PD CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 7, 2004 CASE NO: PM 31862 REQUEST: 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). APPLICANT: Indian Springs, Ltd. A California Limited Liability Company c/o James and Associates, Inc. 255 N. El Cielo Road, Suite 286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 I. BACKGROUND: A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The 34.7-acre property is occupied by a 191-rental space mobile home park which was established in 1970. The park common areas include a clubhouse with kitchen, billiard room, office, jacuzzi, exercise room, auditorium and pool. All utilities are underground. The project is not connected to public sewers. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: Sommerset / PR-8 South: Silver Spur Mobile Home Park / R1M East: Residential / PR-7 West: Residential / County C. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN: The site is zoned R1M (single family/mobile home residential and is designated Medium Density Residential (4-10 upa) in the General Plan. The 191-space park on 34.7 acres has a density of 5.5 units per acre. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 7, 2004 1I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval of this one -lot parcel map with a condominium overlay to change the ownership structure from rental mobile home park to single family manufactured housing condominium units. The proposed map will not alter the existing 191-unit density or impact the physical appearance of the park. Residents will be able to purchase their condominium unit as described in the legal description of their space "from below grade level of 18 inches to above grade level of 40 feet, along with a 1 /191 st interest in the common areas and facilities, and a membership in the homeowners association." There will be no displacement of residents. Residents will be able to choose to 1) buy their condominium unit; or 2) continue to rent their space. III. DISCUSSION: Government Code Section 66427.5 (copy attached) prescribes the criteria to be considered in reviewing the application as follows: (a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. (b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobile home park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest. (c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobile home park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. (d) (1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobile home park for the proposed conversion. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 7, 2004 (2) The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobile home park owner. (3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. (4) The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobile home space has one vote. (5) The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e). (e) The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. (f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following: (1) As to the nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. (2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 7, 2004 greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently report period. RESPONSES: (a) Condition No. 1 requires the subdivider to offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his unit or continue residency as a tenant. The subdivider's representative advises that this has already been done. (b) The subdivider has filed a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents. This report has been reviewed and accepted as to form by the City Attorney's office (copy enclosed). (c) The subdivider has distributed by first class mail at least 15 days prior to this hearing a copy of the report on the impact of the conversion upon residents to each resident of the mobile home park. (See letter certifying above enclosed). (d) (1) Subdivider has conducted a survey of support of residents in the park (see survey attached). (d) (2) The survey of support was conducted pursuant to an agreement between the subdivider and the homeowners' association. (d) (3) The survey was conducted by written ballot. (d) (4) The survey was conducted so that each occupied mobile home space has one vote. (d) (5) The results of the survey are included in the attached Tenant Impact Report. Basically, the survey was circulated to residents occupying 189 spaces (2 were unoccupied). The results were as follows: STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 7, 2004 # of Responses Support Yes Support No Decline to State Support Primary Residences Low Income Other Loan on Home 84 26 14 37 63 54 30 10 31% 16.7% 44% 75% 64.3% 35.7% 11.9% Note: The totals in the various categories do not add up to the same number because not everyone answered every question. (e) The scope of this hearing is limited to the issue of compliance with this section. (f) (1) Condition No. 2 provides, "That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." (f) (2) Condition No. 3 provides, "That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period." The General Plan Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 and the Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 require that all properties not presently connected to a public sewer system be converted to the public sewer system prior to sale of the 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 7, 2004 project or Tots in the project. Condition No. 4 requires that the subdivider connect each unit to the sewer system prior to sale of each unit. The City's action in this request has the potential to result in litigation. This is a situation where the City has very limited options on whether to approve this matter. Accordingly, staff imposed Condition No. 5 requiring the applicant (subdivider) as follows: Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission, any City Board, or the City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is brought, within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall promptly notify Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b). The City Attorney concurs with the inclusion of all conditions. IV. ANALYSIS: The City is limited by the applicable government code as to issues it may consider as part of its review of the proposed map as delineated above. These limitations were strictly construed in a recent court case (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v City of Palm Springs). The City Attorney advises that in addition to the items identified in the Government Code, the Commission must affirm that the request is consistent with the General Plan. As noted earlier, the park is developed at a density of 5.5 units per acre, which is consistent with the medium density residential (4-10 upa) land use designation. This parcel map will not alter the density or in any way impact the physical appearance of the park. It will allow the tenants to choose whether to become owners or whether to remain rent paying tenants. Those rent paying tenants who fall into the "low income" range are protected to a greater extent under the "Map Act Rents" than under the City Rent Control Ordinance. 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PM 31862 DECEMBER 7, 2004 Those rent paying tenants who are not "low income" are protected to a lesser extent under the "Map Act Rents" than under the City Rent Control Ordinance. The state legislature in its wisdom has determined for us that the subdivider will avoid economic displacement for "nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households..." through imposition of Government Code Section 666427.5 (f) (1). Accordingly, we have included Condition No. 2 in the draft resolution. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving PM 31862, subject to conditions. VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Government Code Section 66427.5 D. Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 E. Tenant Impact Report F. Letter Certifying Resident Notification of Tenant Impact Report G. Resident Survey Prepared by: Steve Smith Planning Manager Revie . nd Con Homer Cr.!�� ACM for De Opment Services /tm Reviewed and Approved by: Phil Director of Community Development PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARCEL MAP CREATING 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). CASE NO. PM 31862 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of December, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability Company, for approval of PM 31862; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said parcel map: 1. The project as it exists and as it will continue to exist with 191 units complies with the medium density provisions of the General Plan. 2. The project as conditioned complies with the General Plan and with the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve PM 31862, subject to conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PM 31862 Department of Community Development: 1. The application described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), the subdivision shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. Subdivider to provide the City with a certified statement as to the date of delivery of said offer. 3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all non purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process. 4. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all non purchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. 5. That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element 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 same to the purchaser. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission, any City Board, or the City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall promptly notify Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b). Department of Public Works: 1. Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot/parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. // 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK DATE: November 30, 2004 The following should be considered conditions of approval forthe above referenced project: (1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. Mark Greenwood, P.E. G:1PubWorks\Conditions of Approval IPMAPSITPM 31862 Indian Springs Mobile Horne Park.wpd 8.60.010 Chapter 8.60 SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO PROPERTY SALE OR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP Sections: 8.60.010 Purpose, authority and implementation. 8.60.020 Definitions. 8.60.030 Recording of certificate of requirement. 8.60.035 Property owner's responsibility. 8.60.040 Recording of certificate of compliance. 8.60.050 Procedures and fees for obtaining a certificate of compliance. 8.60.060 Administrative variance and certificate of temporary exceptions. 8.60.070 Recording of certificate of temporary exception. 8.60.080 Appeals procedures. 8.60.090 Violations —Penalties. 8.60.010 Purpose, authority and implementation. The purpose of this chapter is to help assure continued protection and high quality of the water resources available in the city by requiring all properties, buildings and struc- tures to abandon all existing septic tanks, seepage pits and/or cesspools and connect to the available public sewer prior to time of sale or transfer of ownership of said properties, buildings or structures. This chapter shall apply to any property, building or structure which enters into escrow after the effective date of the ordinance. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.020 Definitions. Whenever in this chapter the following terms are used they shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section: "Available public sewer" means the public sewer under the control of the Coachella Valley water district located within the prescribed sewer right-of-way. "Building official" means the director of building and safety as appointed by the city manager or the director's deputy(s). "Certificate of compliance" means the document that is recorded on said property which releases the certificate (Palm Desert 5-94) of requirement, and stipulates that the said property has been lawfully connected to the public sewer. "Certificate of temporary exception" means the document that is recorded on said property which temporarily releases the certificate of requirement and stipulates that the said property has been excepted or given an administrative variance pursuant to Section 8.60.060 of this chapter. "Certificate of requirement" means the document that is recorded on said property indicating that prior to sale or transfer of ownership, the said property shall be lawfully connected to the public sewer. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.030 Recording of certificate of requirement. Pursuant to this chapter, the city council shall direct the building official to prepare and record with the Riverside County recorder's office, on each parcel listed on Exhibit A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and found on file in the office of the city clerk, a certificate of requirement stating the following information: 166-4 "CERTIFICATE OF REQUIREMENT" Assessor's Parcel Number: Street Address: Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 8.60.010, prior to sale or transfer of ownership of the above stated property, a "Certificate of Compliance" showing that the above property is legally connected to the public sewer and shall be recorded on said proper- ty. BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE State of California ) County of Riverside) On , before me, , a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. 8.60.030 WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.035 Property owner's responsibility. The properties listed in Exhibit A attached to the ordi- nance codified in this chapter and found on file in the office of the city clerk, or the recorded certificate of requirement, or the lack of any of the above notwithstanding, it shall be the property owner's responsibility to comply with the full intent of this chapter which is to assure any new property owner or buyer that prior to sale or transfer of ownership to that new property 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. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.040 Recording of certificate of compliance. Once the property owner or owner's authorized agent presents the nece'scnry documentation acceptable to the building official demonstrating that the said property is legally connected to the public sewer, the building official shall record with Riverside County Recorder's Office, a certificate of compliance which shall contain the following: "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE" Assessor's Parcel Number. Street Address: Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 8.60.010, the above stated property has been determined to be lawfully connected to the public sewer, and in compliance with Palm Desert Ordinance No. . The "Certificate of Requirement" as recorded by Instrument Number is hereby satisfied and discharged. BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE State of California ) County of Riverside) On , before me, , a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared _ known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.050 Procedures and fees for obtaining a certificate of compliance. A. The property owner or owner's authorized agent, at their option, may personally review official microfiche files located in the department of building and safety and obtain a microfiche copy of the sewer connection permit if issued on said property. Such sewer connection permit shall have a final inspection signoff by a duly authorized city building inspector and shall not be a revoked or expired permit. The building official shall review and approve the sewer connection permit and authorize a notice of compli- ance be filed. The owner or owner's authorized agent shall pay a twenty-five dollar fee to cover the administrative costs for the preparation of the certificate of compliance. B. If the property owner or owner's authorized agent does not wish to personally research the official microfiche file located in the department of building and safety upon the completion of the appropriate application form and payment to the city of a thirty-five dollar nonrefundable recenrch fee, the city staff shall research, locate and copy any such sewer connection permit, if issued or available on microfiche records. The building official shall review the copy of the sewer connection permit as the above paragraph stipulates and if acceptable, shall authorize a notice of compliance be filed. The twenty-five dollar notice of compliance fee shall be paid to the city at that time. C. If the property is not connected to the public sewer or connected without the required permits and inspections required elsewhere in this code, the owner or owner's authorized contractor, licensed as required by this code, shall pay the necessary Coachella Valley water district assessment fees and obtain a sewer connection permit from the department of building and safety and schedule all required inspections accordingly. Upon acceptance of fmal inspection, the building official shall authorize a certificate of compliance be filed. The owner or owner's authorized agent shall pay to the city 166-5 (Palm Desert 8-94) 8.60.050 a twenty-five dollar fee for the preparation and recording of the certificate of compliance. D. If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the build- ing official that the property is legally connected to the public sewer and a certificate of requirement has been recorded in error on the property, the building official is hereby authorized to record a certificate of compliance on the property at no charge to the property owner or authorized agent. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.060 Administrative 'variance and certificate of temporary exceptions. A. Where deemed unfeasible to connect to the public sewer, the building official may grant an administrative variance and authorize filing of a certificate of temporary exception with the Riverside County recorder's office. If granted, such certificate of temporary exception shall have an expiration date of not to exceed three years from date of issuance. Some, but not all, of the conditions which may warrant an exception to this chapter are as follows: 1. Building, structure or property located beyond two hundred feet of the public sewer, 2. Condominiums which share a common septic system; 3. Buildings or structures in which the flow line of the building drain or the building sewer is below the flow line of the public sewer, adjacent to, or within two hundred feet of the property, building or structure; 4. When, in the opinion of the building official, the cost of construction of the sewer connection is excessive and the existing septic system is less than twenty years of age. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.070 Recording of certificate of temporary exception. Upon determination of the building official, or the authorization of the building board of appeals and condem- nation, or the city council, that connection to the public sewer is unfeasible, the building official shall record a certificate of temporary exception with the Riverside County recorder's office. The certificate of temporary exception shall contain the following: "CERTIFICATE OF TEMPORARY EXCEPTION" Assessor's Parcel Number. Street Address: Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 8.60.060, the above stated property has been temporarily exempted from connection to the public sewer at time of property sale or transfer of ownership due to (Palm Desert 8-94) 166-6 unfeasibility, and has been determined to be in compli- ance with Ordinance No. The "Certificate of Requirement" as recorded by Instrument No. is hereby temporarily satisfied. This exception to the mandatory sewer connection of the Ordinance No. of the City of Palm Desert is temporary only. All property sales or transfers of ownership after the expiration date listed below will require a new "Certificate of Temporary Exception" be issued or if warrants, sewer connection will be required and a "Certificate of Compliance" be issued for this property. The existing septic system may remain in operation until such time that the existing septic system fails and needs to be replaced. No new septic tank or seepage pit may be added to this property. Mandatory public sewer connection will be required at that time. BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE CERTIFICATE EXPIRATION DATE State of California ) County of Riverside) On , before me, , a Notary, Public in and for said State, personally appeared _ known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.080 Appeals procedures. Upon the appellant filing the necessary application and payment of the required application fee, required elsewhere in this code, the building board of appeals and condemna- tion, pursuant to Chapter 15.24 of this code, shall hear, review and render decisions on appeals from the building official's interpretation as to the use of or filing of a • 8.60.080 certificate of temporary exception or administrative variance as described in the above sections. Decisions of the board shall be final unless appealed to the city council within five working days of official notification. All findings of the board shall be transmitted to the city council through the city staff for informational purposes. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 8.60.090 Violations —Penalties. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. Any person violating any provision of this chapter or failing to comply with any of the requirements is deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of this code. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994) 166-7 (Palm Desert 8-96) City of Palm Desert/Adopted 3.15.04 Comprehensive General Plan/Water Resources Element Program 3.A Coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water District regarding the continued use and future expansion of tertiary treated wastewater treatment and distribution facilities to serve existing and new development projects in the City. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department, CVWD Schedule: Continuous Policy 4 Encourage or require that all existing and new development be connected to the sewage treatment system of the Coachella Valley Water District. Program 4.A Consult and coordinate with CVWD regarding the expansion and funding of sewer service to unconnected areas, and consider approaches and mechanisms that facilitate financing and construction of these facilities. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, CVWD Schedule: Continuous Policy 5 The City shall provide direction and guidelines for the development of on -site storm water retention facilities consistent with local and regional drainage plans and community design standards. Program 5.A Establish and enforce regulations and guidelines for the development and maintenance of project -specific on -site retention/detention basins, which implement the NPDES program, enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and address applicable community design policies. Responsible Agency: Public Works Department, Community Development Department Schedule: Continuous Policy 6 Coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water District, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and other appropriate agencies to share information on potential groundwater contaminating sources and management of same. Program 6.A Develop and maintain a system to share records and technical information with CVWD, CRWQCB and other appropriate agencies regarding all sites that have the potential to contaminate groundwater resources serving the City. Cooperate and encourage the development of effective mitigation strategies to address potential contamination issues Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department, CVWD, California Regional Water Quality Control Board Schedule: Continuous Water Resources Element IV-50 CITY OF PALM DESERT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION ATTACHMENT "A" REQUEST This Application is submitted pursuant to California Government Code sections 66428.1 and 66427.5 (copies of these code sections are included herewith). The purpose of this Application is to change the method of ownership of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park, located at 49-305 Highway 74, Palm Desert, California 92260, otherwise known as APN No. 652-120-007-3. The current ownership structure is a one -lot, investor owner rental mobilehome park comprised of 191 rental spaces on which mobilehomes are located. This Application proposes changing the ownership structure to a resident owned mobilehome park by converting the use to single-family manufactured housing condominium units. This change of ownership structure does not result in any new construction related to the Application. Submitted herewith is the required tentative parcel map showing the one -lot subdivision with a condominium overlay. The residents would be able to purchase their condominium unit comprised of the legal description of their space from below grade level of 18 inches to above grade level of 40 feet, along with a 1/191st interest in the common areas and facilities and a membership in the homeowners' association. Submitted herewith is the draft Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") which more fully describe the ownership interest. Government Code section 66428.1 controls the requirements of all parties to this Application with regard to the approval process of the maps, and conditions thereto. There will be no displacement of resident households. The resident households will be able to choose what is best for them: (1) to buy their condominium unit (space) or to continue renting their condominium unit (space). The options for the resident households are more fully discussed in the Draft Tenant Impact Report submitted herewith for your approval under Government Code section 66427.5. C/:ls1/IS/530/7-14-4 SUPPLEMENT TO TENANT IMPACT REPORT INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD. October 29, 2004 This document is a Supplement to the Tenant Impact Report for Indian Springs Mobilehome Park and does not replace any information contained therein. Section 1. Purpose of Supplement to Tenant Impact Report. The City of Palm Desert (the "City") requested the Applicant clarify demographic information relating to income levels of the Resident Households at Indian Springs Mobilehome Park (the "Park"). The purpose of the specific information requested by the City was: (1) to breakdown income levels that included two categories for persons who did not indicate a specific income level; and, (2) to update the qualifying income amount for each income category. Therefore, a second survey was prepared adding the income category of "Other", meaning an income level over and above the "very low" and "low income" categories and updating the qualifying income amount for each income category. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the Supplemental Survey that was distributed to all Resident Households in the Park. Section 2. Procedure. The Survey was distributed to each Resident Household in the Park on or about October 4, 2004. A General Meeting was held at the Park Clubhouse on October 10, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the Application, including without limitation, the Tenant Impact Report, submitted to the City and the Supplemental Survey to be submitted to the City. Resident Households could deliver the Supplemental Survey to the Park office in a sealed envelope for delivery to The Loftin Firm, mail it directly to The Loftin Firm, or personally submit it to Sue Loftin at the October 10, 2004 meeting at the Park. Section 2. Results of the Supplemental Survey. There was a total Resident Household response of fifty-four (54): (a) Very Low Income Households: (b) Low Income Households: (c) Households with Income Above Low (d) Decline to State 20 17 11 ("Other") 6 Copies of the Supplemental Surveys have been sent to the City Attorney for review and verification of the information submitted. The Surveys are being submitted as confidential financial information relating to specific households and their potential financing requirements, and are not being submitted as part of the public record in this matter so as to protect the privacy of the Resident Households who voluntarily participated in this Supplemental Survey. SUPPLEMENTAL TO TENANT IMPACT REPORT EXHIBIT "A" Supplemental Survey SECOND SURVEY FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MHP OCTOBER 2004 Demographic Information The initial qualifying income levels for Very Low and Low Income Households has increased since the prior Survey. Additionally, the prior survey did not distinguish between persons who earned over the Low Income Household qualifying amount and those persons who simply choose not to answer this question. Therefore, to provide the City of Palm Desert with additional demographic information, please answer the following question: In which category does your household's total income, before taxes, fall? [Check one box below] HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELSHOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELS Check ONE Income Levels 1 Person 2 Persons 3 persons 4 persons Very Low $ 19,000 or Less $ 21,700 or less $ 24,450 or less S 27,150 or less Low More than $19,001 but less than $ 30,400 More than $ 21,701 but less than $ 34,750 More than $ 24,451 but less than $ 39,100 More than S27,151 but less than $ 43.450 Other More Than $30,401 More Than $34.751 More than $39,101 More than S43,451 I Decline to State Any Income Level Uwe, the undersigned, have completed this form: SPACE NO: DATE: DATE: NAME: [Please Print] SIGNATURE: NAME: [Please Print] SIGNATURE: TENANT IMPACT REPORT INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD. As Amended — October 5, 2004 Section 1. Purpose of Tenant Impact Report ("TIR"): This Tenant Impact Report ("TIR") is being prepared pursuant to California Government Code section 66427.5 ("66427.5"). The purpose of this TIR is to explain the protections afforded to those Resident Households that elect not to purchase a condominium interest in Indian Springs Mobilehome Park ("Park"), located at 49305 Highway 74, Palm Desert, State of California, 92260. All Resident Households) will be afforded the opportunity to either (i) buy the space on which their mobilehome is situated or (ii) continue to rent the space on which their mobilehome is situated. Further, if a Resident elects to continue to rent the space on which their mobilehome is situated, then the rent increases will be set in accordance with the provisions of 66427.5. 1.1 Description of Change of Use: Whenever a mobilehome park is converted to another use, the Subdivision Map Act, found in the California Government Code section 66427.5, requires the entity, which is converting the park to file a report on the impact that the conversion to another use will have on the Residents and occupants of the park. (a) Change of Use Resulting in Resident Removal from the Property: Historically, and in some instances today, the impact is that the conversion to another use means closure of the park in connection with preparing the property for a use other than for mobilehomes. This necessitates the vacation of property by the residents. This is NOT what is occurring at the Park. The Park will remain a manufactured housing community, with the existing Residents having the right to either buy their condominium unit2 or to remain and rent their condominium unit. 1 "Resident Household" or "Resident Households" mean any person(s), entity, or group of person(s) who own a mobilehome in Indian Springs Mobilehome Park on the date of the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate. Please note that this definition does not mean the same as "Resident" or Residents" as defined in Section 1.2 herein. 2 "Condominium Unit" means the airspace unit which is defined as 1' below grade and 40' above grade, with the lateral and horizontal planes demarked by the lot lines established on the ground [in other words, the space the Resident is 106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04 1 SAMPLE (b) Change of Ownership Rather Than Traditional Change of Use: While conversion of a rental mobilehome park to a Resident -owned mobilehome park is identified as a change of use under California law, a more accurate definition would be a change of method of ownership. The Park is not being closed and the Residents are not vacating the property, but rather, the Residents have available to them additional options that were not available to them before the conversion occurs. After conversion, the Residents will be able to either purchase their individual spaces and a share in the common area and facilities from the Owner, and participate in the operation of the Park through a Homeowners' Association, or continue to rent their individual spaces. As detailed below, the conversion of the Park will result in neither actual nor economic displacement of its Residents. (c) Applicable Code Section for 1.1(b), California Government Code Section 66427.5: The State of California recognizes the substantial difference between the change of use which results in the closure of a mobilehome park from the change of use which results in the change of the method of ownership by the implementation of different State statutes applicable to each type of change of use. For all purposes hereunder, Government Code section 66427.5 controls for purposes of determining what rights the non -purchasing Residents will have after the conversion is completed. 1.2 Definition of Resident(s): (a) Categories of Resident Households within the Park: California Government Code section 66427.5 divides the Residents of a Park into two (2) income categories for the resident households: (1) non -low income and (2) low income households. Low Income households are defined in California Health & Safety Code § 50079.5 as "those persons and families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for low income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937." The greatest protections are given to the low-income households. The income limits are based on the county median income and the household size as prepared and distributed currently occupying], plus 1/191st fee simple ownership of the common area and facilities and 1 membership in the Homeowners' Association to be formed as part of the entitlement process. For those who select to remain renters, this means that those households will continue to rent the same space they were renting prior to the conversion of the Park. 106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04 2 SAMPLE under the United States Housing Act. To qualify as a low-income household, the following income limits were established for calendar year 2004:3 Household Size # of Persons 1 2 3 4 Income Must be at or Below: $30,400 $34,750 $39,100 $43,450 The Survey discussed in Section 1,2(b) used the 2003 Income Levels due to the unavailability of the 2004 Income Levels at the time of the Survey was prepared. The Income Level Chart on the Survey was as follows: HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELS Check ONE Income Levels 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons Very Low $17,850 or less $20,400 or less $22,950 or less $25,500 or less Low More than $17,851 but less than $ 28,550 More than $20,401 but less than $32,650 More than $ 22,951 but less than $36,700 More than $25,501 but less than $40,800 (b) Resident Survey (Demographics): Pursuant to subsection (d)(1) of California Government Code § 66427.5, the subdivider has obtained a survey of support of the residents in the Park. A copy of the Survey is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Survey was first provided to the Board for the Resident Association. On April 1, 2004 the Survey was discussed with the Board and a general meeting was held at the Park to discuss the Survey with the Park. The Residents' Association has existed for many years and the Board of Directors for that Association is elected from the members of the Association. The Association is independent of the subdivider/mobilehome park owner. The Survey was mailed to all Park Residents at their address in the Park and at their second address, if applicable. Each occupied mobilehome space had one vote. At the time of the vote, there were 189 occupied mobilehome spaces (1 space for the 3 Typically, the income limits are not distributed by the Federal Housing & Urban Development Department until March of each year. The 2005 income limits will apply to this project, but are not available at this time. 106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04 3 SAMPLE manager and 2 spaces with homes for sale and not occupied). The results of the Survey were calculated on May 25, 2004. Responses 76 Support Yes 27 Support No 13 Decline to State Support 36 Primary Residences 62 Low Income 53 Other 23 Loan on Home 10 Note that the totals in the various categories do not add up to the same number because not everyone answered every question. The surveys contain names and addresses, along with very private information regarding the resident households. For that reason, the spreadsheet indicating how each household responded and the actual surveys will not be attached to this TIR, but rather a copy of the spreadsheet and the actual responsesurveys will be sent to the City Attorney's Office, as confidential information, for verification of the above conclusions. (c) Resident or Resident(s): As used in this Tenant Impact Report, a "Resident" or "Residents" is any person who is a permanent resident of the Park on the date the application for conversion, including without limitation this Tenant Impact Report, is first heard by the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission. A Resident(s) of the Park is a person, or persons, who (i) has his or her name on the Title to the mobilehome; (ii) lives in the home as his or her permanent residence; and (iii) has been approved as a tenant under the Mobilehome Residency Law and all other applicable City, County and State laws, ordinances, regulations, or guidelines. 1.3 Description of the Property: The Park was constructed in approximately 1970 and is a one hundred ninety one (191)-space "Senior" Park (age restriction applies), situated on approximately (34.7) acres. The fenced Park has wide asphalt streets with gutters, green belts for open space, and all utilities are underground. The common area contains a Clubhouse with a Kitchen, Billiard Room, Office, Jacuzzi, Exercise Room, Auditorium, and Swimming Pool. All of the homes are at least doublewides. 106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04 4 SAMPLE Section 2. Residents' Current Position/Rights: 2.1 Current Occupancy: Currently, a small number of the Residents reside in the Park on leases ("Leases"). In excess of ninety-five percent (95%) of the Resident occupants reside in the Park on a month -to -month written rental agreement ("Rental Agreement"). 2.2 Residents' Rights: In addition to the terms of the Leases and Rental Agreements, the tenancy rights of Residents residing in the Park are governed by California Civil Code section 798 et seq. ("Mobilehome Residency Law"), other applicable California statutory and case law, and the Palm Desert Rent Control ordinances. Section 3. Park Owner's Rights Upon Conversion: 3.1 Right to Change Use: The Park owner, pursuant to the Government Code and Mobilehome Residency Law, has the right to terminate all existing tenancies and require the Residents to vacate the property and go out of business or change the use of the property, providing all applicable laws are followed. The Park Owner, however, through this TIR, agrees to waive the right to terminate any tenancies and existing Leases or require that the Residents vacate the property. Under this scenario, non -purchasing Residents will NOT be required to vacate their space and, as described in more detail in section 4 below, will have occupancy rights subject to any Lease or Written Rental Agreement, Mobilehome Residency Law, and California law, as applicable. Therefore, there will be no actual eviction or displacement due to the conversion and Resident - purchase of the Park. Section 4. No Actual nor Economic Displacement: 4.1 Impact of Conversion: Under California Government Code and the Mobilehome Residency Law, the converter is required, as a condition of conversion, to prepare a TIR to set forth the impact of the conversion on those who elect not to purchase the space on which their mobilehome is situated. Further, the rental increase amount, which may be charged by the owner of the space subsequent to the conversion, is specified in California Government Code section 66427.5. As a result of the conversion, there will be no physical change of use. The property before and after conversion will be operated as a mobilehome park. The difference is that instead of an investor/operator owner, a Homeowners' Association will operate the property. 106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04 5 SAMPLE 4.2 Rental Rate Increases: No Economic Displacement: The economic displacement of non -purchasing Residents shall be mitigated by allowing the Residents who select not to purchase the space on which their home is situated to continue their tenancy in the Park under the Subdivision Map Act rental increases restrictions. See, California Govt. Code section 66427.5, ("Map Act Rents'). The Map Act Rents are based upon two (2) formulas: one formula for non -low income permanent Residents and one formula for low income permanent Residents, as defined in section 50079.5 of the Health & Safety Code. (a) Non -Low Income Resident: For the non -low income Residents, the base rent may be increased over a four (4)-year period to market rent. Base rent is defined as that rent which is in effect prior to the Conversion Date. Market Rent is established by an appraisal "conducted in accordance with nationally recognized appraisal standards." The reason the rents are raised to market over a four (4)-year period is to allow the adjustment of rents, which under rent control have remained artificially low to occur gradually. This protection for the otherwise financially advantaged Resident also provides time for those households to plan for the rental adjustment to market. (b) Low Income Resident: The State has emphasized its goal of protecting housing for the low-income population of California in this code section. The low income Residents receive a guarantee of reduced rental increases beyond that which any local jurisdiction can enact under the current rent control cases and laws of California. Low Income is defined in 66427.5 by referencing California Health and Safety Code 50079.5, which in turn defines low income persons as persons and families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The other qualifying requirements, including without limitation, asset limitations, shall be as defined in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended from time to time. Low income Residents are protected for the entire term of their tenancy. 106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04 (i) Rent Increase Formula. The base rental increase is the average increase for the previous four (4) years but shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index("CPI") average monthly percentage increase for the most recently reported period. 6 SAMPLE (c) 106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04 (ii) Application Process: The Resident must provide the same information and confirmation of the Resident's income and permanent status at the Park as though that Resident were applying for a State of California, Mobilehome Park Ownership Program ("MPROP") loan each year. In the event that program is no longer in existence, the last application documents will become the permanent documents, and the qualifying income levels will be those established by either the State of California Housing and Community Development Department or the United States Housing and Community Development Department [California HCD or Federal HUD], at the election of the owner of the space. (iii) Comparison: Based on these State Rent Control provisions, the low income households enjoy greater protection than under City of Palm Desert Rent Control in that the annual rent increase is seventy-five percent (75%) of the CPI and the Owner may, upon proper showing and approval, institute a hardship rent increase. Attached hereto and hereby incorporated as though fully set forth is a chart of the low-income rent increase maximums, assuming the project was converted as of August 1, 2004. Effective Date of Map Act Rents: The effective date of the Map Act Rents for Residents shall be as of the Conversion Date as defined in section 4.3 herein. As part of the distribution of the Final Public Report, the Leases and qualifying information shall be simultaneously distributed. The Residents shall have ninety (90) days within which to make their election to purchase or to execute the new Leases. If the Resident does not want to execute a Lease but does want to continue renting his/her space, then the Resident may do so under a month -to -month or one (1)-year written rental agreement. Without regard to the type of rental document, if any, executed by a qualified household, the MAP ACT Rents shall be in place for that household. 7 SAMPLE 4.3 "Conversion Date": Conversion Date is defined as the date of the first sale of a unit. 4.4 No Actual Displacement: The Resident occupant will be given the choice to buy the space on which their mobilehome is situated or to continue their tenancy in the Park under this Tenant Impact Report. To receive the protections provided herein and under the California Subdivision Map Act, the Resident must have been a Resident, as defined in section 1.2(c). Further, the Owner has specifically waived its right to terminate tenancies. (See section 3.) Therefore, there will be no actual eviction of any Resident or relocation of their home by reason of the Park conversion to Resident ownership. 4.5 Conclusion: No Actual Nor Economic Evictions: The legislative intent behind relocation mitigation assistance as contained in Government Code section 66427.4 was to ensure that Residents who were being actually evicted due to the conversion of a park to another use were protected, and that a plan was submitted and approved to ensure that protection. The purpose for the more typical impact report is to explain how and when the Residents have to vacate the property; and, what financial assistance the Residents would be receiving to assist in the costs of removing the home and other personal effects. However, under the present conversion, which will not result in another use and vacation of the property, the purpose of this Tenant Impact Report is to explain the options of the Residents regarding their choice to purchase or to rent their space. The Park Owner has agreed, by this TIR, to waive its right to terminate existing tenancies and Leases upon the conversion (see section 3 above), and any Resident who chooses not to purchase a "Condominium Interest" (defined below) may reside in the Park as set forth in section 3 and section 4.2 above. Thus, there will be no economic displacement based on the Map Act Rents nor actual eviction of any Resident because of the conversion, and therefore, no relocation mitigation is required. Section 5. Benefits of Conversion: The purpose of the conversion of a park from a rental park to a Resident -owned park is to provide the Residents with a choice. The Residents may either choose to purchase an ownership interest in the Park, which would take the form of a PUD/Condominium Interest, or continue to rent a space in the Park, thereby allowing the Residents to control their economic future. The conversion provides the Resident occupants the opportunity to operate and control the Park. Since the new owners of the Park will not be motivated to make a profit, but rather are 106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04 8 SAMPLE motivated to ensure the best possible living conditions at the most affordable rates, payable through the Homeowners' Association Dues, directly or through rent, both buyers and renters benefit from the conversion. Section 6. PUD/Condominium Interest: Ninety (90) Dav Right of First Refusal: 6.1 PUD/Condominium Interest: The conversion provides the Residents with the opportunity to acquire an ownership interest in the Park, which certainly would not otherwise occur. As stated above, the form of ownership will be a PUD/Condominium Interest. The PUD/Condominium Interest is treated as any other type of real property, with ownership transferred by a grant deed that will be insured by a policy of title insurance. The front and back lot line boundaries of each PUD/Condominium Interest will be properly marked by a certified Civil Engineer, and specific legal descriptions shall be set forth on a "Condominium Plan" which will be a matter of public record when filed and recorded. Each PUD/Condominium Interest comprises the airspace directly over the current rental spaces, a one -one hundred ninety one (1/191) interest in the Park's common areas, and 1/191 interest in the common area lot, as tenants in common. All PUD/Condominium Interests are held pursuant to the description of general rights and associated factors as set forth in the Articles, Bylaws of the Homeowners' Association, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, and California law pertaining to such ownership. 6.2 Right of First Refusal: As required by California Government Code Section 66462, each Resident Household shall be informed that they have a ninety (90)- day right of first refusal period. The right of first refusal period commences upon the issuance by the California Department of Real Estate and delivery of the "Final Public Report." During the ninety (90) day period each Resident Household shall have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to purchase a PUD/Condominium Interest or continue to rent his or her space. Section 7. Legal Notices: The Residents have received the Notice of Intent to File a Map with the City of Palm Desert and will receive the following notices: Notice of Intent to Convert; Notice of Change of Use; 90-Day Right of First Refusal; Intention to File Application for Public Report; and will also receive all additional required legal notices in the manner and within the time frame required by the state and local laws and ordinances. All prospective tenants have and will receive the Notice to Prospective Tenant(s). SAMPLE 106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04 Section 8. Conclusion: 8.1 The above described purchase rights, Lease programs, and protections will be offered only if the Park is converted to a Resident -owned mobilehome park. Such programs become effective on the Map Act Rent Date or the Offering Date, which is the date of issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report from the California Department of Real Estate, whichever is the later occurrence. 8.2 Upon conversion of the Park to Resident ownership, the current owner of the Park, as well as subsequent owners of PUD/Condominium Interests in the Park, shall abide by all terms and conditions set forth in this TIR. This TIR is a covenant that encumbers each individual Unit. 8.3 The conversion of the Park from a rental park to a Resident -owned park provides the Residents with an opportunity of choice. Park Residents may choose to purchase a Condominium Interest or continue to rent. The conversion also provides the potential for Residents to enjoy the security of living in a Resident - owned, controlled, and managed Park, whose motivation is not profit, but rather, achieving the best living environment at the most affordable rate. 8.4 All Residents choosing to continue to rent will have occupancy rights exactly as they have now, and all existing Leases and/or Rental Agreements will be honored, subject to California Government Code section 66427.5, Mobilehome Residency Law, and other California law, as applicable. The protections and programs offered to the Residents are greater than those required by law and are better than the Residents currently have as rent -paying tenants in the Park. 106268 - FINAL -10/06/04 10 SAMPLE TENANT IMPACT REPORT INDIAN SPRINGS EXHIBIT "A" Resident Survey XHIBIT "A' to TENANT IMPACT REP( SPACE NO. INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILEHOME PARK Gov't Code § 66427.5(d)(1) SURVEY OF RESIDENTS Attached to this Survey of Residents is the Draft Tenant Impact Report ("TIR"). The TIR provides for the avoidance of the economic displacement of ALL non —purchasing residents in accordance with the following provisions of Government Code § 66427.5(fl("Gov't Code'): (1) As to non purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. (2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. This Survey requests information in TWO categories: (1) Support for the Change of Ownership [Use] AND (2) demographics of your households. Each household may fill out one (1) Survey and mail the completed Survey to THE LOFTIN FIRM, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330, San Diego, California 92122 in the enclosed self-addressed and stamped envelope. If there are sections of the Survey for which you do not have information or do not wish to answer, simply skip those questions. No one in the Park will see the individual Surveys; however, the City of Palm Desert will receive copies of the Surveys. The only information that will be provided to resident households or the management is a summary of data gathered. SECTION I. Survey The effect of a change of ownership format to a resident owned condominium park as proposed by the subdivider provides a choice to the resident households. The resident households may purchase their condominium interest or may continue to rent the condominium unit/lot [space] on which their mobilehome is located. You can support the change of ownership to a resident owned condominium park without a personal desire to purchase your condominium interest. Pursuant to Gov't Code section 66427.5, the please answer the following questions: I [l [l I support the change of ownership of the park to a resident owned condominium park. I do not support the change of ownership of the park to a resident owned condominium park. I decline to state my position at this time. This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a condominium unit or any other real estate interest in Indian Springs MHP. An offer to sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along with all statutorily required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the Purchase/Sale Agreement, the HOA Articles & Bylaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs). BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE IF, AND WHEN, INDIAN SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED Page 1 of 2 c/:I s1II STIR. M W CS u ry ey4-2 6-4 XHIBIT "A' to TENANT IMPACT REPO SPACE NO. SECTION II. Demographic Information To provide the City of Palm Desert with demographic information, please answer the following questions: 1. Is your home in Indian Springs MHP your primary residence? [ ] YES / [ ] NO 2. How many people [of all ages] live in your home? a. Number of Adults [55 and over]: b. Number of Adults [45 to 54]: c. Number of Adults [ 18-44]: d. Number of Children [under 18]: 3. In which category does your household's total income, before taxes, fall? [Check one box below] HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELSHOUSEHOLD SIZE AND'INCOME LEVELS Check ONE Income Levels 1 Person 2 Persons 3 persons 4 persons Very Low $ 17,850 or less $ 20,400 or less $ 22,950 or less $ 25,500 or less Low More than $17,851 but less than $ 28,550 More than $ 20,401 but less than $ 32,650 More than $ 22,95I but less than $ 36,700 More than $25,501 but less than $ 40,800 4. Information on Your Mobilehome: a. Make of Mobilehome: b. Model of Mobilehome: c. Year of Manufacture: d. Size of Mobilehome: e. Number of Bedrooms: f. Do you have a mortgage on your home? i. If yes, what are the balance owed and monthly payment? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY! Date: Date: Signature: Signature: Print Name: Print Name: Day Tele: Day Tele: This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a condominium unit or any other real estate interest in Indian Springs MHP. An offer to sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along with all statutorily required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the Purchase/Sale Agreement, the HOA Articles & Bylaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs). BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE IF, AND WHEN, INDIAN SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED c/:lsl/IS/TIR.MW CS u ry ey4-26-4 Page 2 of 2 :XHIBIT "A' to TENANT IMPACT REP T SPACE NO. This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a condominium unit or any other real estate interest in Indian Springs MHP. An offer to sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along with all statutorily required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the Purchase/Sale Agreement, the HOA Articles & Bylaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs). BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE IF, AND WHEN, INDIAN SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED c/:IsI/IS/TIR. MW CS u rvey4-26-4 Page 3 of 2 EXHIBIT "B" to TENANT IMPACT REPORT 1. Four Year Average (Maximum Amount of Rent Increase for Low Income Households) 2. History of Rent Increase for January 1, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Basis for Calculations) EXHIBIT "B, 1." Four Year Average (Maximum Amount of Rent Increase for Low Income Households) G:1Documents\Properties\Indan Springs 452\Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average 39 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 40 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 41 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 42 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 43 0.00 14.50 10.59 9.05 8.54 44 12.14 12.65 9.24 7.90 10.48 45 10.25 10.68 7.80 6.67 8.85 46 13.17 13.72 10.02 8.56 11.37 47 0.00 20.44 11.11 9.50 10.26 48 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 49 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 50 10.19 10.62 7.76 6.63 8.80 51 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 52 12.03 12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38 53 11.01 11.47 8.38 7.16 9.51 54 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 55 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 56 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 57 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 58 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 59 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 60 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 61 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 62 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 63 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 64 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 65 11.35 11.82 8.63 7.38 9.80 66 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 67 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 68 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 69 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 70 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 71 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 72 14.04 14.64 10.69 9.13 12.13 73 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 74 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 75 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36 76 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 G:1Documents\Properties\Indian Springs 452\Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average 77 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 78 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 79 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 80 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36 81 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 82 9.71 10.70 7.81 6.68 8.73 83 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 84 15.31 15.96 11.65 9.96 13.22 85 15.51 16.16 11.80 10.08 13.39 86 14.67 15.28 11.16 9.54 12.66 87 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 88 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36 89 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 90 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 91 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 92 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 93 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 94 9.26 9.65 7.05 6.03 8.00 95 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 96 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32 97 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 98 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 99 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 100 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 101 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 102 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 103 0.00 14.38 10.50 8.98 8.47 104 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 105 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 106 10.71 11.16 8.15 6.97 9.25 107 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 108 11.27 11.75 8.58 7.33 9.73 109 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 110 11.27 11.75 8.58 7.33 9.73 111 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 13.44 14.01 10.23 8.74 11.61 113 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 114 10.44 10.88 0.00 6.79 7.03 G:1Documents\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average 115 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 116 10.44. 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 117 0.00 18.75 19.75 9.15 11.91 118 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 119 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 120 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 121 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 122 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 123 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 124 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 125 14.49 15.10 11.03 9.43 12.51 126 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36 127 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 128 10.66 11.10 8.11 6.93 9.20 129 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 130 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 131 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 132 10.00 10.42 7.61 6.51 8.64 133 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 134 11.67 12.16 8.88 7.59 10.08 135 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 136 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 137 13.49 14.06 10.27 8.77 11.65 138 8.54 8.90 6.50 5.56 7.38 139 13.57 14.14 10.33 8.83 11.72 140 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 141 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 142 0.00 20.88 13.26 11.38 143 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 144 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 145 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 146 11.01 11.47 8.38 7.16 9.51 147 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 148 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 149 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 150 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 151 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 152 12.14 12.65 9.24 7.89 10.48 G:1Documents\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year No. Jan 1. 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average 153 10.39 10.83; 7.91 6.76 8.97 154 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 155 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 156 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 157 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 158 12.03 12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38 159 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 160 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 161 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 162 12.03 12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38 163 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 164 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 165 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 166 12.03 12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38 167 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32 168 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 169 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 170 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 171 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 172 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 173 12.46 12.99 9.49 8.11 10.76 174 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 175 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 176 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 177 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 178 12.46 12.99 9.49 8.11 10.76 179 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 180 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 181 12.26 12.77 9.33 7.97 10.58 182 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 183 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 184 12.53 13.06 9.54 8.15 10.82 185 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 186 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 187 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 188 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80 189 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 190 11.08 11.55 8.43 7.21 9.57 G:1Documents\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average 191 12.12 12.63 9.22 7.88 10.46 Total 2,086.00 2,263.41 1,631.68 1,407.05 1,849.88 Average 10.92 11.85 8.54 7.37 9.69 EXHIBIT "B, 2." History of Rent Increase for January 1, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Basis for Calculations CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space Rent at CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect No. 01/01/00 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1. 2003 Jan 1. 2003 Jan 1. 2004 Jan 1,2004 1 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98 7.02 443.00 2 455.02 12.10 467.12 12.61 479.73 9.21 488.94 7.87 496.81 3 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 4 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 5 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 6 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 7 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 8 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 9 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 10 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 11 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 12 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 13 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 14 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 15 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 16 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 17 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 18 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 19 456.26 12.14 468.40 12.65 481.05 9.24 490.29 7.89 498.18 20 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 21 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 22 410.41 10.92 421.33 11.38 432.71 8.31 441.02 7.10 448.12 23 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 24 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98 7.02 443.00 25 544.56 14.49 559.05 15.09 574.14 11.02 585.16 9.42 594.58 26 422.15 11.23 433.38 11.70 445.08 8.55 453.63 7.30 460.93 27 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 28 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 29 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 30 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 31 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 32 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 33 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 34 383.11 10.19 393.30 10.62. 403.92 7.76 411.68 6.63 418.31 35 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 36 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 37 465.00 12.37 477.37 12.89 490.26 9.41 499.67 8.04 507.71 38 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 39 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 40 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 41 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 42 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 43 537.20 0.00 537.20 14.50 551.70 10.59 562.29 9.05 571.34 44 456.44 12.14 468.58 12.65 481.23 9.24 490.47 7.90 498.37 45 385.30 10.25 395.55 10.68 406.23 7.80 414.03 6.67 420.70 46 494.93 13.17 508.10 13.72 521.82 10.02 531.84 8.56 540.40 47 558.39 0.00 558.39 20.44 578.83 11.11 589.94 9.50 599.44 48 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 49 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 50 383.11 10.19 393.30 10.62 403.92 7.76 411.68 6.63 418.31 51 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 52 452.20 12.03 464.23 12.53 476.76 9.15 485.91 7.82 493.73 53 413.92 11.01 424.93 11.47 436.40 8.38 444.78 7.16 451.94 54 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 55 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 56 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 57 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 58 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 59 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 60 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 61 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 62 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 63 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 64 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 65 426.51 11.35 437.86 11.82 449.68 8.63 458.31 7.38 465.69 CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space Rent at CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect No. 01/01/00 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1. 2003 Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1. 2004 Jan 1, 2004 66 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 67 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 68 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 69 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 70 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59 71 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 72 528.00 14.04 542.04 14.64 556.68 10.69 567.37 9.13 576.50 73 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 74 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 75 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89 76 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 77 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 78 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 79 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 80 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89 81 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 82 365.06 9.71 374.77 10.70 407.03 7.81 414.84 6.68 421.52 83 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 84 575.66 15.31 590.97 15.96 606.93 11.65 618.58 9.96 628.54 85 582.90 15.51 598.41 16.16 614.57 11.80 626.37 10.08 636.45 86 551.32 14.67 565.99 15.28 581.27 11.16 592.43 9.54 601.97 87 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 88 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89 89 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 90 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 91 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 92 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 93 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 94 348.28 9.26 357.54 9.65 367.19 7.05 374.24 6.03 380.27 95 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 96 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98 7.02 443.00 97 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 98 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 99 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 100 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 101 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 102 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 103 532.65 0.00 532.65 14.38 547.03 10.50 557.53 8.98 566.51 104 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 105 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50. 106 402.69 10.71 413.40 11.16 424.56 8.15 432.71 6.97 439.68 107 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 108 423.85 11.27 435.12 11.75 446.87 8.58 455.45 7.33 462.78 109 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84 110 423.85 11.27 435.12 11.75 446.87 8.58 455.45 7.33 462.78 111 583.74 0.00 583.74 0.00 583.74 0.00 594.95 0.00 583.74 112 505.30 13.44 518.74 14.01 532.75 10.23 542.98 8.74 551.72 113 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60 114 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 0.00 413.77 6.79 428.50 115 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 116 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 117 529.80 0.00 529.80 18.75 548.55 19.75 568.30 9.15 577.45 118 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 119 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 120 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 121 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 122 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 123 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 124 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 125 544.88 14.49 559.37 15.10 574.47 11.03 585.50 9.43 594.93 126 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89 127 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 128 400.63 10.66 411.29 11.10 422.39 8.11 430.50 6.93 437.43 129 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 130 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50 CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space Rent at CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect No. 01/01/00 Jan 1. 2001 Jan 1. 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2002 Jan1, 2003 Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Jan 1, 2004 131 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 132 376.05 10.00 386.05 10.42 396.47 7.61 404:08 133 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 134 438.86 11.67 450.53 12.16 462.69 8.88 471.57 135 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 136 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71. 137 507.17 13.49 520.66 14.06 534.72 10.27 544.99 138 321.17 8.54 329.71 8.90 338.61 6.50 345.11 139 510.26 13.57 523.83 14.14 537.97 10.33 548.30 140 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 141 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 142 662.69 0.00 662.69 20.88 600,88 600.88 143 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 144 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 145 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 146 413.92 11.01 424.93 11.47 436.40 8.38 444.78 147 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 148 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 149 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 150 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 151 392.45. 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 152 456.26 12.14 468.40 12.65 481.05 9.24 490.29 153 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 154 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 155 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 156 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 157 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 158 452.17 12.03 464.20 12.53 476.73 9.15 485.88 159 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 160 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 161 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 162 452.17 12.03 464.20 12.53 476.73 9.15 485.88 163 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 164 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 165 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 166 452.17 12.03 464.20 12.53 476.73 9.15 485.88 167 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98 168 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 169 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 170 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 171 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 172 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 173 468.57 12.46 481.03 12.99 494.02 9.49 503.51 174 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 175 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 176 470:30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 177 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 178 468.57 12.46 481.03 12.99 494.02 9.49 503.51 179 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 180 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 181 460.80 12.26 473.06 12.77 485.83 9.33 495.16 182 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 183 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 184 471.08 12.53 483.61 13.06 496.67 9.54 506.21 185 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 186 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 187 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 188 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37 189 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 190 416.65 11.08 427.73 11.55 439.28 8.43 447.71 191 455.66 12.12 467.78 12.63 480.41 9.22 489.63 Total 81,828.00 2,086.00 83,914.00 2,263.41 86,116.28 1,631.68 87,759.17 6.79 6.51 6.79 7.59 6.79 6.79 8.77 5.56 8.83 8.14 6.79 13.26 6.79 8.14 7.19 7.16 7.19 7.85 7.19 7.85 6.79 7.89 6.76 7.85 6.79 7.85 6.79 7.82 6.79 7.85 6.79 7.82 6.79 7.85 6.79 7.82 7.02 7.85 7.85 8.14 8.14 8.14 8.11 8.14 8.14 8.14 7.85 8.11 8.14 8.14 7.97 8.14 8.14 8.15 8.14 8.14 7.85 8.14 7.85 7.21 7.88 428.50 410.59 428.50 479.16 428.50 428.50 553.76 350.67 557.13 513.51 428.50 632.71 428.50 513.51 453.84 451.94 453.84 495.59 453.84 495.59 428.50 498.18 426.60 495.59 428.50 495.59 428.50 493.70 428.50 495.59 428.50 493.70 428.50 495.59 428.50 493.70 443.00 495.59 495.59 513.51 513.51 513.51 511.62 513.51 513.51 513.51 495.59 511.62 513.51 513.51 503.13 513.51 513.51 514.36 513.51 513.51 495.59 513.51 495.59 454.92 497.51 1,407.05 89,181.52 G:1Documents\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average 1 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32 2 12.10 12.61 9.21 7.87 10.45 3 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 4 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 5 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 6 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 7 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 8 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 . 10.42 9 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 10 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 11 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 12 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 13 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 14 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 15 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 16 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 17 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 18 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 19 12.14 12.65 9.24 7.89 10.48 20 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 21 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 22 10.92 11.38 8.31 7.10 9.43 23 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 24 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32 25 14.49 15.09 11.02 9.42 12.51 26 11.23 11.70 8.55 7.30 9.70 27 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 28 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 29 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97 30 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 31 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 32 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55 33 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 34 10.19 10.62 7.76 6.63 8.80 35 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01 36 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 37 12.37 12.89 9.41 8.04 10.68 38 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action. My business address is 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330, San Diego, California, 92122. On November 22 , 2004, I caused the following listed documents to be served on the interested parties by the following method: DOCUMENTS SERVED: 1. Meeting Notice for 29`h 2. Hearing Notice for Planning Commission Dec. 7 3. Tenant Impact Report 4. Supplemental Tenant Impact Report METHOD: X By placing _ The original X a true and correct copy with any and all exhibits thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addresses as stated below. X BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. By following the ordinary business practice, placing the documents listed above in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. _ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and delivery on this date in accordance with standard Federal Express delivery procedures. BY FAX: The fax machine I used complies with California Rules of Court, rule 2003, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2006(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission. _ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I cause such envelope to be delivered by hand to the above referenced person(s). PERSON(S) SERVED: Resident of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Spaces 1-191 49305 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 22 , 2004, at San Diego, California. Christa A. Lane c/ab/pos.2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action. My business address is 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330, San Diego, California, 92122. On November 3 , 2004, I caused the following listed documents to be served on the interested parties by the following method: DOCUMENTS SERVED: 1. Meeting Notice for 29`h 2. Hearing Notice for Planning Commission Dec. 7 3. Tenant Impact Report 4. Supplemental Tenant Impact Report METHOD: X By placing _ The original X a true and correct copy with any and all exhibits thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addresses as stated below. BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. By following the ordinary business practice, placing the documents listed above in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. _ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and delivery on this date in accordance with standard Federal Express delivery procedures. BY FAX: The fax machine I used complies with California Rules of Court, rule 2003, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2006(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission. X BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I cause such envelope to be delivered by hand to the above referenced person(s). PERSON(S) SERVED: Resident of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Spaces 1-191 49305 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on i0 , 2004, at Saiegd; California. 'ALAI Aez-k-ti to en Bedell slab/pos.2004 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7R04161588 P. 02 Robert & Irene Borelli 49-305 Highway 74 41 Palm Desert CA 92260 Rosalee Calvert Mary Perlin 49-305 Highway 74, #4 Palm Desert CA 92260 William & Louise Remelius 49-305 Highway 74 4007 Palm Desert CA 92260 John M'tch 1 49-305 g way 74 #10 Palm Dese t CA 92260 Adele Mescal 49-305 Highway 74 #013 Palm Desert CA 92260 Francis & Rose Pagiiarini 49-305 Highway 74 #016 Palm Desert CA 92260 Ja t sank 49- Highway 74 #01 Palert CA 92260 Cheryl Paninder 49-305 Highway 74 #22 Palm Desert CA 92260 Cecile West 49-305 Highway 74 #025 Palm Desert CA 92260 Katherine Robbins 49-305 Highway 74 428 Palm Desert CA 92260 Gunn Trigere 49-305 Highway 74 4002 Palm Desert CA 92260 Irene Stewart 49-305 Highway 74 #005 Palm Desert CA 92260 Barbara Young 49-305 Highway 74 #8 Palm Desert CA 92260 Norris and Loretta Olson 49-305 Highway 74 4011 Palm Desert CA 92260 De -.a B issmer 49-3 Highway 74 #014 Palm •-=ert CA 92260 Judy Matthews 49-305 Highway 74 417 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jack Mallory 49-305 Highway 74 #20 Palm Desert CA 92260 James G. Stone 49-305 Highway 74 #23 Palm Desert CP. 92260 Jerry & Carole Ciccimaro 49-305 Highway 74 4026 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jean Wa son 49-30 Highway 74 #02 Pall Desert CA 92260 Lucille Bodine 49-305 Highway 74 43 Palm Desert CA 9226C Larry Cwen 49-305 Highway 74 #6 Palm Desert CA 92260 Yavanka Trbuhovich 49-305 Highway 74 4009 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jac Smell 49-3 Palm Asert CA 92260 Highway 74 412 Margarette Meinecke 49-305 Highway 74 415 Palm Desert CA 92260 Edith Gagnon 49-305 Highway 74 #018 Palm Desert CA 92260 Cookie Caffery 49-305 Highway 74 4021 Palm Desert CA 92260 William And Lee Fischer 49-305 Highway 74 4024 Palm Desert CA 92260 Joan Perkinson 49-305 Highway 74 #27 Palm Desert CA 92260 Addle Capovani 49-305 Highway 74 #30 Palm Desert CA 92260 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO, 7604161588 P. 03 Lee & Pat Shrake 49-305 Highway 74 #031 Palm Desert CA 92260 Paul Slack Joe McLaughlin 49-305 Highway 74 #34 Palm Desert CA 92260 Robert and Polly Duden 49-305 Highway 74 #037 Palm Desert CA 92260 George and Barbara Ruppert 49-305 Highway 74 #040 Palm Desert CA 92260 Mary Plumley 49-305 Highway 74 #043 Palm Desert CA 92260 A. Ri a Brown, Sr. 49-305 ighway 74 #046 Palm D s rt CA 92260 Nick Brandt 49-305 Highway 74 #049 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jean-Ja que Sarfati 49-305 H ay 74 #052 Palm Dese t CA 92260 Tim & Helen Taylor 49-305 Highway 74 #055 Palm Desert CA 92260 Vincent Giuliani Evelyn Rails 49-305 Hwy 74, Space 58 PALM DESERT CA 92260 Diane M. Morin 49-305 Highway 74 #32 Palm Desert CA 92260 Ted and Betty Morrell 49-305 Highway 74 #35 Palm Desert CA 92260 Bob Schoelzel 49-305 Highway 74 #038 Palm Desert CA 92260 Virginia Ross 49-305 Highway 74 #41 Palm Desert CA 92260 Et lyn Opel 49-3 5 Highway 74 #044 Palm/Desert CA 92260 Ruth Malatesta 49-305 Highway 74 #47 Palm Desert CA 92260 Are F'tzgerald 49-305 ighway 74 #50 Palm D rt CA 92260 Harry and Sharon Hanna 49-305 Highway 74 #53 Palm Desert CA 92260 Pamala Hagemann 49-305 Highway 74 #56 Palm Desert CA 92260 Sh on arey Donn K'ng Judy d Ron Williams 49-30 ighway 74 #59 Palm es rt CA 92260 Annette Randazzo 49-305 Highway 74 #033 Palm Desert CA 9226C Hobart and Josephine Cravens 49-305 Highway 74 #36 Palm Desert CA 92260 Bea 49-3 Pal Davis Highway 74 #39 esert CA 92260 Annette Clyatt 49-305 Highway 74 #42 Palm Desert CA 92260 Charlotte Sharp 49-305 Highway 74 #045 Palm Desert CA 9226C Douglas and Bonita Grobe 49-305 Highway 74 #048 Palm Desert CA 92260 John & Bette Ackley 49-305 Highway 74 #051 Palm Desert CA 92260 Julie Ann Gillibrand 49-305 Highway 74 #054 Palm Desert CA 92260 Delores Murray 49-305 Highway 74 #057 Palm Desert CA 92260 Lenore Sparling 49-305 Highway 74 #060 Palm Desert CA 92260 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588 P. 04 Elizabeth Nabie 49-305 Highway 74 #61 Palm Desert CA 92260 Arnd 0. Fischler Antje S. Reck 49-305 Highway 74 #64 Palm Desert CA 92260 Maryanne Harper 49-305 Highway 74 #67 Palm Desert CA 92260 Judith L. Rosenberg 49-305 Highway 74 #070 Palm Desert CA 92260 Ja ueli e Doyle 49- 5 Highway 74 #07 Palsert CA 92260 John O'Donnell. 49-305 Highway 74 #076 Palm Desert CA 92260 Margo Iverson 49-305 Highway 74 #79 Palm Desert CA 92260 Sharma Lady Smith 49-305 ghway 74 #82 Palm De rt CA 92260 Dorothy Muller 49-305 Highway 74 #085 Palm Desert CA 92260 Sharon Royal 49-305 Highway 74 #088 Palm Desert CA 92260 Clyde Mitchell 49-305 Highway 74 #62 Palm Desert CA 92260 Richard and Catherine Miller 49-305 Highway 74 #065 Paim Desert CA 92260 k‘,!larre and arcia Monroe 49-305 hway 74 #68 Palm De t CA 92260 150ella Boehnlein 49-305 Highway 74 #071 Palm Desert CA 92260. Ronald and Donna Rolfe 49-305 Highway 74 #74 Palm Desert CA 92260 Patricia A. Greco 49-305 Highway 74 #77 Palm Desert CA 92260 JoAnn Cina 49-305 Highway 74 #080 Palm Desert CA 92260 Bar Ral 49-30 ighway 74 #83 Palm D ert CA 92260 Marie Schmidt 49-305 Highway 74 #086 Palm Desert CA 92260 Gary & Maria McIntyre 49-305 Highway 74 #089 Palm Desert CA 92260 William and Barbara Carr 49-305 Highway 74 #63 Palm Desert CA 92260 Rosemarie Schneider 49-305 Highway 74, #66 Palm Desert CA 92260 Donald & Laura Hill 49-305 Highway 74 #069 Palm Desert CA 92260 George A. Rex' 49-305 Highway 74, #72 Palm Desert CA 92260 Dorothy Pampetti 49-305 Highway 74 #75 Palm Desert CA 92260 Lorraine Huhnke 49-305 Highway 74 #078 Palm Desert CA 92260 Mary Wiley 49-305 Highway 74 #81 Palm Desert CA 92260 Denny Evans 49-305 Highway 74 #084 Palm Desert CA 92260 James Adamo 49-305 Highway 74 #87 Palm Desert CA 92260 Betty Ann Toms 49-305 Highway 74 #090 Palm Desert CA 92260 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM ,TAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 7R04161588 P, 05 Mara Romero Villalta 49-305 Highway 74 4091 Palm Desert CA 92260 Paul Chapas 49-305 Highway 74 #094 Palm Desert CA 92260 Morris & Adela Carson 49-305 Highway 74 #097 Palm Desert CA 92260 Richard Gibson 49-305 Highway 74 #100 Palm Desert CA 92260 Rita Alexander 49-305 Highway 74 4103 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jack L. Bernier 49-305 Highway 74 #106 Palm Desert CA 92260 Chester E. Hill 49-305 Highway 74 0109 Palm Desert CA 92260 Stanley Glen Wiesner 49-305 Highway 74 #112 Palm Desert CA 92260 Pauline V. Eubanks 49-305 Highway 74 4115 Palm Desert CA 92260 Marcella Knox 49-305 Highway 74 #118. Palm Desert CA 92260 Georgia Fish 49-305 Highway 74 #092 Palm Desert CA 92260 Sandy Symington 49-305 Highway 74 #095 Palm Desert CA 92260 Patsy Schellbach 49-305 Highway 74 #98 Palm Desert CA 92260 Joan Wilkinson 49-305 Highway 74 #101 Palm besert CA 92260 Carol J. Byron 49-305 Highway 74 #104 Palm Desert CA 92260 Elizabeth Carmellini 49-305 Highway 74 #107 Palm Desert CA 92260 Cha es urton 49-3 Highway 74 #110 Pal Bert CA 92260 Elaine Evon Swedin 49-305 Highway 74 #113 Palm Desert CA 92260 JoAnn Cina 49-305 Highway 74 #116 Palm Desert CA 92260 Eleanor Noyes 49-305 Highway 74 #119 Palm Desert CA 92260 Mike Condreay 49-305 Highway 74 493 Paim Desert CA 92260 Robert and Juana Thomason 49-305 Highway 74 496 Palm Desert CA 92260 Frank and Marlena Woodward 49-305 Highway 74 499 Palm Desert CA 92260 Michael and Barbara Doyle 49-305 Highway 74 4102 Palm Desert CA 92260 Raymond Borden 49-305 Highway 74 4105 Palm Desert CA 92260 Paul and Lorice Loft 49-305 Highway 74 4108 Palm Desert CA 92260 June Gleason 49-305 Highway 74 #111 Palm Desert CA 92260 Marion Phillips 49-305 Highway 74 #114 Palm Desert CA 92260 LaDonna Flammenio 49-305 Highway 74 #117 Palm Desert CA 92260 Fran & Terry Shanbrom 49-305 Highway 74 4120 Palm Desert CA 92260 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO, 7A04161588 P, 06 Ron and M inda Lerg 49-305 Highway 74 #121 Palm D e t CA 92260 Hank Stroband 49-305 Highway 74 #124 Palm Desert CA 92260 Betty Crockett 49-305 Highway 74 #127 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jerre M ams 49-30 ighway 74 #130 Palm ert CA 92260 William & Marlene Kays 49-305 Highway 74 #133 Palm Desert CA 92260 George and Sally Brooks 49-305 Highway 74 #136 Palm Desert CA 92260 Marilyn J. Godfrey 49-305 Highway 74 #139 Palm Desert CA 92260 Bill price 49-305 Highway 74 #142 Palm Desert CA 92260 Frank Reister 49-305 Highway 74 #145 Palm Desert CA 92260 Kantaben Engineer 49-305 Highway 74 #148 Palm Desert CA 92260 Paul avid Lawson 49-30 Highway 74 #122 Palm D ert CA 92260 John & 49-305 Palm De sy Leffler ghway 74 4125 t CA 92260 Connie Zonka 49-305 Highway 74 #128 Palm Desert CA 92260 Louise Kempf 49-305 Highway 74 #131 Paim Desert CA 92260 Esth 49-30 Palm nn ighway 74 #134 ert CA 92260 Roger Dundas 49-305 Highway 74 4137 Palm Desert CA 92260 Batt Jan Kellogg 49-30 H ghway 74 #140 Palm D ert CA 92260 James & Eulene Massey 49-305 Highway 74 #143 Palm Desert CA 92260 Bob Miller 49-305 Highway 74 4146 Palm Desert CA 92260 Johr, and Ann Duggan 49-305 Highway 74 4149 Palm Desert CA 92260 Florence M. Marks 49-305 Highway 74 423 Palm Desert CA 92260 Kathleen Dale 49-305 Highway 74 4126 Palm Desert CA 92260 Yavanka Trbuhcvich 49-305 Highway 74 #129 Palm Desert CA 92260 Ed Difani 49-305 Highway 74 4132 Palm Desert CA 92260 Lola M. Chanter 49-305 Highway 74 #135 Palm Desert CA 92260 Managers 49-305 Highway 74 #138 Palm Desert CA 92260 Max & Ursula Savadt 49-305 Highway 74 4141 Palm Desert CA 92260 Trudy C. Hallway 49-305 Highway 74 4144 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jan Sa man 49-3 5 Highway 74 4147 Palm De' ert CA 92260 Bar 49-30 Palm axwell ighway 74 4150 rt CA 92260 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588 P. 07 Chary 49-30 Palm ffey 5 Highway 74 #151 rt CA 92260 Patricia Taylor 49-305 Highway 74 #154 Palm Desert CA 92260 Joanne P. Savona 49-305 Highway 74 #157 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jim Kirwan 49-305 Highway 74 #160 Palm Desert CA 92260 Glenn and Jessena Hafen 49-305 Highway 74 #163 Palm Desert CA 92260 Norrn 49-305 Palm D 5.ka StacK ghway 74 #166 rt CA 92260 Sherry Johnson 49-305 Highway 111 #169 Palm Desert CA 92260 John and Lynn Tessman 49-305 Highway 74 #172 Palm Desert CA 92260 Doris Phelan 49-305 Highway 74 #175 Palm Desert CA 92260 Harvey an M rgret Dickau 49-305 Hig ay 74 #178 Palm Deser CA 92260 Pearl Marsh .49-305 Highway 74 #152 Palm Desert CA 92260 Catherine Morris 49-305 Highway 74 #155 Palm Desert CA 92260 Don and Jo Fair 49-305 Highway 74 #156 Palm Desert CA 92260 Rosemary Legeay 49-305 Highway 74 #161 Palm Desert CA 92260 Terence and Christine Ryan 49-305 Highway 74 #164 Palm Desert CA 92260 J. C. 49-30 Palm ith Highway 74 #167 sert CA 92260 Georgia & Armen Abrahamian 49-305 Highway 74 . #170 Palm Desert CA 92260 Dee Jay 49-305 Highway 74 #173 Palm Desert CA 92260 Mary Jane Smith 49-305 Highway 74 #176 Palm Desert CA 92260 Jean Henson 49-305 Highway 74 #179 Palm Desert CA 92260 Kathy Shahayda 49-305 Highway 74 #153 Palm Desert CA 92260 Bet W bster 49-3Highway 74 #156 Pal m/D sart CA 92260 Robe t J Evans 49-30 ighway 74 #159 Palm a ert CA 92260 Richard & Geraldine Crofoot 49-305 Highway 74 #162 Palm Desert CA 92260 Michael and Barbra McGehee 49-305 Highway 74 #165 Palm Desert CA 92260 Norma R. wickliff 49-305 Highway 74 #168 Palm Desert CA 92260 Pat Bell 49-305 Highway 74 #171 Palm Desert CA 92260 Robe to & Philip Carlile 49-30 ghway 74 ' #174 Palm ert CA 92260 Rafa . Rosado 49-30 Highway 74 #177 Palm ert CA 92260 Anne Gookin 49-305 Highway 74 #180 Palm Desert CA 92260 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588 P. 08 William an Juanita Wilson Cindy Torres 49-305 Highway 74 #181 Palm Desert CA 92260 Geral a: Nancy Burks 49-305 'ighway 74 #184 Palm D ert CA 92260 Ray and Lorie Cohcon 49-305 Highway 74 #187 Palm Desert CA 92260 Christine Chehovin 49-305 Highway 74 #190 Palm Desert CA 92260 Hazel G. Maloney 49-305 Highway 74 #182 Palm Desert CA 92260 Steven N. Levine 49-305 Highway 74 #185 Palm Desert CA 92260 Donald Cameron 49-305 Highway 74 #188 Palm Desert CA 92260 Kenneth & Helen Fish 49-305 Highway 74 #191 Palm Desert CA 92260 Judi h 49-30 #183 Palm ldmar. ighway 74 ert CA 92260 Jame & /Hdith Langford 49-30 rii g'rway 74 #186 Palmesert CA 92260 Chuc d Vicky Trenk-e 49-30 highway 74 #189 Palm esert CA 92260 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588 P. 10 Harvey Dickau # 178 14-1301 Johnston Street Vancouver BC V6H-i3R9 Canada Edith Langford 14636 Carnell Whittier, CA 90603 #186 Judith Goldman # 183 c/o Kathy Edwards 130 Ashdale Ave Los Angeles, CA 9Q049 Charles Trenkie 695 Vista Lago Palm Desert, CA 92211 Gerald Burks 2859 Teal St. La Vern, CA 91750 #184 #189 Sherman and Lady Smith #82 P. O. Box 1955 Palm Desert, CA 92261 NOV-22-2004 MON 12:31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588 P. 09 John Mitchell 19614 Oakland Avenue Rialto, CA 92377 Janet Frank P. O. Box 1031 Palm Desert, CA 92261 410 Jack Small P. O. Box 1564 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 419 Jean Watson P. O. Box 3932 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Ethelyn Opel #44 1950 Silverleaf Circle #304 Carlsbad, CA 92209 #12 Deana Blissmer P. O. Box 10516 Palm Desert, CA 92255 #29 Richard Brown, Sr. #46 4350 Richard Crest Drive Taylorsville, UT 84119 Jean Jacque and Pam Sarfati #52 Sharon Carey 426 Marigold Ave. 3099 Rancho del Canon Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Carlsbad, CA 92549 Jackie Doyle #73 Bart Rallo c/o Abel Krieger 73-350 El Paseo #201 Palm Desert CA 92260 Ron & Melinda Lerg 527 Cienega Road Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Jeri Mirams 7 Rue Morsille Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. O. Box 1962 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Bea Davis 121 San Fernando Ave. Silverstrand Beach, CA 93035 Alfred Fitzgerald P. O. Box 50654 Pasadena, CA 91115-0657 #59 Warren Monroe #68 P. O. Box 3322 Idyllwild, CA 92549 #50 #83 Charles Burton # 110 73-427 Cabazon Peak Circle Palm Desert, CA 92260 #121 Paul Lawson P. O. Box 727 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 #130 Jane Santman #147 1929 Sylvan SE Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Betty Webster 1957 Temple Ave #204 Signal Hill, CA 90755 Esther Mann 901 Henman Ave, Apt 4D Evanston, IL 60202 Tom Rebentisch Barbara Maxwell 49-080 Buttonwood Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 #156 Robert Evans 72956 Tamarisk St, Palm Desert, CA 92260 J. C. Smith #167 74-478 Hwy 111 PMB 266 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phil and Bobbi Carlile 514 N. Hanover St. Anaheim, CA 92801 #122 John & Betsy Leffler 64690 E. Drifter Drive Tucson, AZ 85739 #14 439 #125 #134 Betty Jane Kellogg #140 P. O. Box 1195 Palm Desert, CA 92261 #150 Cheryl Coffey P. O. Box 187 Cedar Glen, CA 92321 #151 #159 Norm Stack #166 37200 S E Liewood Apt 15 Boring, OR 97009 #174 Rafael Rosado #177 27 W. 370 Geneva Rd #87 W. Chicago, IL 60185 s'o�4 oa CITY Of NU DESERT 73-5 TO FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-06T T FAx: 76o 341-7098 info@palm-deserr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PM 31862 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability Company, for approval of a parcel map to establish a one (1) lot subdivision with a condominium overlay to change the ownership structure from rental mobile home park to single family manufactured housing condominium units at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007). SUBJECT PROPERTY ON LN I ( � F- meoik, ii/ Q� Lm]IIII W(j/j(o�� � jo Ll IIII�11 /I/j• 1111111i4st Tomes ,I r, 111 'urm 41, ARBOR OESER.4ER N�'��� 3 RUSTIC Q'O ' • e& ,i▪ ' 4;SPUR r46 ▪ = V O U 4o O Asa a.6v ,o v �CT/pl2 N uU YUCCA Lk O 11L O Lk Y,iUIL'CAYSY A -G t O or G' E'. DR UN e 001 1'( Tibo � EN RI 4 10.46. �r INDIAN.HILLS WAY eer ,NibAir mit SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary November 25, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 10 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 29, 2004 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 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 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 Tess 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 Tess 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, 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 Tots 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 hookup. 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. 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. 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 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 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 Tots. 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 didnot 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 Tots 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 whatthey 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, theywanted 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 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 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 especiallya 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 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 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. 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 clays, 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 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. XII. 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.m. ATTEST: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /t m PHILIP DRELL, Secretary 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. TT IS MY PERMANENT RESIDENCE. I HAVE A STATEMENT WHICH I WISH TO READ INTO THE PERMANENT RECORD OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MAT 1"bR 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 COUNCILS DECISION AFTER DUE CONSIDERA T !ON O EITHER 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 SEWER/SEPTIC 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 MA I 1 ER 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 IT 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 COviMI i 1 LE". W r. 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 PROCESS. WE WAITED MOST OF THE SUMMER, COMMUNICATIONS DWINDLED AND I Received at Planning Commission moment Date; '"- i. ' 11 c i Case N0. 261 '3 I3t From; c;-%) m c }-. 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 THAT OUR RES! DENTS 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 BOUNDARIES". 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 34% 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" -1 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 CORREr.TED REPORT' TIIE SE C..0 R S ARE RECORDED. 3) REGARDING THE EXISTING ENCUMBRANCE OF $5.7 MILLION RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE (NON Ut1L1TY) EASEMENTS WEIICH"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 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 49-305 HWY 74 #86 INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK 3 o II, C C7( CD et) U o N.)4 CD ►- N C O C R 7 a /9 INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GENERAL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2004 UWe have looked 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: 0 P E 54 G t Common area appears to be included in my lot boundaries. 4 Adjacent property buildings appear to be in my lot boundaries. There is no-visableway for me to determine my lot boundary line. I am physically unable to determine whether my lot boundaries are correct. 8 Other ( SE�� cra�p) Name: Space # Phone: Date: 1t BD -To "WAE: auG.I.t t-1S cw i1-k5 foe-PA1-1.-t eatj This form has been provided by the Homeowners Association for the convenience of the responding residents. Put a check where applicahle and return to Pat Bell, President, # 171, 773-3771, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell had no items to report for the November 18, 2004 City Council meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PATRICIA BELL, President of the Indian Springs Homeowners Association, addressed the commission. She said she was to speak to the Planning Commission on this item as a hearing item, but they were informed at 4:45 p.m. that the hearing was canceled. Chairperson Jonathan explained that this was the time for items not on the agenda or non-public hearing items. Ms. Bell stated that as far as she was concerned, it had been taken off the agenda. Chairperson Jonathan stated that the commission would hear her comments at the appropriate time and thanked her. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 04-22 - BRAVA DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND GERHARD BEFELD, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust Parcel "A" 30 feet to the north to facilitate the land plan for the Brava Development, TT 32420. B. Case No. PMW 04-23 - BERNARD DEBONNE, Applicant Request .for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two Tots on Village Court to facilitate building construction. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 the neighborhood that should enhance the values of the surrounding homes. He asked for a motion. Action:. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2314, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-23, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voted no). Mr. Smith asked for clarification that the motion included the condition relative to the prohibition of amplified sound and bells. Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioners Lopez and Tschopp concurred. F. Case No. PM 31862 - INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map to establish a one -lot subdivision witn a condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007). Chairperson Jonathan asked for a staff report, reiterating that it is the expectation that this matter would be continued. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission received copies of the tentative map in their packets which showed the proposed lotting which was for a one -lot subdivision with a condominium overlay for the existing 191-space mobile home park. The project is located on the west side of Highway 74 at 49-305 Highway 74, and the property is a 34.7-acre property which was established in 1970. He explained that the applicant seeks to change the ownership structure from a rental mobile home park to single-family manufactured housing 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 condominium units. He stated that the proposed map would not alter the existing 191-unit density or impact on the physical appearance of the park. There would be no displacement of tenants or residents. Residents would be able to choose to buy their condominium unit or continue to rent their space. Government Code Section 66427.5, a copy of which was attached to the staff report, prescribed the criteria to be considered in reviewing the application. That was outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the report. And on page 4 staff showed how each of those issues had been addressed. He stated that the City was quite limited by the applicable government code as to the issues it may consider as part of its review of the map. He said the City Attorney might wish to comment on some of the issues, but basically, in the last day or so staff received a couple of pieces of correspondence from Mr. Close of Gilchrist & Rutter, an attorney for the applicant, questioning the appropriateness of certain conditions included in the report. He believed the City Attorney was requesting additional time to review certain portions of that information. It was Mr. Smith's understanding that a continuance to January 18, 2005, was being requested in order to accomplish that. He concluded by asking if the Commission had any questions. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there were a couple of conditions of approval being recommended by Mr. Greenwood. Mr. Smith concurred and thanked Chairperson Jonathan for the opportunity to comment. He explained that was received just recently from the Department of Public Works and it was seeking the street deceleration lane and he was sure Mr. Close might wish to comment on that also, but it was there for the Commission's consideration. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing. He reminded those present that if they wished to speak, they had a right to do that. In the event that the matter was continued, there would be further opportunity to address the Planning Commission. That would be at the continued meeting, which in all likelihood would be the second meeting in January, January 18, 2005. He explained that the procedure was to ask the 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 applicant to address the Commission first, then to take testimony in favor of the project, take testimony in opposition to the project, and then to give the applicant an opportunity to address the comments that have been made and then close the public hearing or continue the public hearing. In addition to that, he requested all those addressing the Planning Commission to make their comments in five minutes or less and to avoid being repetitive other than to say they endorse earlier comments. With that, he asked the applicant if they wished to address the Commission. MS. SUE LOFTIN, an Attorney representing the applicant, 433 C La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego, 92122, stated that they would be requesting to reserve time to respond on the 18th or to whenever it was continued. But for this evening, she would limit her comments to just the issues they have outstanding. She thanked staff and the City Attorney's office for their cooperation and work on the project. She was hopeful they would be able to resolve these issues. She said this was a request for a one -lot subdivision and approval of the Tenant Impact Report. Both acts were greatly restricted because of the nature of the subdivision. It wasn't like some of the things they had seen earlier this evening, VVhicrl vvds new construction. This wasn't even like a conversion of an apartment building. Mobile home parks have their very own laws, because it is such a different and peculiar type of housing environment. For example, the Tenant Impact Report incorporates, as required by law, the state -mandated rent control provisions to protect the residents who select not to buy. It's the only instance in the state where there are those types of protections. Having said that, she wanted to cover briefly their comments that came in writing, and as such, would be requesting that they be incorporated into the record for tonight's public hearing: the two letters from Richard Close of Gilchrist & Rutter, and the correspondence from Anne James, President of James & 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Associates, regarding the septic system, and the correspondence from Larry Owens regarding the septic system. Condition No. 3 from the Department of Community Development, they were requesting that the last sentence be deleted. The sentence reads, "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." The statute provides very specific means of establishing market rents and what can be charged. For example, attached to their Tenant Impact Report was the schedule of rent increases that would be the maximum rent increases that could be imposed upon a low income household and that was a matter of a calculation, as opposed to really having anything to do with the City's rent review process. The market rents by statute had to be established by an MAI appraiser. Again, 66427.5 specified and restricted how those rents could be established. With regard to Condition No. 5 and the request to put in a sewer system, 66428.1 did not allow for any onsite improvements unless those were imposed in response to a state Title 25 inspection which is separate and apart from this process. She said the septic system that is existing is in good working order and condition, has never been cited for polluting in any manner whatsoever. She informed Commission that Mr. Owens with Tr i- Star Construction was going to speak to the issue in a moment. Further, she said the Commission was restricted to mitigating an existing health and safety condition for an offsite improvement. The requirement was for an on -site improvement. As stated, that is contrary to the HCD Title 25 Guidelines, as well as the governing section of the Government Code. It was their position that state law preempts the local ordinance to the contrary and for other reasons stated in their correspondence. Further, both as to this condition and they just received that evening the Engineering conditions, but as to both, any requirement for an offsite improvement for an existing health and safety condition required that the condition provide that it could be 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 completed in one year with an unsecured agreement and that was in 66528.1 Subsection E. Lastly, with regard to the indemnity, they accepted that it was a common practice that a subdivider indemnify the City; however, this was a little broad, so they were requesting that they include at the end of the first sentence, "except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by the applicant, or any of the residents, to set aside, void, or annul any of the conditions of approval." Obviously, if there was litigation, they didn't believe it was appropriate to ask them to indemnify and pay for their defense of any position they themselves might take. With regard to the Engineering conditions, Condition No. 1 was requesting that monuments be set. They were in the process of setting monuments; however, it exceeds the authority under 66428.1 F. The condominium plan was under the authority of the California Department of Real Estate and Subsection F reads, "The local agency may not require the applicant to file or record a tentative and final map unless the conversion creates five or more parcels. The number of. condominium units or interests created by the conversion shall not determine whether the filing of a parcel or tentative and final map shall be required." Therefore, as to the approval of this one -lot subdivision, they couldn't have a condition that requires a final map, and in particular a condition that was related to a map under the authority of the state. With regard to Condition No. 2, this was requiring offsite improvements and they needed to study this particular issue; however, this issue did come up previously and they talked to some of the people that have been involved, they happened to be at the meeting tonight and it was found not feasible at that time and it did not mitigate an existing health and . safety issue as required under 66428.1 D. And if it was required, it could not be a condition of a final approval under Subsection E. Ms. Loftin said they were very pleased to be before the Commission and believed the project in terms of protecting the 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 residents who select not to buy was a positive project. For those people that want to buy when they are completed, over time it ultimately changes the two -tiered ownership where one party owns the land and one party owns the home and joins those two interests. Over time it would become 100% owner -occupied without any rental of the land and an owner of a mobile home that has resulted in other cities in other areas in projects which are maintained well and with residents who have pride of ownership and ownership participation in the community. With that, she said she would like to turn the mic over to Larry Owens, but also wanted to let the Commission know that their engineer, Larry McDermott, was present if they had questions; Anne James, who was in charge of the maintenance of the septic system was present to answer questions, as well as Richard Close. MR. LARRY OWENS, the owner of Tri-Star Construction, said he would be speaking about the septic systems within the Indian Springs park. His company for the past several years, and now, had completed an extensive program to locate, inspect and install manholes and risers on all 46 of the septic systems located within the park. With this project completed, along with any repairs that they had to make that were necessary to the leaching areas, he believed this brought the system up-to-date and in a good working condition. Any repairs they did have to make was relatively easy to the leaching system. There was sufficient expansion area for future expansion that may become necessary in the future. It was his opinion that the septic systems were in good working condition and with the park's stringent maintenance and pumping program, along with an occasional repair, the system should last indefinitely. He thanked the Commission. Ms. Loftin informed Commission that Mr. Owens is an engineer, as well as a contractor. With that they shortened the presentation in light of the fact they would be continuing the matter and welcomed any questions the Commission had. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 There were no questions. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he had some Request to Speak cards and would entertain those comments first. There were three in favor and one didn't specify, so he would start with the three in favor. One was Sue Loftin, one Larry Owens and the third was Richard Close for the applicant. He didn't know if Mr. Close had further comments to make. MR. RICHARD CLOSE, an attorney for the appiicant, 1299 Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica, California, addressed the Commission. He said one of the conditions that they object to, as Ms. Loftin referred to, was the one that states that the rent control board/commission of the City would have ongoing jurisdiction after the conversion. For the purpose of establishing rents, under state law the local rent control authority disappeared and had no force and effect on the property after the first sale of a lot. So legally after the first sale of a lot, the Commission would have no authority over setting rents. It would all be established by a state rent control law which would determine what the appropriate rents were. The way the condition was currently worded, the last sentence, was contrary to that statutory provision. Number two, they all knew that the major issue that they hear about is the sewer system. They understood that the residents would like a brand new park; they understood that. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether the current septic system was adequate, whether it was doing any damage to the environment, and whether it was working sufficiently. Their experts, and they have done extensive work on it and he had overseen the issue of septic tanks for about seven years on this park, and this park had more pumping, more testing, than any other property that he was aware of, for the sole purpose to make sure that it's in top working condition and does not do any damage to the environment. In spite of all the precautions, the costs of this maintenance was approximately $8 per month per space. That was the same amount that would be paid on a monthly basis to the City or agency that would administer a sewer line. So if $4 million was spent, the cost would not go down. In 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 fact, the Department of Real Estate would require the residents to pay into a reserve for the whole property and the sewer system. So it didn't make sense for the residents of the park, it didn't make sense for the area, for the residents, to be required to spend $4 million for a new sewer system. As well, his letter set forth a number of legal reasons why the City no longer had jurisdiction with this issue. When he said no longer, these laws were imposed, unfortunately from the point of view of the City, restricting what conditions can be imposed because many cities, especially in the early 1990's, were trying to condition conversions on more parking places -- upgrading facilities. And the legislature said no, we want to make it easy for conversions to occur because we want to see resident ownerships of mobile home parks. So the state enacted a law saying that cities cannot impose conditions upgrading of the property type of conditions on a conversion. And that was why there were a number of restrictions on what the City can do. Reading the local newspapers, he said they probably knew that they had these problems with the City of Palm Springs. That led to litigation that really settled the law in this area. It was an appellate court case, the Eldorado Case, which established the rights of the park and the responsibilities of the city. He said there was an ongoing $6 million lawsuit against the City of Palm Springs because of the delay of the conversion. Also, the residents in Eldorado were still very upset because the eight years of delay doubled the prices of the lots, so he didn't think anyone in this park or the owner wanted a delay. They wanted to see the project move forward in a reasonable manner in compliance with all the laws and they really appreciated the participation of 'the City Attorney's office and the cooperation of the city agencies. He thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he had a Request to Speak Card from Mari Schmidt. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 MS. MARI SCHMIDT, a resident of Indian Springs Space 86, addressed the commission. She said she turned that card in prior to the opening of the public hearing for a very specific reason. At approximately 4:30 this afternoon, she said Phil Drell called Pat Bell, the President of their homeowners association, and told her that this meeting, this public hearing, was to be continued until January 18. There were approximately 120 people who were to come this evening to publicly hear what the applicant had to say. And her effort to reach the Chair before he opened the hearing had that at its basis. They got very busy and called everyone, telling them based on his information that this hearing was not going to happen this evening. They have some very elderly people who love to attend these kinds of meetings when it's important. Some of them are infirm and in wheelchairs, so they could see their zeal in not drumming them out to a meeting if it wasn't going to happen. She thought Phil was very much trying to help them in that regard. By opening this public hearing this evening, they also established a date which was very critical to the conversion process. She wasn't sure if they were aware of that, but it now established the conversion as being real and ongoing. She hesitated to even conjure or try to think of the ramifications of holding the public hearing when the public could not be there or were told not to be there. That was the reason she put the note on her card to please hear what she had to say before opening the hearing. Just the few comments that Sue Loftin and Richard Close said this evening should have been heard by the 120 residents who would have an opportunity to respond to that. So she asked that everything that had been said so far this evening be said again in January when everyone, she guaranteed them, would be here. She was to speak for 64 of the residents regarding possible questions on the boundaries of the lots in the plat. She didn't know what to do. She didn't know what stance to take. She thought the City put itself in some jeopardy. She said they needed to help them with how to respond to this. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan said he appreciated her concern. He said she asked to speak before the matter was opened to a public hearing. He explained that she is part of the public hearing, so that would have been inappropriate and why she was speaking now. This was the public hearing process. Number two, the matter had been publicly noticed, so they were bound to open the public hearing. And number three, as he said earlier, everyone that was here tonight that has offered testimony could do so again at the January meeting, and all those that weren't here that want to address the commission would have an opportunity to do that in January. In addition to that, the minutes of the meeting would be available to the public. Anyone that wanted to get those minutes could contact the City or go onto the website and retrieve them. In addition, there was an audio tape that could be made available for those that wanted to listen to the actual proceedings. So hopefully she would come to the conclusion that the process is fair and just. He thanked her for her comments. Ms. Schmidt said she had a couple of other comments since he insisted on holding the hearing. She told them that her toilets backed up. And that is about the sixth time in the last five months that that has occurred. She personally had witnessed the pumping of two septic tanks that were backing up last week. It was consistently a problem in the park and part of her point tonight was if she was not here and if Pat Bell wasn't here, no one could respond to some of the comments being made about their system. They have to play catch up or they have to get tapes and be brought up to date on what has occurred tonight. And they would have been here if it were not for the City's staff alerting them that there was no meeting. It was a conundrum that was not going to go away she had a feeling. Mr. Drell added that the applicant's comments were virtually verbatim from the letter that they submitted to the staff and she could have a copy of them, which again, summarized completely all their comments. She asked if they could have 191 of them. That was her point. Mr. Drell said she could have 1 91 . 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Referring to the Request to Speak Cards, Chairperson Jonathan next asked Pat Bell to address the commission. MS. PAT BELL, the President of the Indian Springs Homeowners Association, addressed the commission. She said it was difficult to say what she was going to say now because it had almost all been said by Mari Schmidt. They were very discombobulated that things have gone the way they have this evening having been primed to come tonight and put forth their stand on what was being said and then told forget it, don't come, and now told go ahead, you can say it. She stated that in no way was their stand this evening to slow down, or stop, or change the position of the conversion going ahead. That wasn't it at all. They knew it would and they just wanted to make sure it went through smoothly and they have some concerns. And those concerns she would rather not say too much about tonight. She had the good luck to be able to listen to what the other side was saying and maybe she could base her position a little stronger next time. She stated that she did not believe that Title 25 covered what Mr. Close had in mind, that it was the main governing body for them. She believed that the City Ordinance 743, which was based on the state plumbing code, both of those were applicable in this case and that was the stand she would take when the hearing continued on the 18th. She said they had other issues. Lot lines were one of them. She thought for sure that would be the biggie tonight. Her biggie was the sewer situation and she was very much interested in discussing it with them on the 18th. She believed that was just about all she had to say tonight and thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission regarding this matter. 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 MR. CHARLES BURTON said he bought a place in Indian Springs, Space No. 110, in September. He did not know these issues were coming up. He knew there was a possibility of conversion. He had no idea that the septic and sewer system was an issue, and the streets and the line lots, although he could have anticipated that the line lots would be an issue. He wanted to make sure that he understood that they have access to the minutes this evening and asked about the procedure for going about getting them, and if they could have a copy of Mr. Close's letter and any other information that they might disseminate to the rest of the residents of Indian Springs. Chairperson Jonathan asked staff when the minutes might be available for the public. There was a question about the dissemination of draft minutes. Mr. Hargreaves stated that since draft minutes are part of the Planning Commission's packets, it was a public document. They weren't the official minutes, they would be draft. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they were draft until approved or modified and approved by the Planning Commission. So those could be made available to the public. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Chairperson Jonathan .asked when the draft minutes would be ready. Staff indicated that draft minutes should be ready by Friday, the 17th. Chairperson Jonathan informed the audience that they should be available at that time. In addition, all attachments and all the documents, letters and so forth were part of the public record and would be available as well. It was noted that if they wanted an approved set of minutes, those would be available on December 22. He asked if that answered Mr. Burton's question. He concurred and thanked the Commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Pat Bell asked to be able to speak again. Chairperson Jonathan agreed. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Ms. Bell explained that there was a very strict time frame involved for certain procedures to be done. One of them began today, and 180 days from now, according to the Tenant Impact Report and she hoped she was quoting that correctly, 180 days from now another period begins and that count started today, whether they were privy to give their whole spiel tonight or not, it started today because they did start it today and the City started it today. Another thing that was happening today was a very important definition of resident which begins the first time this commission hears these things. That was important because anybody who bought a house after or was in escrow after this date was not considered a resident. That meant they wouldn't have the same terms for buying or renting as the resident. She said she might have that a little bit wrong. That was why this date was so important if it was going to start counting tonight, even though all the material had not been heard tonight. She thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else who had not testified previously who wished to address the Planning Commission regarding this matter. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Loftin spoke from the audience and said they would reserve further comments until January. Leaving the public hearing open, Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments or action. Action: it was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, continuing Case No. PM 31863 to January 18, 2005. Motion carried 5-0. 46 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith RECEIVE D 2004 'Olf1 U 1TY DEVELCPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY PALM DESERT FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK DATE: December 6, 2004 The following should be considered conditions of approval forthe above referenced project: (1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor. (2) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Deceleration lane required on Highway 74. 8' sidewalk required on Highway 74. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Mark GreenvYood, P.E. G;\PubWorks\Conditions of ApprovallPMAPSITPM 31862 revised.wpd LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 3, 2004 VIA FEDEX David J. Erwin, Esq. Best, Best & Krieger LLP 74-760 Highway 111 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Dear Mr. Erwin: TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyers.com RECEIVED u 7 2004 C'OMMuNITY DEVELCPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT On November 29, 2004, Sue Loftin and I met with Philip Drell and Stephen R. Smith of the City of Palm Desert (the "City") Planning Department regarding Indian Springs' Parcel Map Application Number 31862 (the "Application") to be heard by the Palm Desert Planning Commission (the "Commission") on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. They stated that staff would recommend to the Commission that it condition approval of the Application on Indian Springs' abandonment of its septic system and construction of a sewer system within Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("the Park") that would connect to the City sewer system. They contended that Palm Desert Municipal Code section 8.60 ("Section 8.60" or the "Ordinance") requires the sewer condition. To the contrary, by its very terms, the application of Section 8.60 is limited to those properties listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment. Furthermore, if the City were to contend that its Ordinance compelled Indian Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such an ordinance would be illegal and unenforeceable for several reasons. First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer system. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality OFFICES GILCHRIST & RL'TTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 2 or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks. In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage.1 In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section 13360. The State Water Board stated: "Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate. If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section 13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied." Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will force us to challenge the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60 is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable regulations. Water Code §§ 13280-13284. L-AW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 3 Our consultant's have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would cost in excess of $4,000,000. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system will be vigorously challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage. As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4th 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Accordingly, we expect that you will advise the Planning Commission at its Hearing on December 7, 2004 that it must not impose a sewer connection as a condition of approval of parcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIST $ ' TER Profs" Corpor• ion Richard H. Close Of the Firm RH C: aap/ 110644_ 1 / 1203 04 3416.006 cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) Sabby Jonathan, Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Sonia Campbell, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Jim Lopez, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 6, 2004 VIA FEDEX Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rciose@grlawyars.com P R°i . <'-,` •�'it TVPD 7 2004 "OM BUNNY`'' DE7E; OPMENT DEPARTMENT :IT`,' " ;'ALJM DESERT. Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty: We have reviewed the Department of Community Development Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staffs proposed Resolution to approve the Application with the attached Conditions of Approval. Following are our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on the Application on Tuesday, December 7; 2004. Condition of Approval No. 3. Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code section 66427.5(f)(1), rent for non -purchasing residents may increase upon conversion to market levels over four years. However, the last sentence of Condition No. 3 as drafted states, "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." In fact, upon conversion, state law governs the four-year increase to market rents, and the City's rent control rules and LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST Sr, RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 2 jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4` 1153, 1178 (4`h Dist. 2002) conversion occurs, and local rent control terminates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no circumstances ... is it left to local governments to legislate when state law takes effect." (Id. at p.1179.) Accordingly, the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deleted entirely. Condition of Approval No. 5. For the reasons stated in our letter to the City Attorney dated December 3, 2004, a copy of which each Planning Commissioner received, proposed Condition of Approval No. 5, which purports to require Indian Springs to abandon its septic system and connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and improper, and must be removed as a condition of approval. Condition of Approval No. 6. Draft Condition of Approval No. 6 would require Indian Springs to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the Application by the City or the Commission. The Staff Report recognizes that the City's action with respect to the Application has the potential to result in litigation. However, given the illegal Conditions of Approval discussed above (as well as Condition of Approval No. 6 itself as currently drafted), litigation against the City regarding its approval of the Application very possibly would be initiated by Indian Springs itself or by residents of the Park who object to the conditions which will interfere with and delay the Park's conversion and their ability to purchase lots in a timely manner. Although it may generally be appropriate to require, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, that an applicant agree to defend the City against attacks from others regarding its approval, the City certainly may not require an applicant such as Indian Springs to agree to defend the City against challenges to Conditions of Approval which the applicant objects to and regarding which the applicant itself initiates an action to void or annul. Accordingly, Indian Springs requests that the Commission amend Condition No. 6 as currently drafted to include the following language at the end of the first sentence therein: "... except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void or annul any of the Conditions of Approval." LAW OFFICES GILCIIRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 3 For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIS . & RUTTER Proforation Richard H. Close Of the Firm TWC:twc/110716_1/120604 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. December 2, 2004 City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Re: Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Conversion, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66425.1, PM 31862 Public Hearing: December 7, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Requested Action: Request Approval of Parcel Map, Without Sewer Condition Dear Mayor, and Honorable City Counsel Persons: The purpose of this correspondence is to request you approve the Parcel Map ("PM") 31862, without the imposition of a condition to connect to sewers. I am President of James and Associates, Inc., and have been involved with the management and maintenance of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 for the last eighteen (18) years, including without limitation, the Septic System. We became aware 10 years ago through the Southern California Water Quality Control Board and the Coachella Valley Water District of the seriousness of ground water contamination in the Coachella Valley. We agreed to a program to raise all lids and risers on the septic tanks to above ground levels, making the maintenance and testing easier, and the tanks more accessible to pumping. The project cost was approximately $300,000 and was completed in 2003. Pursuant to the requirements of the Water Quality Control Board, all tanks were to be pumped at the end of this project and will continue to be pumped on a scheduled three year cycle. We had discontinued the use of chemicals because of possible ground water contamination, using pumping as an alternative to break up scum layers. This resulted in the rotation program referred to above. 255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588 E-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net JAMES & ASSOCIATES, I\ C With the -completion of the program, the Coachella Valley Water District confirmed that as long as the Septic System is maintained in good working condition. there is no basis, environmental or otherwise, to require hook up to sewer. The septic system consists of a solid cement tank with two separate compartments, with a line from the home entering the tank on the solid waste side, letting the liquid flow through the outlet side of the tank to a leach field or seepage pit, which filters through gravel and sand. We have 46 tanks ranging from 1,500 to 2,500 gallons, depending on location, and serving 3-5 spaces per tank. Our maintenance program includes a routine of checking the septic tanks for scum and water levels, and inspecting the leach fields. In addition to daily inspections and monitoring by park staff, Coachella Valley Water District requires annual testing, done by ATS Laboratories, who take random samples and submit the test results to Coachella Valley Water District. This testing helps protect the environment. We have always been in compliance and within the required range, with no citations for contamination. Letters are sent periodically to the Residents to remind them of how to maintain and protect the septic system, and the ground water table from contamination. A binder with Map Locations, Septic Schedules and Annual Inspections is available upon request. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Anne James President Cc: James Goldstein Richard Close, Esq. L. Sue Loftin, Esq. G:\Documents\Properties\lndian Springs 452\Septics\Letter re Maintenance 12-2-04.doc 255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588 E-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net Contracting, Excavation, Grading "We dig the Coachella Valley" Friday, December 03, 2004 Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Palm Desert, California To whom it may concern, in 2003 Tri-Star Contracting completed an extensive program to locate. inspect and install manholes and risers on all 46 systems within the park This project having been completed along with any repairs necessary to the leaching areas makes this an up to date and good working system. Any repairs that have been made to the leaching system are relatively simple since there is sufficient room for further seepage area expansion. Furthermore these repairs are made with the most current materials and up graded standards with in the industry. As an example, seepage pits have been installed and are buried straight down into the ground leading to a prolonged seepage area out of reach of landscape problems. In my opinion the septic systems are in good working condition and with the parrs stringent maintenance and pumping program along with an occasional repair these systems should last indefinitely. Sincerely, Lam) J. Owens Bus (760) 251-5454 15-501 Little Moronpu Roast, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 Fax (760) 251-5458 e-mail: inf,®Tri-Star. in fo JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Received at Planning Commission meeting Date: '-h V r`f Case No, s7 51 '7' From: S L <: December 21, 2004 Charles Springer California Regional Water Quality Control Board 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Dear Mr. Springer: Enclosed please find the original documents from A.T.S. Laboratories for your files. If there is anything else you need, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Anne James President Cc: James Goldstein Richard Close G:\Documents\Properties\Indian Springs 4 52\Septics\Letter Charles Springer 12-21-04.doc 255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588 ATS LABORATORIES December 15, 2004 Indian Springs Mobile Park ° Gentlemen, Enclosed please find results of analysis of samples submitted by you on November 17, 2004 and covered under our lab no: 4603. A portion of the sample was contracted to D Tek Analytical and a copy of their report is enclosed. Thank you for the opportunity to serve your company needs. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 760-344-2532. Sincerely, Linda L. Webster Lab supervisor 104 S. 8TH ST, BRAWLEY, CA 92227 (760) 344-2532 FAX (760) 344-3459 ATS LABORATORIES Lab no: 4603 Reported: 12-15-04 Indian Springs Mobile Park Discharge 1. Space 96 2. Space 150 EPA 601/602 reported in ug/1 Benzene Bromobenzene Bromodichlormethane Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chlorodibromomethane Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromomethane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene Received 11-17-04 Space 96 Space 150 DLR ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 1.0 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 1.0 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 ND ND 0.5 104 S. 8TH ST., BRAWLEY, CA. 92227 (760) 344-2532 FAX (760)344-3459 ATS LABORATORIES Lab no: 4603 Indian Springs Mobile Park Septic discharge EPA 601/602 continued: Reported: 12-15-04 Received: 11-17-04 Space 96 Space 150 DLR cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND 0.5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND 0.5 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND 0.5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND 0.5 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND 0.5 Ethylbenzene ND ND 0.5 Methylene chloride ND ND 1.0 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND 0.5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND 0.5 Tetrachloroethene ND ND 0.5 Toluene 74.7 22.5 0.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND 0.5 Trichloroethene ND ND 0.5 Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND 0.5 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND 0.5 Vinyl chloride NI) ND 0.5 Xylenes, Total ND ND 1.0 6.43 6.95 NA 663 492 1 0.58 1.76 NA 41.00 46.66 0.1 pH Total dissolved solids Nitrate Total Nitrogen Port' of analysis by D Tek Analytical, copy of report enclosed. Linda L. Webster, Lab supervisor 104 S. 8th Street, Brawley, Ca. 92227 (760) 344-2532 FAX (760) 344-3459 -3 California Re -ional Water Quality eintrol Board Colorado River Basin Region Terry Tamminen 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, California 92260 Secretary for (760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341-6820 Environmental http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb7 Protection Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to lake immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, visit our website. November 3, 2004 Indian Springs MH Estates 225 N. El Cielo , Suite 140 # 286 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6973 RE: REMINDER NOTICE ANNUAL REPORT FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MH ESTATES, BOARD ORDER NO. 97-50017 The 2004 Annual monitoring report for Indian Springs MH Estates is to be submitted to our office by January 15, 2005. If the facility is not in operation, or there is no discharge during a required reporting period, the discharger shall forward a letter to the Regional Board indicating that there has been no activity during the required period. Please be sure that the name of the facility, Board Order No. and WDID No. appear on your form. Note that the report should be signed by a duly authorized representative of the discharger prior to submittal of the report to our office or it will be considered invalid. Failure to submit this report by the above date may subject you to enforcement actions including, but not limited to, administrative civil liability of up to $1,000.00 per day pursuant to Section 13268 of the California Water Code. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (760) 776-8941. ?�aribei (Rodriguez Sanitary Engineering Technician Trainee MR/hs File: 7A 33 1 168 011, Indian Springs MH Estates, Board Order No. 97-50017 California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 97-500 INDIAN SPRINGS 1VIII ESTATES WDTD NO. 7A 33 1168 011 ORDER NO. 97-50017 REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY ANNUAL REPORTING YEAR: �� 4/ 1. Estimate of the total maximum daily flow of sewage discharged to the sewerage system (septic tank/seepage pit systems). 2. . List any proposed changes in the sewage disposal facilities during the upcoming year. 3. Report any surfacing of wastewater or other failures in any of the systems during the past year. 4. Swimming pool wastewater shall be monitored for. Total Dissolved Solids before discharge. 5. One of the septic tank/seepage ph or leach field disposal systems for every 20 septic tank systems shall be sampled during November. The samples (all grab samples) shall be analyzed for the following: Total Dissolved Solids mg/L (2 7 3 Volatile Organics mg/L ATTACH RESULTS Hydrogen Ion pH (J, 4 3 p r Nitrate as NO3-N mg/L Total Nitrogen ing/L / , O 0 The collection, preservation and holding times of all samples shall be in accordance with U.S. Environmental . Protection Agency approved. procedures. All analysis shall be conducted by a laboratory certified by. the State Department of Health Services to perform the required analyses. I declare under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature: ANNE JAMES (President) Title: �_•\ � � — �S` _— _ JAMES & ASSOCIATES INC. Agent for Owner pate; \'2_�2\�'—\_- 255 N. El Clelo Suite 140 #286 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone (760) 320-2217 CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME ESTATES WDID NO: 7A331168 011 ORDER NO.: 97-50017 REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY ANNUAL REPORTING YEAR; o20D� /,,q 3 45-0 1. Estimate of the total maximum1daily flow of sewage discharged to the sewerage system (septic tank/seepage ;.() pit systems) \�\ �`yJ`� W �cur--3 2. List any proposed changes in the sewage disposal facilities during the upcoming year. 3. Report any surfacing of wastewater or other failures in any of the systems during the past year. Sc�cc�.-g-�C►.� . 4. Swimming pool wastewater shall be monitored for total dissolved solids before discharge. • 5. One of the septic tank/seepage pit or leach field disposal systems for every 20 septic tank systems shall be sampled during November. The samples (all grab samples) shall be analyzed for the following: Total Dissolved Solids Volatile Organics mg/L ATTACH RESULTS Hydrogen ion pH C D Nitrate as NO,-N . mg/L ! , 7 j Total Nitrogen mg/L The collection, preservation and holding times of all samples shall be in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved procedures. All analysis shall be conducted by a laboratory certified by the State Department of Health Services to perform the required analyses. I declare under the penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. ANNE JAMES (President) JAMES & ASSOCIATES INC. Agent for Owner 255 N. El Cielo Suite 140 #286 Paler Springs, CA 92262 Phone (760) 320-2217 Signature: Date: '�Z_ ,a-TEK Analytical Laboratories, IL 9020 Kenamar Drive. Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92121 18581566-4540 FAX (858) 566-45412 ATS LABORATORIES 104 S. 8* Street Brawley, CA 92227 Attn: Ms. Linda Webster Date of Report: Sampling Date: Date Sample Received: Date Analyzed: Analyzed By: Method: Units: Sample Type: Project Name: Analysis Benzene Bromobenzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoforrn Brcmiomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chiorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochl oromethame Dibromomethane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,1-Dichloroethane 1.2- Dichloroethanc 1,1- Dichlorocthene 12/14/04 11/17/04 11/18/04 November 22, 2004 ASL EPA 601-602 µg/L Waste Water 4603 / Indian Springs Mobile Park ANALYSES RESULTS Detection Limits 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Log Number: 04-5524 Sample IT): Space 96 Pagc 1 666666636666666663 04-5525 Space 150 Nt) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND IT'D ND NT) NIA Nh ND ND ND ND Analytical Laboratories, I►. 9020 Keenamar Drive, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92121 (858) 566.4540 FAX (858) 566-4542 Analysis Detection Log Number: 04-5524 04-5525 Limits Sample ID: Space 96 Space 150 Dichlorodifluorcmethane 0.5 ND ND cis-1,2- Dichloroethene 0.5 ND ND trans- 1,2- Dichloroethenc 0.5 ND ND 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.5 ND ND cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 ND ND trans- 1,3-llichloropropenc 0.5 ND ND Ethylbenzcne 0.5 ND ND Methylene Chloride 1.0 ND ND 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 ND ND 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 ND ND Tetrachloroethene 0.5 ND ND Toluene 0.5 74.7 22.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.5 ND ND 1,1,2-Triehloroethane 0.5 ND ND 't richloroethene 0.5 ND NT) Trichlorofluoromethane 0.5 NT) ND Vinyl Chloride 0.5 ND ND Xylencs (Total) 1.0 ND NT) *ND = None Detected Ellen Atienza Operations Manager Page 2 D-TEK ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. 9020 Kenamar Drive, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92121 (858) 566-4540 FAX (858) 566-4542 ATS Laboratories 104 S. 8th St. Brawley, CA 92227 Attn: Linda Webster Project ID: 4603-Indian Log Number Sample ID 04-5524 04-5525 Springs Mobile Park Analysis: Method: Date: Analyst: RL: Units: 1. Space 96 2. Space 150 Page 1 Date Reported: 12/14/04 Date Sampled: 11/17/04 Date Received: 11/18/04 Sample Type: Water Nitrate-N SM4500NO3E 11/19/04 OJ 0.10 mg/L 0.58 1.76 CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MON1TOR1N01 AND REPORTING PROGRAM PoR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK WDID NO.: 7A331168011 ORDER NO.: 97-500(17) REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION YEAR: Report shall include the location of the septic tankiseepage pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scum layer in each compartment. Please use this form for additional septic tanks. Results shalt be reported for the following: Date Nearest Thickness Inlet Thickness Outlet of Inspection Specs No. Scum Layer/finches) Scum Layer/(inches) ///i'7/Cy / S' iat:.r7 fr/ /7/Cf1 11/18/tc( 18 74.414/(f/r /0y� / / / 7 i f o a .S ic -, ,4 - // Z 070,1 iiirzie,t/ 2.7 P /J7/,04t in lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped Cif needed). I declare under the penalty of law that ! have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, 1 believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. l am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature: XLZ-6, Title: Date: -Q/ / C 7 CALIFORN1A WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORLNG..AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOFi INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK \NDID NO,: 7A331 188O t 1 YEAR: 2 c ORDER NO.: 97-500{17) REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION Report shall include the location of the septic tank/seepage pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scum layer in each compartment. Please use this form for additional septic tanks. Results shalt be reported for the following: Date Nearest Thickness Inlet Thickness Outlet of Inspection Space No. Scum Layer/(inches) Scum LayerRlnches) ri//fie 3,c -44.f:7 ienpi c 3 e P4k_ 90 !r. %iz-/c.v 43 Gefe .a^ / /i if/0 v /O/ai/cV 6-0 {� i, in/'pq//eft .lip/ley. icAst/oV In Lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped Cif needed}. I declare under the penalty of law that t have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in thin document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, 1 believe that the information is true, accurate, end complete, 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the 'possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature4 Title: '--77/4"-or-or a-c-/ Date: /'2-/ //47 <% CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FAR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK WD1D NO.: 7A3311680-1l ORDER NO.: 97-5OO 17) REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION YEAR: 2 `y Report shall include the location of the septic tank/seepage pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scum layer in each compartment. Please use this farm for additional septic tanks. Results shall be reported for the following: Date of Inspection .0//e1-/ / b/©9i5-71// 0 01 Nearest Specie No. 5-9 1/1`71/0.- 72. Thickness Inlet Scum Layer/finches) t r kft-01",60 14.4,41/4 Thickness Outlet Scum Layer/(Inches) %i/V/PVsb---A//e/ - to lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped (if needed). I declare under the penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, i believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the 'possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature: Title: 1.: t".,i Date: ////veV CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK WIND NO.: 7A33116801' 1 ORDER NO.: 97-S00(17) REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION YEAR: a e G` Report shall include the location of the septic tank/seepage pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scurn layer in each compartment. Please use this farm for additional septic tanks. Results shall be reported for the following: Hate Nearest of Inspection See No. q/i/ V Pj/f/oci -1///s//c41 ityb/C qs- Thickness inlet Scum Layer/(Inches) Thickness Outlet Scurn Layer/(inches) 44w /f,/aV 9 / 7/h/c/ In lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped (if needed). I declare under the penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, l believe that the information is true, accurate, end complete, I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the 'possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature: Z-C-/ Date: //l /7/e) y CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONT iOL BOARD COLORAIDO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORiNG..AND REPORTING PROGRAM PO 1NDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK WDI D NO.: 7A331 1680'1 1 ORDER NO.: 97-500(17) RtPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION YEAR: 2. 0 G .{ Report shall include the location of the septic tank/seepage pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scum layer in each compartment. Please use this farm for additional septic tanks, Results shalt be reported for the following: Date of Inspection Nearest Space No. lig 1Z� Thickness Inlet Thickness Outlet Scum Layer/(Inches) Scum Layer/(Inches) / f /.34`7/C' jf 9Af ey' in lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped (if needed1. I declare under the penalty of law that ! have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, l believe that the information is true, accurate, end complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the 'possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature( -lam-' Title s~ e-P4t4� ,./ Date: /e2/�3%' / O CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK V+JDID NO.: 7A331 f 8$O1 t ORDER NO.: 97-500(17) REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION YEAR: L 0 0 Lj Report shall include the location of the septic tenk/seepege pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scum layer in each compartment. Please use this form for additional septic tanks, Results shalt be reported for the following: Date of Inspection /// fey ft/3c/ct //zC fc / sEpt Icg /a. / 1 j o y' Ja/i/(5 Nearest Thickness Inlet Thickness Outlet Space No. Scurry Layer/(Inches) Scum Layer/Ortches} /27 1 36 13e 140 / Lis" 44,21,43,1 t c Pr/40 in lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped (if needed). I declare under the penaity of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, 1 believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the 'possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature ad,/ Date: / l / d C r% CALIFORNIA WATER DUALITY CONTROL BOARD COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK WDID NO,: 7A33116801' 1 ORDER NO.: 97-S0O(17) REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION YEAR: a L7 Report shall include the location of the septic tank/seepage pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scum layer in each compartment. Please use this farm for additional septic tanks. Resufts shall be reported for the following: Bate Nearest Thickness Inlet of Inspection Space No. Scum Layer/(inches) ,//1,,/cy /\S9 411/6y% 16-r A.C.017,144 Thickness Outlet Scum Layer/(Inches) 9/e'V In lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped (if needed). I declare under the penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, 1 believe that the information is true, accurate, end complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature 414-." �1 Title: 1871� '2+v Date:, CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOAR) COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK WDID NO.: 7A331168011 ORDER NO.: 97-500(17) REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION YEAR: L �' Report shall include the location of the septic tank/seepage pits systems, nearest space number, and measurement of the thickness of the scum layer in each compartment. Please use this form for additional septic tanks, Resufts shall be reported for the following: Hate Nearest of Inspection Space No. / 7i leo r9a CLUbhc e Thickness Inlet Thickness Outlet Scum Layer/Cinches) Scum Layerf Inches) 'Y/ 9/°V apiof P/y`e In lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annually checked by an authorized septic tank pumper and pumped Cif needed). I declare under the penalty of law that 1 have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, 1 believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. i am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the 'possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signature: /% ed Date: /� / / / c 01 o p s .�. -. j ▪ J. CO O O CO CO V V J O OD 01 U1 01 N A A CO W W N N -+0 W oo O V 01 m Cr' U1 j N A A W W ▪ N N N - -; O O of U7 O N m N N V A (o of W O Ol W 0o al O V m 07 at' W V t7 O O N O O V A (o co O U( O W Cn V Q) N (D A O - o G N K N -+ A N N N N NJ IN .A onA ▪ m (n - A 7 7 A A—pNAA 5 A A A U] .(a n .i. Y5' Ij I� Dm Np',IA j 01 D in' m ID. m SI m (Ulo m (71D vo W IJ F.5. o ID O 11 O (D (D T N fD (D .0..-' 7 N ID N d N j ID '~ N N 0 (o O O O 'O 7 Iv 7. (o < K (D • (n O o - * a to w (D �< ID 'v C) 91) O `^ 3 .9 r r W -0 r r r Q1 r p r r r r C w r r r r -p Cr r 5 r 'm r r r r r r r 0 0 o y 0 0 0 0 0 7 o 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 .DI o o .�. 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O n 0 O o 7- O O O O O y 7- O 0 O 0 0 (n O A O 0 0 0 O 17 w w o to °: E 5 °.' D m m w n; v m e ?: ° 7 m a: ° o' 0 n° 0) w w 0 0CD m m m a. 0 ID 0 0 0 0 FD a, m 0 m 0 <1 0 0 0 m ID m m(D 10 m a O. Cl. a a c a 7 a a a a o c a a n a w< n m a a s n a a a n CO w - .< o - 0 9o) W 7 7' w 66/6 9 + eloyuelN 00/L aas! I g eloyueW E0/0£/9 Jas!2:1 eloyueW 66/0L Jes!8 „ 9 66/0 L Jes!N „9 + eloyueW Z0/ZZ/9 es!j'9 aloyuelN 66/6 Jes!N „g + aloyuelN 0041 aas!a '9 eloyueW 66/Z Jes!a „9 + eloyueW 66/Z Jas!N „9 + eloyueW 00/£ las!a '9 eloyueW LO/V Jas!H 'g eloyueW £0/ LZ/9 Jes!2:1'9 eloyuelN Z0/119 as!Z!'9 eloyuelN £0/6118 Jas!a'9 eloyueW O 0 0 0 w w w w 7 7 7 M O 0 0 0 O (D (D (D (D QOQDQoQO • O (n (D CD CD (D [D N O O O N N 66/P Jose ou 'aloyuelN N 0 A 0 O 00/£ Jesw g eloyueW E0/E/E Jes!H'9 eloyueW 00/h Jas!a g eloyueW g0/9/9 s1!d e6edeeS Z O 0 0 0 w w w w 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ( Po Qo QD Qo n • m ( CO In (D N (D (D CO _ O O o O OW O W W W 00/P -as!N eloyueW 10/y JasN g eloyueW £0/9/9 Jes!?:{ 'g eloyuelN i0/5ZJZ sa!edaj aurl u!eia £0/ L W L L padwnd £0/9I9 Jas!2i eloyuelN 66/£ lash{ 'g eloyueW co 0 0 0 0 pa!lelsul g padwnd pallelsul padwnd N O 0 N 1S11 >NH1 0I1d3S INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILEHOME PARK 12/21/2004 INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILEHOME PARK PUMPING SCHEDULE Space Space Schedule Date 7 2nd Wed. in 8 3rd Wed. 15 1st Wed. 18 2nd Wed. 25 3rd Wed. 27 4th Wed. 30 1st Wed. 35 2nd Wed. 38 3rd Wed. 43 4th Wed. 46 1st Wed. 50 2nd Wed. 53 2nd Wed. 56 3rd Wed. 59 4th Wed. 64 1st Wed. 67 2nd Wed. 72 3rd Wed. 75 4th Wed. 76 5th Wed. 85 1st Wed. 86 2nd Wed. 95 3rd Wed. 96 4th Wed. 98 4th Wed. 106 140 2nd Wed. 114 3rd Wed. 119 4th Wed. 122 1st Wed. 126 2nd Wed. 127 3rd Wed. 135 4th Wed. 138 2nd Wed. 140 3rd Wed. 145 1st Wed. 150 2nd Wed. 151 2nd Wed. 158 3rd Wed. 159 4th Wed. 159 continued 164 5th Wed. 167 1st Wed. 170 2nd Wed. 171 3rd Wed. 180 4th Wed. 182 1st Wed. 186 2nd Wed. Clubhouse 3rd Wed. Dates Pumped January 05/04/04 in January 11/12/04 in February 06/17/04 in February 11/18/04 in February 10/29/03 11/26/2003 12/2/2003 12/5/2003 12/23/2003 1/20/2004 in February 06/17/04 in March 10/06/04 in March 11/18/04 in March 11/12/04 in March 11/04/04 in April 10/21/04 in April 10/21/04 in January 11/04/04 in April 02/06/04 3/29/2004 4/7/2004 4/21/2004 4/26/2004 in April 05/04/04 in May 08/04/04 in May 01/11/04 9/12/2004 in May 11/04/04 in May 09/04/04 in May 08/18/04 in June 08/18/04 in June 12/22/03 12/31/2003 4/21/2004 11/15/2004 in June 05/03/04 in June 10/06/04 in June 09/09/04 in July 08/11/04 9/9/2004 in July 09/17/04 in July 11/12/04 in August 11/30/04 in August 09/29/04 in August 10/14/04 in August 11/30/04 in September 11/30/04 in September 08/11/04 in October 12/01/04 in October 10/14/04 in October 08/11/04 in October 08/04/04 in October 10/27/03 11/10/2003 11/19/2013 11/26/2003 12/21/2003 12/5/2003 12/03/03 12/23/2003 1/29/2004 2/6/2004 2/14/2004 2/18/2004 in October 10/06/04 in November 06/07/04 8/16/2004 8/20/2004 8/26/2004 9/4/2004 9/9/2004 in November 08/26/04 in November 09/29/04 in November 09/29/04 in December 11/14/03 4/4/2004 8/20/2004 12/1/2004 in December 08/04/04 in December 10/21/04 Note: This leaves at least 7 Wednesdays open. Annual Pumping Schedule, per agreement with the Water Quality Control Board. Septic Pumping Schedule Indian Springs M.H.P. . Year- "eptic Pumping Record. Tank Number Last Date Pumped Other 7 5/4/04 8 11/12/04 15 6/17/04 18 11/18/04 25 1/20/04 27 6/17/04 30 10/6/04 35 11/18/04 38 11/12/04 43 11/4/04 46 10/21/04 50 10/21/04 53 11/4/04 56 4/26/04 59 5/4/04 64 8/4/04 67 9/12/04 72 11/4/04 75 9/4/04 76 8/18/04 85 8/18/04 86 4/21/04 11/15/04 95 5/3/04 96 10/6/04 98 9/9/04 106 9/9/04 114 9/17/04 119 11/12/04 122 11/30/04 126 9/29/04 127 10/14/04 135 11/30/04 138 11/30/04 140 8/11/04 145 12/1/04 150 10/14/04 151 8/11/04 158 8/4/04 159 2/18/04 164 10/6/04 167 9/9/04 170 8/26/04 171 9/29/04 180 9/29/04 182 8/20/04 12/1/04 186 8/4/04 Clubhouse 10/21/04 DEC t 2604 LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHI RE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 22, 2004 VIA FEDEX Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyars.00m 9' . 1VE 3 2004 ,:OEEELCPMENT DEPARTMENT OP PALM DESERT Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 29, 2004 Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty: We have reviewed the Department of Community Development/Planning (the "Planning Commission") Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staff's proposed Resolution to approve the Application with Conditions of Approval, and have given our initial comments and objections to you and the City Attorney, Mr. Erwin, in letters dated December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, respectively, and at the Hearing on the Application held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. In addition, we have also reviewed the Interoffice Memorandum from Mark Greenwood, City Engineer, to the Planning Commission regarding the Application, dated December 6, 2004 (the "Memorandum"), which was provided to us immediately prior to the December 7, 2004 Hearing. Although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on December 29, 2004, following are our initial observations and comments on the recommendations contained within the Memorandum. L/AW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 2 The Memorandum recommends requiring. Indian Springs to construct full public improvements, including (1) a "deceleration lane" on Highway 74, and (2) an eight foot sidewalk along Highway 74. Construction of a sidewalk and a deceleration lane will destroy the Park's entryway. The entrance to the Park is decorated with two five-foot perimeter stucco walls and is landscaped with two cascade formations of dozens of large rocks cemented in place which cannot feasibly be moved, and its destruction would severely impact the aesthetics of the entrance as seen from the road. Furthermore, it will force the removal of several mature pine trees in the parkway. In addition, the attractive sloping grounds below the Park's perimeter wall of Oleander hedges would requiring regrading and an unsightly retaining wall would have to be constructed. Of course, this construction would come at a substantial cost to Indian Springs, currently estimated at approximately $160,000. Moreover, it is entirely unnecessary. The question of a deceleration lane was raised two years ago, in 2002, and it was determined by the City that it was unwarranted. In addition, since that time, the road has been widened further and re -striped as a result of the construction of Big Horn's golf course addition across Highway 74. There is now more than sufficient room on the western side of the highway (i.e., in front of Indian Springs) for cars to decelerate out of the lane of traffic before turning into the Park. Furthermore, a sidewalk was constructed on the other side of Highway 74 from the Park two years ago. That sidewalk continues down the highway and around its block. Yet, a sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would go nowhere, and would connect to nothing. The park adjacent to Indian Springs, Silver Spur, has no sidewalk, nor is there any sidewalk in front of the apartment building adjacent to the Park on the north side. In fact, there is no sidewalk on the western side of Highway 74 from El Paseo to the mountains. A sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would serve no purpose and would be useful to no one, and yet would force major destruction to the Park and its attractive entrance. Furthermore, the City does not have legal authority to order Indian Springs to construct any improvements within the Park or to dedicate any of the Park's property to the City, as recommended in the Memorandum. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. L;>W OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 3 As we have previously informed you, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Neither may the City require Indian Springs to construct any offsite improvements as a condition to approval of its conversion unless there is a proven health and safety hazard. Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements or dedicate property rights upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, make dedications or other exactions from the parks. For the reasons stated above and in our letters of December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 29, 2004 (1) disapprove any recommendation to require construction of a sidewalk, (2) disapprove any recommendation to require the addition of a deceleration lane, (3) remove from draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (4) delete draft Condition No. 5 altogether, and (5) insert the additional language proposed previously to draft Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately. L.AW OFFICES GILCHRIST &a RU TER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 4 If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILC -".: & RU TER Pr ► .1 Corpo..tion Richard H. Close Of the Firm T W C: twc/ 111262_ 1 / 122104 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express) Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) Desert. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 January 7, 2005 VIA FEDEX Ms. Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyars. com Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision December 29, 2004 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Case No. PM 31862 Dear Ms. Klassen: CO :11 WV 01 wvf SOU Enclosed is an Appeal on behalf of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park (Indian Springs, Ltd., a California limited partnership) pertaining to the decision on Case No. PM 31862. The Planning Commission rendered its Decision on December 29, 2004. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $197.00 made payable to the City of Palm Please stamp the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed envelope signifying your receipt of the Appeal. Very truly yours, GILCHRIST & RUTTER Professiooation Richard H. Grose Of the Firm RHC:app Enclosures COPY TO� bW 1 I: DATE l r [RHC:aap/11 1739_ 1 /010705/3416.006] peg-07-04 12:39pm Fran -PALM DESERT CITY CLERK 7603400574 T-703 P.01/01 F-626 cn CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE (Name of Determining Body) PM 31862 12/29/04 Case No. Date of Decision: Name of Appellant Indian Springs, Ltd. Phone (310) 393-4000 Richard H. Close, Esq., Gilchrist & Rutter Address 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900, Santa Monica, CA 90401 PLANNING COMMISSION Description of Application or Matter Considered:PM 31862 to convert rental mobilehome park to condominium park. Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets it -necessary): Please see attached sheets 1-3 See Attached (Signature of Appellant) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY tleo0 Date Appeal Filed: — j.r] (95 Fee Received: c.4 l q- Treasurer's Receipt No. _330 Apr D Received by: Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: Action Taken: Date: Rochelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H:Itkk,,sanWPaswWWPDOCSWORNISIappti to appealarva COPY TO ,2i—Mrsi NI DATE I-'°--<S Rev 8/2EN2 may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisd." Testimony by Mr. Jose Angel of the Regional Water Quality Control Board at the December 29, 2004 hearing regarding PM 38612 made clear that Indian Springs' septic system is functioning properly, is not in violation of water discharge requirements and does not represent a health hazard. He further stated that the Board had no authority to require the Park to connect to the sewer system. Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will force a challenge to the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60 is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable regulations. As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4t 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Applicant appeals as to the imposition of Condition of Approval Number 5. INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a California limited partnership By: Goldstein Properties, Inc., a California corporation Its: General Partner . James . Goldstein ts: President (11VC:twc/111575_ 1. DOC/010305/3416.006] ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER: PM 31862 Reason for Appeal: Applicant and Appellant is Indian Springs, Ltd., owner of the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park in Palm Desert ("Indian Springs" or the "Park"). Applicant hereby appeals the approval by the Planning Commission of PM 31862 on December 29, 2004 only as to Condition of Approval Number 5 ("Condition No. 5"). Condition No. 5 states: "That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element 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 same to the purchaser." Despite the fact that the septic system currently operating at the Park functions properly, is not in violation of water discharge requirements and does not represent a health hazard, Condition No. 5 would require the costly removal of the septic system and the construction of a private sewer line within the Park and connection to the City's sewer line. Our consultants have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would cost in excess of $4,000,000. Indian Springs recognizes the general policy of the City and the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD") to encourage connection to the sewer system, and we are amenable to working with the City and others toward that goal. However, the cost to it of connecting to the sewer system is not merely that of a single connection from a building to the City's sewer main as with most other developments, but rather would require expensive construction and maintenance of a private sewer line within the Park, connection of each of the 191 Park homes to that sewer line, and connection of the private sewer line to the City's main sewer line, in addition to the expensive procedures required to remove the septic system. In fairness to Indian Springs and its residents, they should not be required to pay for sewer system infrastructure that is normally provided by the City. Despite the disruption and collateral costs to Indian Springs inherent in a sewer connection, however, we would agree to cooperate in such a project if the costs and expenses of constructing the sewer line were borne by the City and/or other public agencies. Such a compromise would be fairer to the Park and its residents and would enable the conversion to proceed without delay and without litigation. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and will be vigorously challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage. [TWC:twc/ 1115'75_1.DOC/010305/3416.006] 1 The City does not have the legal authority to impose Condition No. 5 to its approval of PM 31862. The application of Section 8.60 (the "Ordinance") is limited to those properties listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment. In additi%n, the Comprehensive General Plan/Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 ("Policy No. 4") does not require new or existing developments to be connected to the CVWD sewage treatment system. Furthermore, even if the Ordinance or Policy No. 4 did purport to compel Indian Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such a requirement would be illegal and unenforeceable for several reasons. First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer system. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks. In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage.1 In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section 13360. The State Water Board stated: "Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate. If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section 13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board Water Code §§ 13280-13284. [T W C : t wc/ 1115 75_ 1. DOC/0103 0 5/3416.006 ] WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION December 22, 2004 TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAtL• relose@grlawyers.com E EIVED VIA FEDEX Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe 2 3 2 I'':'.4'±C'iliNi'1.'Y UEVELCPMENT DEPARTMENT CM OF PALM DESERT Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 29, 2004 Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty: We have reviewed the Department of Community Development/Planning (the "Planning Commission") Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staffs proposed Resolution to approve the Application with Conditions of Approval, and have given our initial comments and objections to you and the City Attorney, Mr. Erwin, in letters dated December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, respectively, and at the Hearing on the Application held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. In addition, we have also reviewed the Interoffice Memorandum from Mark Greenwood, City Engineer, to the Planning Commission regarding the Application, dated December 6, 2004 (the "Memorandum"), which was provided to us immediately prior to the December 7, 2004 Hearing. Although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on December 29, 2004, following are our initial observations and comments on the recommendations contained within the Memorandum. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 2 --The-Memorandums recommends -requiring Indian -Springs to-constrict!ull-puhlic improvements, including (1) a "deceleration lane" on Highway 74, and (2) an eight foot sidewalk along Highway 74. Construction of a sidewalk and a deceleration lane will destroy the Park's entryway. The entrance to the Park is decorated with two five-foot perimeter stucco walls and is landscaped with two cascade formations of dozens of large rocks cemented in place which cannot feasibly be moved, and its destruction would severely impact the aesthetics of the entrance as seen from the road. Furthermore, it will force the removal of several mature pine trees in the parkway. In addition, the attractive sloping grounds below the Park's perimeter wall of Oleander hedges would requiring regrading and an unsightly retaining wall would have to be constructed. Of course, this construction would come at a substantial cost to Indian Springs, currently estimated at approximately $160,000. Moreover, it is entirely unnecessary. The question of a deceleration lane was raised two years ago, in 2002, and it was determined by the City that it was unwarranted. In addition, since that time, the road has been widened further and re -striped as a result of the construction of Big Horn's golf course addition across Highway 74. There is now more than sufficient room on the western side of the highway (i.e., in front of Indian Springs) for cars to decelerate out of the lane of traffic before turning into the Park. Furthermore, a sidewalk was constructed on the other side of Highway 74 from the Park two years ago. That sidewalk continues down the highway and around its block. Yet, a sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would go nowhere, and would connect to nothing. The park adjacent to Indian Springs, Silver Spur, has no sidewalk, nor is there any sidewalk in front of the apartment building adjacent to the Park on the north side. In fact, there is no sidewalk on the western side of Highway 74 from El Paseo to the mountains. A sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would serve no purpose and would be useful to no one, and yet would force major destruction to the Park and its attractive entrance. Furthermore, the City does not have legal authority to order Indian Springs to construct any improvements within the Park or to dedicate any of the Park's property to the City, as recommended in the Memorandum. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. L.;iW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page3 As we have previously informed you, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4`h 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Neither may the City require Indian Springs to construct any offsite improvements as a condition to approval of its conversion unless there is a proven health and safety hazard. Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements or dedicate property rights upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, make dedications or other exactions from the parks. For the reasons stated above and in our letters of December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 29, 2004 (1) disapprove any recommendation to require construction of a sidewalk, (2) disapprove any recommendation to require the addition of a deceleration lane, (3) remove from draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (4) delete draft Condition No. 5 altogether, and (5) insert the additional language proposed previously to draft Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 4 ifyouuhave any questions,_please-give_me mall Very truly yours, GILC P Richard H. Close Of the Firm TWC:twc/111262 1 /122104 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express) Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) TER ion MY NAME IS PAT BELL 49305 HIGHWAY 47, UNIT # 171, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I AM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE INDIAN SPRINGS HOME OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. TONIGHT I AM REPRESENTING ALL OF THE RESIDENTS IN OUR PARK, NOT JUST THE MEMBERSHIP. I would first like to say a few words to the Seniors who are here: Last night, a last minute meeting was called by the Park -owner's representatives; they are also present here tonight. The purpose of last night's meeting was to discuss tonight's meeting. It is the holiday season, and the hour was late. People had family visiting, and it was pouring rain. Nevertheless, the room was full of concerned seniors. 1 Once again we were told of the magnificence of their current Septic system and how it will last forever. Once again, we were given outrageous cost estimates to hook up and maintain a sewer system. With a new wrinkle.... "What is the City's motive", asked the Park - owner's legal representative? This was presented as a rhetorical question, and the response was: "Money, they want the money." (my paraphrase) To their credit, the audience remained polite and attentive. To the Palm Desert Planning Commissioners: The seniors in our park have run out of patience. We are getting the same evasive answers regarding the sewer situation at Indian Springs. We are worried about the cost of the land we are being required to buy. We won't even know the cost of this land until the Conversion is almost complete. 2 ...and We are worried about an aging infrastructure, particularly the Septic system that is part of the proposal. Given the prime location, it is hard to fathom how the Park owner could be allowed let a 30 year old outmoded system to be left in! Yes, we worry about HOW we will pay for the sewer.... Many of us are on limited income. Maybe there are options.... Let's find out Most of the park residents feel that keeping the old septic system is not a viable option. That would be equivalent to keeping the old out house when septic systems were invented... Let's move into the future. Both the City and the State say... "Abandon the old septic system." SO DO WE Shame on those of you who are spending big bucks to convince these Seniors that substandard is good enough for them THANK YOU, CITY OF PALM DESERT FOR HAVING THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS. Insist that Ordinance 743 and the State Code be complied with. I ask that this statement be entered into the permanent record. Thank you Pat Bell 49305 Hiway 74,171 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 760-773-3771 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 AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION TO EITHER 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 SEWER/SEPTIC 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 MA ITER OF TIME BEFORE WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE SEWERS. SINCE 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 IT 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 COMMUNTTY. THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD APPOINTED 5 RESIDENTS TO FORM A "CONVERSION COMMITTEE'". 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 PROCESS. WE WAITED MOST OF THE SUMMER, COMMUNICATIONS DWINDLED AND 1 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 STH UNTIL MID OCTOBER WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE RESIDENTS FROM THE PARK OWNERSHIP THAT IT WAS THERE FOR RESIDENT INSPECTION. TWILL ADD THAT BOTH PAT BELL AND I RECEIVED SIMILAR PACKETS IN SEPTEMBER BUT WITHOUT THE MAP. NC t UNTIL' OUR NOVEMBER GENERAL HOA MEETING DID WE LEARN THAT 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 BOUNDARIES". 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 34% 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 AN 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 MAI-MR" IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED BEFORE THESE CC&R'S ARE RECORDED. 3) REGARDING THE EXISTING ENCUMBRANCE OF $5.7 MILLION RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE (NON UTILITY) EASEM.ENTS'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 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 49-305 HWY 74 #86 INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK 3 41V I,* a t 0 . t I ,aot ON 0 47, / " g rip 0 4t 10 + INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GENERAL MEETINGV NOVEMBER 147 2004 We have looked at the map posted in the Club house per the instructions of the park owners representatives. ewe 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: 6,4 t Common area beincluded to in my lot boundaries, ( 4 Adjacent property buildings appear to be in my lot boundaries. 1 AThere is no visable way for me to determine m lot boundary L E line. y 2l' I am physically unable to determine whether my lot boundaries are correct. 8 Other �� n- U D a.D)/Cu Name: Space # Phone: Date: Of 4 t s.�; This form has been provided by the Homeowners Association for the convenience of the responding residents. Pot a cheek where apphcab a and return to Pat Bell, President, #171 773-3771, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SPITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 3, 2004 VIA FEDEX David J. Erwin, Esq. Best, Best & Krieger LLP 74-760 Highway 111 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyars.com M crIk -o co Dear Mr. Erwin: On November 29, 2004, Sue Loftin and I met with Philip Drell and Stephen R. Smith of the City of Palm Desert (the "City") Planning Department regarding Indian Springs' Parcel Map Application Number 31862 (the "Application") to be heard by the Palm Desert Planning Commission (the "Commission") on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. They stated that staff would recommend to the Commission that it condition approval of the Application on Indian Springs' abandonment of its septic system and construction of a sewer system within Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("the Park") that would connect to the City sewer system. They contended that Palm Desert Municipal Code section 8.60 ("Section 8.60" or the "Ordinance") requires the sewer condition. To the contrary, by its very terms, the application of Section 8.60 is limited to those properties listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment. Furthermore, if the City were to contend that its Ordinance compelled Indian Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such an ordinance would be illegal and unenforeceable for several reasons. First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer system. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 2 or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks. In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality damage.' In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section 13360. The State Water Board stated: "Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate. If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section 13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied." Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will force us to challenge the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60 is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable regulations. Water Code §§ 13280-13284. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION David J. Erwin, Esq. December 3, 2004 Page 3 Our consultant's have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would cost in excess of $4,000,000. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system will be vigorously challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage. As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4t' 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Accordingly, we expect that you will advise the Planning Commission at its Hearing on December 7, 2004 that it must not impose a sewer connection as a condition of approval of parcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRRIST r TER Prof", Corpor. ion /j' Richard H. Close Of the Firm RHC:aap/110644_ 1/120304 3416.006 cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) Sabby Jonathan, Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Sonia Campbell, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Jim Lopez, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express) COPYT DATE Cr; ---Pi LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 6, 2004 VIA FEDEX Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyers.com Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 n • -n.:., n� XI • (11m• r- riff rn -a p ci D C3 '.�. STI Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty: We have reviewed the Department of Community Development Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staff's proposed Resolution to approve the Application with the attached Conditions of Approval. Following are our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on the Application on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. Condition of Approval No. 3. Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code section 66427.5(f)(1), rent for non -purchasing residents may increase upon conversion to market levels over four years. However, the last sentence of Condition No. 3 as drafted states, "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review process." In fact, upon conversion, state law governs the four-year increase to market rents, and the City's rent control rules and LW OFFICES �GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 2 jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1178 (4th Dist. 2002) conversion occurs, and local rent control terminates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no circumstances ... is it left to local governments to legislate when state law takes effect." (Id. at p.1179.)Accordingly, 1179. the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deleted entirely. Condition of Approval No. 5. For the reasons stated in our letter to the City Attorney dated December 3, 2004, a copy of which each Planning Commissioner received, proposed Condition of Approval No. 5, which purports to require Indian Springs to abandon its septic system and connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and improper, and must be removed as a condition of approval. Condition of Approval No. 6. Draft Condition of Approval No. 6 would require Indian Springs to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the Application by the City or the Commission. The Staff Report recognizes that the City's action with respect to the Application has the potential to result in litigation. However, given the illegal Conditions of Approval discussed above (as well as Condition of Approval No. 6 itself as currently drafted), litigation against the City regarding its approval of the Application very possibly would be initiated by Indian Springs itself or by residents of the Park who object to the conditions which will interfere with and delay the Park's conversion and their ability to purchase lots in a timely manner. Although it may generally be appropriate to require, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, that an applicant agree to defend the City against attacks from others regarding its approval, the City certainly may not require an applicant such as Indian Springs to agree to defend the City against challenges to Conditions of Approval which the applicant objects to and regarding which the applicant itself initiates an action to void or annul. Accordingly, Indian Springs requests that the Commission amend Condition No. 6 as currently drafted to include the following language at the end of the first sentence therein: "... except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void or annul any of the Conditions of Approval." LAW OFFICES ItCiiRIST &a RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 3, 2004 Page 3 For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIST & RUTTER Professi.�; o isoration Richard H. Close Of the Firm T W C: t wc/ 110716_ 1/ 120 604 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) COPYT DATE LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 December 22, 2004 VIA FEDEX Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyers.com Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 29, 2004 9S :01 WV CZ 330 hl)QZ Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty: We have reviewed the Department of Community Development/Planning (the "Planning Commission") Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staffs proposed Resolution to approve the Application with Conditions of Approval, and have given our initial comments and objections to you and the City Attorney, Mr. Erwin, in letters dated December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, respectively, and at the Hearing on the Application held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. In addition, we have also reviewed the Interoffice Memorandum from Mark Greenwood, City Engineer, to the Planning Commission regarding the Application, dated December 6, 2004 (the "Memorandum"), which was provided to us immediately prior to the December 7, 2004 Hearing. Although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on December 29, 2004, following are our initial observations and comments on the recommendations contained within the Memorandum. LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 2 The Memorandum recommends requiring Indian Springs to construct full public improvements, including (1) a "deceleration lane" on Highway 74, and (2) an eight foot sidewalk along Highway 74. Construction of a sidewalk and a deceleration lane will destroy the Park's entryway. The entrance to the Park is decorated with two five-foot perimeter stucco walls and is landscaped with two cascade formations of dozens of large rocks cemented in place which cannot feasibly be moved, and its destruction would severely impact the aesthetics of the entrance as seen from the road. Furthermore, it will force the removal of several mature pine trees in the parkway. In addition, the attractive sloping grounds below the Park's perimeter wall of Oleander hedges would requiring regrading and an unsightly retaining wall would have to be constructed. Of course, this construction would come at a substantial cost to Indian Springs, currently estimated at approximately $160,000. Moreover, it is entirely unnecessary. The question of a deceleration lane was raised two years ago, in 2002, and it was determined by the City that it was unwarranted. In addition, since that time, the road has been widened further and re -striped as a result of the construction of Big Horn's golf course addition across Highway 74. There is now more than sufficient room on the western side of the highway (i.e., in front of Indian Springs) for cars to decelerate out of the lane of traffic before turning into the Park. Furthermore, a sidewalk was constructed on the other side of Highway 74 from the Park two years ago. That sidewalk continues down the highway and around its block. Yet, a sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would go nowhere, and would connect to nothing. The park adjacent to Indian Springs, Silver Spur, has no sidewalk, nor is there any sidewalk in front of the apartment building adjacent to the Park on the north side. In fact, there is no sidewalk on the western side of Highway 74 from El Paseo to the mountains. A sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would serve no purpose and would be useful to no one, and yet would force major destruction to the Park and its attractive entrance. Furthermore, the City does not have legal authority to order Indian Springs to construct any improvements within the Park or to dedicate any of the Park's property to the City, as recommended in the Memorandum. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation. LAW OFFICES GILCIYRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 3 As we have previously informed you, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4th 1153 (2002). The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages. Neither may the City require Indian Springs to construct any offsite improvements as a condition to approval of its conversion unless there is a proven health and safety hazard. Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements or dedicate property rights upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to extract improvements, make dedications or other exactions from the parks. For the reasons stated above and in our letters of December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 29, 2004 (1) disapprove any recommendation to require construction of a sidewalk, (2) disapprove any recommendation to require the addition of a deceleration lane, (3) remove from draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (4) delete draft Condition No. 5 altogether, and (5) insert the additional language proposed previously to draft Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately. LAW OFFICES UrILOHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Chairman Sabby Jonathan Vice -Chairman David Tschopp Commissioner Sonia Campbell Commissioner James Lopez Commissioner Cindy Finerty December 22, 2004 Page 4 If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, GILCHRIST & RUTTER Pro ssi alCorporation Richard H. Close Of the Firm TWC:twc/ 111262_1 /122104 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express) Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express) LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST & RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING 1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000 February 4, 2005 VIA FEDEX Mayor Buford A. Crites Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92210 ATTN: Ms. Wilma Michelson Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park Parcel Map No. 31862 City Council Hearing: Thursday, February 10, 2005 TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700 E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyers.com LS 6 WV L- 833 S00Z c.) 73-4 Dear Mayor Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson and Councilmembers Benson, Kelly and Spiegel: We are in receipt of the February 2, 2005 Memorandum from Robert W. Hargreaves, City Attorney, to the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council (the Memorandum") regarding the Appeal by Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs") of Condition No. 5 imposed by the Planning Commission on its parcel map application to convert the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park to resident condominium ownership. Condition No. 5 purports to require the costly removal of the Park's septic system and the construction of a private sewer line within the Park and connection to the City's sewer line (the "sewer condition"). Indian Springs is compelled to respond to the Memorandum because it contains numerous incorrect statements of both fact and law. As noted in Indian Springs' appeal, the City does not have the authority to impose the sewer condition. The California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Mayor Buford A. Crites Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember. Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert City Council February 4, 2005 Page 2 The Memorandum contends that despite exclusive jurisdiction over mobilehome parks' interiors by the HCD, Government Code section 66428.1(d) provides authority for the City to impose the sewer condition on Indian Springs. This contention is wrong for several reasons. Section 66428.1(d) authorizes a City only to require offsite improvements, and only if they are "necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition." (Emphasis added.) The sewer condition would require millions of dollars of improvements to be constructed onsite, within the Park, and the uncontested evidence before the Planning Commission demonstrated that the sewer condition is not currently necessary and that there is no existing health or safety condition that requires the sewer construction. The Memorandum claims that the sewer condition would be an "offsite improvement." This is clearly untrue under the plain wording of the statute, and the Memorandum's attempt to support its contention through a convoluted argument regarding the statute's legislative history makes no sense. Furthermore, Indian Springs' "sanitary disposal facilities", i.e., its septic system, are fully adequate to service the Park currently and in the foreseeable future. The evidence produced by Larry McDermott, the Park's engineer, the Park's records which were submitted to the Planning Department, and even the testimony and records submitted by Jose Angel of the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") at the December 29, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing make clear that there is no existing health or safety condition which could make the sewer condition necessary. The Memorandum attempts to distort the facts by contending that "the park's sewer system constitutes a current threat to the quality of the ground water." To the contrary, even Mr. Angel of the RWQCB, whose testimony was given purportedly in support of the sewer condition, had to concede that "it may take ten, fifteen years" for any waste water to reach ground water. (P. 9:23-24.) Mr. Angel conceded that the actual nitrate levels for the septic system are low. (P. 20:25-21:1-6.) Mr. Jonathan of the Planning Commission twice asked Mr. Angel whether there was any evidence that the Park's septic system will cause water quality damage. Despite his efforts at times to imply otherwise, when presented with the direct question, Mayor Buford A. Crites Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert City Council February 4, 2005 Page 3 both times Mr. Angel stated that there was absolutely no evidence that the Park's septic system will cause any water damage.' If (and only if), the RWQCB did have evidence that the Park's septic system constituted a current threat to the ground water as the Memorandum claims, the RWQCB could require abandonment of the septic system. (See Water Code section 13360; In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983)). Yet Mr. Angel conceded repeatedly that the RWQCB did not have such evidence.2 For this reason, the Memorandum's claim that the RWQCB has indicated it would likely require abandonment of the Park's septic system in the future if the City does not impose the sewer condition is a hollow prediction which the RWQCB's own representative has admitted there are no facts to support. Certainly, the unsupported prediction does not establish that the septic system poses an existing health or safety condition. ' Mr. Jonathan: Okay. My question to you is, does the Regional Water Quality Control Board, in fact, have substantial evidence that the septic system in question will cause water quality damage? Mr. Angel: We don't have ground water data for the site to address your question. The answer is no.... (Transcript of December 29, 2004 Planning Commission hearing ["Transcript"], p. 23:25-24:1- 5.) Mr. Jonathan: The question that I asked is do we have an indication of the septic system is either operating properly or not as we sit here today? Mr. Angel: ... As far as answering the ultimate question of whether we have any evidence that they're polluting the ground water, no, we don't have that evidence. (Transcript, p. 59: 15-24.) 2 Mr. Jonathan: You're in agreement that the Board cannot require abandonment without substantial evidence. And you're saying that you do not have substantial evidence at this time? Mr. Angel: That is right. Mr. Jonathan: Okay. So would you agree with the applicant that the Board cannot at this time require abandonment of the septic system? Mr. Angel: That is correct. (Transcript, p. 24:9-18.) Mayor Buford A. Crites Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Jean M. Benson Councilmember. Richard S. Kelly Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel City of Palm Desert City Council February 4, 2005 Page 4 Accordingly, we request that the City remove as a condition to Parcel Map. No. 31862 the requirement that Indian Springs construct a private sewer line and abandon its septic system. Very truly yours, GILCC ST & RUTTER Pro ssi C n,oration Richard H. Close Of the Firm TWC:twc/112718_1.DOC/020405 3416.006 cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via U.S. Mail) Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via U.S. Mail) Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)