HomeMy WebLinkAboutBBK Additional Information - Appeal by Indian Springs, Ltd. PM 31862 06/23/2005�
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Member of the Palm Desert City Council
FRom: Robert W. Hargreaves, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: May 17, 2005
R�:: Additional Information Re Appeal by Indian Springs, Ltd., PM31862
We are still negotiating with Indian Springs in an effort to reach an agreement regarding
the sewering of the project prior to conversion. We are cautiously optimistic that we will be able
to reach an agreement that we can recommend to the City Council. However, it is unlikely that a
complete agreement will be ready for the May 26`h meeting.
The park owner has indicated that he does not want anymore delays in the consideration
of his parcel map. Consequently, staff recommends that the council act to deny Indian Springs'
appeal and approve the map with the sewer condition, and an additional condition discussed
below to ensure a"bona fide" resident conversion.
1. Sewer Condition
Shortly prior to the March 24, 2005 hearing on this matter, Richard Close, attorney for
Indian Springs, submitted additional materials, including declarations by Anne James and
Raymond Will. Generally, Ms. James states that she is the park manager and that Indian Springs
has fully complied with all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mr. Will
states that he is a professional hydrologist and that, in his opinion, "there is no reason to believe
that the wastewater from the park will ever contaminate the groundwater".
These materials were forwarded to the Regional Board for response. In a letter dated
April 27, 2005, Charles Springer, sanitary engineering associate with the Regional Board,
responded that there has been a history of non-compliance at the park. Mr. Springer concludes:
"Therefore, since the tanks were installed over 30 years ago and
most were not completely accessible for pumping until 2003, staff
has determined that if the discharge from the septic tanks at this
park is atlowed to continue, it will be necessary to issue revised
requirements for the on-site discharge that will include
groundwater monitoring wells to insure compliance with nitrate
limitations.".
Based on this letter, and previous testimony of the Regional Board personnel, it is our
understanding that if sewers are not installed prior to the conversion, the Regional Board will
move forward with a program to require groundwater monitoring. If contamination is found,
sewers will be required and a potentially expensive groundwater remediation program could be
required.
Also enclosed is a letter dated March 30, 1984 from CVWD to the park's management
company noting that the park had recently experienced septic tank failure and recommending a
phased program for connection of the park to the regional sewer system. It is not known why
C.�vocuments and Setungs�Robert.HargreavesVvly Documents�PALM D[S[RT -(Indian Springs) rcvised Memo to Crty C'ouncil Re Addrtional
Informanon Ke Appeal by Indian Spnngs, Ltd. doc
sewers were not installed at that time.
2. "Bona Fide" Conversion Condition.
Staff has become aware that some cities require, prior to the approval of a mobi(e home
park conversion, that the park owner demonstrate that a majority, or super-majority, of park
residents approve of the conversion. These provisions are in response to 2002 legislation
(AB930) that added a requirement that a subdivider obtain a"survey of support" of residents of
the mobile home park as part of the conversion process. T'he legislation does not specify the
required level of support, if any. The legislation did include a declaration of legislative intent
that mobile home park conversions are "bona fide resident conversions", i.e. that conversions are
intended to transfer some significant portion of the park to resident ownership and not merely a
sham to evade rent control.
The legislative analysis of AB930 states:
"4) Resident conversion or sham? This bill seeks to ensure that
the conversion is not a sham conversion by requiring a vote oCthe
residents to be submitted to the local agency...
This bill seeks to provide a measure of [residentj support for local
agencies to determine whether the conversion is truly intended for
resident ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a local rent
control ordinance. The results of the survey would not affect the
duty of the 1oca1 agency to consider the request to subaivide
pursuant to Section 66427.5 but merely provide additional
information. It is foreseeable that the results of this survey could
be used to argue to a court that the conversion is a sham and that
the rent formulas in Section 66427.5 should not be applied.
The fact that a majority of the residents do not support the
conversion is not however an appropriate means for determining
the legitimacy of a conversion. The law is not intended to allow
park residents to block a request to subdivide. Instead, the law is
intended to provide some measure of f scal protection to
nonpurchasing residents.". (AB930 Assembly Bill Analysis)
In this particular case, Indian Springs did obtain a"survey of support". The survey
showed that, of the 191 spaces, there were seventy-six (76) responses. Twenty-seven (27)
indicated support; thirteen (13) indicated opposition; and thirty-six (36) declined to state. The
demonstrated level of support (14%) is insufficient to conclude, on that basis alone, that the
conversion is "bona fide". Consequently, staff recommends that the following additional
condition be added to insure a"bona fide" conversion plan:
"Prior to the conversion, subdivider shall demonstrate to the City
that fifty percent (50%) of the residents support the conversion or,
in the alternative, that subdivider enter into an agreement with the
City that the spaces shall be offered to the residents at fair market
value.".
(' �Vocuments and Settings\Robert.HargrcavesUNy Documents\PALM DESERT -(Indian Spnngs) rcvised Memo to Crty Council Re Addrtional
Information Rc �ppeal by Indian Spnngs, Ltd .doc
Staff believes that either of the two prongs would be a sufficient indication of a"bona
fide" conversion.
Indian Springs opposes any requirement of resident support. Indian Springs has indicated
that it may agree to a fair-market-value requirement as part of a comprehensive agreement with
the City regarding assistance with the sewering project, but would object absent an agreement..
RWH:dm
C•�Documcnts and Setnngs\Robert.HargreavesUNy Documents\PAL.M DESER'I� -(Indian Springs) revised Memo to City Council Re Addihonal
Informalion Re Appeal by Indian Spnngs, Ltd. doc
AMENDMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
To the Resolution, add the following:
"WHEREAS, the City did further find the following additional facts and reasons justify
adding an additional condition 7 requiring that Indian Springs provide evidence to the City that a
majority of the residents support conversion or, in the alternative, that Indian Springs enter into
an agreement with the City that lots will be offered to the residents at fair market value.
o In adopting AB290 (2002), the legislature added a requirement that the
subdivider obtain a"survey of support" of park residents. The legislature
further expressed its intent that conversions be "bona fide resident
convers�ons.
o The survey of support submitted by the subdivider demonstrates support
of only 27 of the 191 residents."
To Exhibit A, add the following
"Condition of Approval No. 7 shall be added to read
7. Prior to the recording of the parcel map, subdivider shall provide to the City a
"survey of support" indicating that a majority of the residents approve the proposed conversion;
or, in the alternative, that subdivider enter into an agreement with the City that the lots will be
offered to be sold to the residents at no more than fair market value."
(' �Vocuments and SettingsU2obert.HargrcavesUNy DocumentsU'ALM DES�RT -(Indian Spnngs) revised Memo to Crty Council Rr Addrtional
Information Rc Appeal by Indian Spnngs, Ltd..doc
Indian Springs
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Smith, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:14 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: indian Springs
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert W. Hargreaves [mailto:Robert.Hargreaves@bbklaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:55 PM
To: Mc Carthy, Justin; Smith, Steve
Subject: Indian Springs
Page 1 of 1
I've attached the bill anaylysis that accompanied the legislation that added the tenant survey requirement to the
conversion process. You will note that the analysis states that :
41Resident conversion or sham ? This bill seeks to ensure that the conversion is not a sham conversion by
requiring a vote of the residents to be submitted to the local agency. Essentially, the bill is addressing a
statement by the court in_E1 Dorado that, "the courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed
transactions, or to avoid a local rent control ordinance." Making this determination would not be easy for a local
agency that did not proactively seek to inquire with the residents on their position. _AB 930 Page 5 This bill
seeks to provide a measure of that support for local agencies to determine whether the conversion is truly
intended for resident ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a local rent control ordinance. The results of
the survey would not affect the duty of the local agency to consider the request to subdivide pursuant to Section
66427.5 but merely provide additional information. It is foreseeable that the results of this survey could be used
to argue to a court that the conversion is a sham and that the rent formulas in Section 66427.5 should not be
applied. The fact that a majority of the residents do not support the conversion is not however an appropriate
means for determining the legitimacy of a conversion. The law is not intended to allow park residents to block a
request to subdivide. Instead, the law is intended to provide some measure of fiscal protection to nunpurchasing
residents.
«AB 930 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis.htm»
.*********�**********************�**********************�«*********.***********�*****
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient,
or believe that you may have received this communication in error,
please advise the sender via reply email and delete the email you received.
**********w*******,+********«*****v�*****,r**********************************************
5�1 %�2��5
AB 930 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
AB 930
-- . - - Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 930 (Keeley)
As Amended August 26, 2002
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_ _IASSEMBLY: ___�__ I �May 29, � SENATE: � 21-11 I(Auqust 30, ___ �
--- �-- - ( _..._�2001) ___�_ . � �2002) �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
__ Original Committee Reference: H. & C. D.
SUMMARY . Requires that a proposal to subdivide a mobilehome
park into resident ownership include survey results of the
residents indicating their support for the conversion.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Require a subdivider of a mobilehome park to conduct a survey
of the park residents in cooperation with the resident
homeowner's association.
2)Require that the survey be conducted in the form of a written
ballot so that each occupied mobilehome space shall have one
vote.
3)Require that the results of the survey be filed with the
appropriate local agency upon the filing of the tentative or
parcel map.
4)Provide that the results of the survey shall be subject to a
hearing of the legislative body or local agency considering
the request to approve the subdivision map.
EXISTING LAW .
1)Requires a subdivider of a mobilehome park applying for
conversion into resident ownership to submit a tentative or
parcel map to the local agency for review and approval.
2)Prohibits a subdivider from displacing lower income residents
that cannot purchase an interest in the subdivision and
prohibits the increase of rents except by an amount equal to
AB 930
— - - .-- Page 2
the Consumer Price Index.
Page 1 of 5
file://C:�Documents%20and%20Settings�rklassen\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Internet%20F... 5/ 17/2005
AB 930 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
3)Provides that for non lower income households the subdivider
may increase the rent to market levels.
4)Establishes the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund for the purpose
of making loans to resident organizations for the purpose of
converting parks into resident ownership.
5)Provides that loans may be made to convert parks where at
least 30� of the spaces are for low-income residents.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY this bill removed home price limits
for rehabilitation projects funded by CalHome.
FISCAL EFFECT . None
COMMENTS:
Background:
1)Prior to 1996, local jurisdictions were permitted to impose
their own conditions for protecting existing residents on a
proposed subdivision of a mobilehome park into resident
ownership. However, some argued that conditions were
sometimes imposed that prevented the conversion of a park into
resident ownership. SB 310 (Craven), Chapter 25, Statutes of
1995, amends the Subdivision Map Act ensuring that residents
of mobilehome parks were given the opportunity to purchase an
interest but also not displaced if they could not afford to
purchase a space in the park. Those residents that could not
purchase a space, were allowed to remain as renters and a
formula was established for how their rents would be
calculated. That formula provides that residents that are not
low income, may have their rents raised to market levels over
a four year period. Those that are low income may only have
their rents increased by an amount equal to the Consumer Price
Index.
In 1993, the owner of the E1 Dorado Mobile Country Club, a
377-space mobilehome park in Palm Springs, filed a tentative
subdivision map as a first step in converting the park to
resident ownership by existing residents or other persons.
The city planning commission approved the application subject
to a number of conditions, but the city council, concerned
AB 930
Page 3
about allegations the conversion was a"sham�� later added
three additional conditions. One of the conditions marked the
effective map date, as the date escrow would close on 120 lots
in the park, that is, the date the park would cease to be
subject to the city's mobilehome rent control ordinance.
After that date, the formula for mitigating economic
displacement under the Craven bill would instead be
applicable. The park owner filed a writ of mandamus in
superior court to compel approval of the subdivision map
Page 2 of 5
fi le://C:�Documents%20and%20Settings�rklassen\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Internet%20F... 5/ 17/2005
AB 930 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
without the three conditions, claiming the effective date of
conversion was when one lot was sold, and the city council did
not have the power to impose more stringent requirements. The
lower court denied the park owner's petition but earlier this
year the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed (_E1 Dorado Palm
Sprinqs, Ltd., v. City of Palm Springs_ ). The appellate court
ruled that the city was limited to the scope of assuring there
was compliance with requirements of Section 66427.5 and opined
that the question of whether there should be more protections
in the statute to prevent "sham" resident conversions is a
legislative, not legal, issue.
_2)Purpose for the bill: In1996, the Second Appellate District
Court heard Donohue v. Paula_West Mobile Home Park regarding a
proposed mobilehome park conversion that failed due to a lack
of financing available to the residents. In that park, the
owner sought to increase rents, after the passage of a local
rent control ordinance, by arguing that Section 66427.5
overrode the local initiative and instead the rent formula
provided in that statute applied, allowing the owner to
increase rents on non low income residents to market level.
However, the court ruled that Section 66427.5 did not apply
because no single unit was ever sold. Therefore the
conversion never occurred and the statute did not apply.
In E1 Dorado v. Palm SQrinqs , the issue before the court was
whether the conditions imposed by the city exceeded the
authority provided under Section 66427.5. Considering Palm
Springs' concern that a conversion could be used to circumvent
local rent control the court in E1 Dorado stated, "We are
equally concerned about the use of the section [66247.5] to
avoid local rent control," but "the City lacks authority to
investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or
fraudulent transactions." The court went on to rule that
66427.5 takes effect as soon as one unit is sold and
supercedes a local rent control ordinance.
AB 930
-- -- - - — --- Page 4
As a result of these two court rulings, the proponents of this
bill are seeking to address what they feel could potentially
become a way for park owners to get around local rent control
ordinances. As evidence of these concerns, the supporters
have submitted a newsletter from a law firm that encourages
park ownera seeking an "exit strategy" from mobilehome park
ownership to consider selling their park on a space by space
basis through conversion to resident ownership. The
newsletter continues that, "This decision offers mobilehome
park owners a new and more viable option to escape the
draconian revenue limits imposed by rent control."
_3)How conversions work: A mobilehome park conversion can occur
through various means, typically initiated by park residents
either through formation or affiliation with a non-profit
entity. The non-profit entity will secure the financing to
Page 3 of 5
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings�rklassen\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Internet%20F... 5/ 17/2005
AB 930 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
purchase the park from the park owner and proceed to sell
individual lots to residents as they in turn secure the
necessary financing to purchase a lot. As individuals
purchase a lot the non-profit reduces the debt it has
incurred. In addition, the non-profit continues to collect
rent from other residents until they can purchase their
interest or for as long as they choose to remain in the park.
The purpose of Section 66427.5 is to protect these
non-purchasing residents but still ensure that resident
conversions can secure the necessary financing.
The non-profit will inevitably pay an amount for the park that
requires an increase in the current rents. The benefit to the
residents for the increased rents though is that they will
have the opportunity to purchase their space and have a voice
in the entity that manages the park. In addition, the
increase on rent for non-low income households is phased in
over a four year period.
4)Resident conversion or sham ? This bill seeks to ensure that
the conversion is not a sham conversion by requiring a vote of
the residents to be submitted to the local agency.
Essentially, the bill is addressing a statement by the court
in E1_Dorado that, "the courts will not apply section 66427.5
to sham or failed transactions, or to avoid a local rent
control ordinance." Making this determination would not be
easy for a local agency that did not proactively seek to
inquire with the residents on their position.
AB 930
-- - - - - - --- - - -- Page 5
This bill seeks to provide a measure of that support for local
agencies to determine whether the conversion is truly intended
for resident ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a
local rent control ordinance. The results of the survey would
not affect the duty of the local agency to consider the
request to subdivide pursuant to Section 66427.5 but merely
provide additional information. It is foreseeable that the
results of this survey could be used to argue to a court that
the conversion is a sham and that the rent formulas in Section
66427.5 should not be applied.
The fact that a majority of the residents do not support the
conversion is not however an appropriate means for determining
the legitimacy of a conversion. The law is not intended to
allow park residents to block a request to subdivide.
Instead, the law is intended to provide some measure of fiscal
protection to nunpurchasing residents.
Analysis prepared by: Jay Barkman / H. & C. D./ (916)
319-2085 FN: 0007807
Page4of5
fi le://C:�Documents%20and%20Settings�rklassen\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20lnternet%20F... 5/ 17/2005
AB 930 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
Page 5 o f 5
fi le://C:�Documents%20and%20Settings�rklassen\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Internet%20F... 5/ 17/2005
V ';',3 ;c 0._SL._
=es- =lc= 30x 1053 • COACHELLA. .CAL1FOPNIA g2236 • ::3z5si
=E--his
e,.v.4C•I0 i iU•.1MONOS P°ES':ENT
COOE4AS. VICE PoESCENT
RCvr_L
.IC'CLS
37EvE J 3LXTC1.4
March 30, 1984
Dennis W. Olsen,
Vice ?resident
Carlsberg Management Company
2800 Twenty -Eighth Street
San Monica, California 90405
LCwE__O wEE<5 GENERAL 1,1AN•GER,.:-,ER=VG.NEGR
:3•1.:=C:'N_ —:V SE:'=-:aY
File: 0721.2
Subject: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Sanitation, 49-305 Highway 74,
Palm Desert, California
Dear Mr. Olsen:
This letter is in response to your March 16, 1984, letter.
This is to confirm the requirements necessary to provide sewer service for
the park.
Recently the park has experienced septic tank failures. One of these
failures was adjacent.to a_local community sewer. The City of Palm Desert
has, in part, adopted the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC).
Section 1101 (a) of this Code requires that, "Every building in which
plumbing fixtures are installed and every premises having drainage piping
thereon, shall have connection to a public or private sewer, except as
provided in Section 320 and is subsections (b) and (d) of this section".
Section 1101 (d) states "The public sewer may be considered as not being
available when such public sewer or any building Jr any exterior drainage
facility connected thereto, is located more than two hundred (200) feet
(60.8 m) from any proposed building or exterior drainage facility on any
lot or premises which abuts and is served by such public sewer."
Subsection (e) states "No permit shall be issued for the installation,
alteration or repair of any private sewage disposal system or part thereof,
on any lot for which a connection with such public sewer is available."
Subsection (f) states "On every lot or premises hereafter connected to a
public sewer, all plumbing and drainage systems or parts thereof, on such
lot or premises shall be connected with such public sewer."
Since the connection of the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park to the
community sewer system represents a substantial capital investment, we have
adopted a policy of allowing parks to connect on a gradual (incremental)
basis providing that:
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Bennis W. Olsen
.pril 2, 1984
1. A master sewer plan be prepared by the park.
2. Arrangements be made with the District to incrementally ccnnec:
future failed portions of the park to the community sewer as failures
occur.
3. A time table be established whereby the entire park will be
connected to the community sewer system.
In exchange for the items mentioned above, we have agreed to allow the
reconstruction and repair of existing failed septic tanks until such time
as an agreement can be executed providing for the connection of the park to
the community sewer system.
We have reviewed the park layout and estimate that the interior gravity
collection system including the District's fees will cost approximately
$650,000. This is a rough estimate. The actual cost of implementing a
connection program will vary depending upon the actual bids received for
the construction work and the time frame in which the connection effort is
done.
In response to question No. 6 in your letter, the District presently
charges $9.00 per month (sewer service charge) for treating the waste
water. This charge is initiated after connecting to the community sewer.
I hope that the information provided herein will be a value to you. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please call Bruce
Clark at (619) 398-2651.
Yours very truly,
0..ree.„44e.,7-4/4
Lowell 0. Weeks
General Manager -Chief Engineer
BRC:lmf
nCEIVED
CIT CLERK'S OFFICE
PALH DESERT. CA
2005 MAY 16 AMU: I: 21
INDIAN SPRINGS MOB/LE HOME PARK
HOMEOWNERS A SSOCIA TION
49305 HIGHWAY 74
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
City of Palm Desert
Attn: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
May 12, 2005
Re: Advice of Board of Directors Changes
Please be advised that the following named residents of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park have
been duly elected to serve on the Homeowners' Board of Directors for the year 2005 according
to the Bylaws of the Homeowners' Association:
Mari Schmidt President Space #86
Glen Wiesner Vice President Space # 112
Carol Byron Secretary Space #104
Don Fair Treasurer Space #158
Sandy Symington Director Space # 95
Ray Cohoon Director Space # 187
Norris Olson Director Space # 11
CPY
DATF
5-1
te
yours
prinps o ile ; e Owger Association
Schmidt, ' esident
L.AW OFFICES
CII.CHRIST & RL'TTER
PROFYS6IUNAL CORPORATIUN
WILSHiFaE �ALISA�ES 6UIl.DINC3
� 2BB OCFJ:N AVENUE, SUITE GOO
SANTA MON�CA, CALIFOfiNlA 8040 7-1 000
TE�EPHONE (370) 393-4000
rAC31MILE (3 7 01 394-4700
E-MAIL� rc�oa�prl�wyors,com
May 4, 20Q5
Via Federal Express
Mr. Justin McCarthy
Assistant City Manager
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, Califomia 92210
Re: Indian Sprin�s Mobile Home Park; Sewer Svstem Installation
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
I want to follow up with you concerning the matter of the sewer system installation
("Project") within the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park {"Pazk"). The Project would include,
without limitation, not oniy installation of a sewer system (with ail direct and indirect
construction requirements, e.g. roadway removal and replacemeni and relocation of other utilities
that may be ]ocated in a manner inconsistent with the sewer installation), but also connecting
such sewer system to the existing common area buildings and homes in the Park and proper
abandonmertt of the existing septic system. We understand the cost of installation and
construction of the Project may be approximately $4.3 million dollars. The actual cost, however,
will not be known until the engineers and construction managers have had an opportunity to
investigate, study construction plans and make further calculations.
Afier further consultation with our client ("Ov►mer"}, we believe construction and
installation of the Project should be subject to the following terms:
l. The Redevelopment Agency issues a grant for the Project. The grant would be
equal to the pro-rata cost of the Project multiplied by the number of lots occupied by residents
who are moderate income, low income and very low income residents of the Park as defined in
California Health and Safety Code §50093. For example, if the cast of construction and
installation of the Project is determined to be $20,000 per lot, based upon the above stated
estimated cost, and there are 1501ots occupied by residents who qualify as moderate income,
low income and very low income, then the grant would be in the amount of $3 million doliars
($20,000 x 150). Please bear in mind that this proposal is based upon our assumption that there
will be at least 1401ots occupied by residents that qualify as moderate incorue, low income and
very low income residents. To the extent this assumption is incorrect, then we would need to
make modifications with respect to the grant proposal. The actual amount of the grant would be
��d � ��-���P��,�
o • - - cd.r� �n, �� ��
Fra,+� � �� �,� ��-� .
�
LAW OFFIGES
GILCHF2IST 6z RL''!'T�12
YRO!'YS'bIONAL CORPORATIO�7
Mr. Justin McCarthy
May 4, 2005
Page 2
adjusted based not only on the number of yualifying households, but also to cover the actual
costs of the Project.
2. The Redevelopment Agency loans to Owner the balance of the costs of the
Project which are not covered by the Redevelopment Agency grant. Such loan would bcar
interest at the rate which is equal to the average amount that the Redevelopment Agency receives
on its invested funds and would be payable "interest only" with a maturity date of 20 years from
the date funds are advanced. Such loan would be secured by a deed of trust lien against the lots,
except for such lots which are owned by residents of the Park qualifying as moderate income,
low income and very low income. The deed of trust would provide for the partial release of each
lot which is sold based upon payment of the percent of the outstanding principal balance of the
loan attributable to each such lot.
3. The costs incurred by Owner with respeci to the Project would not be passed on in
the form of rent increases to the resident households that select to continue renting the space on
which their home is located.
4. The Owner would grant tenants of the P�rrk a one-time 90 day option to purchase
their lot in accordance with the California conversion law.
5. The amount of the grant, for example, $2Q,000 ta cover costs of the Project,
which is attributable to a lot occupied by moderate income, low income or very low income
residents who purchase their lot, would be deducted by the Owner from the purchase price for
such lot. Under this example, the lot buyer would receive a$20,000 credit to buy the lot ("City
Grant").
6. The Owner would provide each low income buyer with a$5,000 credit towards
the purchase price of their lot, provided such low income buyer exercises his or her option to
purchase within the 90-day period ("Owner Grant"). The Owner Grant is in addition to the City
Grant for the qualifying low income households.
7. The Owner woutd initiate a rent deferraI program for moderate income residents.
Such program would allow qualifying residenis to defer a portion of rent inereases which such
residents are unable to pay. The amount of the rent deferred would become a lien against the
qualifying residents' mobilehome, payable when the qualifying residents vacate the mobilehome.
8. In the event there is a delay in funding of the MPROP loans by the State of
California, so long as such MPROP funding is provided within a reasonable time period, the
Owner would not terminate the purchase escrows for such MPROP buyers, thereby preventing
an increase of the purchase price during that time.
LAW OFFICE6
GGILCHRIST � RUT1'ER
PROFY3�3tONAL CORPORATIOT�
Mr. Justin McCarthy
May 4, 20o5
Page 3
9. Ovmer would grant appropriate public easements within the Park necessary for
the construction, installation and maintenance of the Project. The sewer system would be owned
by the City.
10. The Redevelopment Agency would assume responsibility for the construction and
installation of the Yroject with ihe Owner's cooperafion, input and oversight.
!n summary, the residents would receive economic benefits as follows:
Very Low and Low Income *State Rent Controi creates permanent rent increase limits
Residents: *City Grant To Purchase
(Reduction of Purchase Price) $20,000
*Owner Grant To Purchase $5,000
*No rent increase to cover costs of Project
Moderate lncome Residents:
Other Income Residents:
All Residents and the City:
*No rent increase to cover costs of Project
*Rent Deferral Program
*No rent increase to cover costs of Project
*Immediate Sewer System to Replace Septic Tank System
The proposal set forih in this letter accomplishes the goals of the residents and the City_
All of the homes will be connected to the City sewer system immediately. Litigation and long
delays are avoided. Without an agreement involving the Owner and the City, it will be years (if
ever) before there is sewer system in the Park.
The foregoing is submitted with the hope that a mutually acceptable agreement will be
entered into with respect to the Project. Once you have had an opportunity to review these
LAw OFFICE3
GILCHRIST Ba RL:T'1`ER
rxorx�ton�L c:oRroxwzior+
Mr. Justin McCarthy
May 4, 2005
Page 4
proposed terms, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to discussing the foregoin�
and such further steps as will be necessary in order to initiate the Project,
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
Profes ' orporation
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
DMM:aap� 115985_1.DOC/050305
3416.006
cc: Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (via Federal Express)
05/11/2005 14:37 7608379990
MARI SCHMID INTS PAGE 01
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION...........
from: MARI SCHMIDT. CCID..ASID
INTERIOR DESIGN CQN$ULTANT
to: Rochelle, City Clerk
company: City of Palm Desert
fax number: 760.340.0574
re: Indian Springs MHP - Comrersion - 3swora/Septics
date: May 11, 2005
Hi Rochelle -
p • "TJ
c„ -
x —
saw
r.-_
- rn 7,s;,�
�Nr
00
w -+
V1 D3
CO rn
Wanted to get this off to you this morning but had to leave before I could get it done.
The attached handwritten latter was left at my door by one of the new coach owners
here in the Park. They have not yet moved in but are doing some remodelling on their
coach. The letter speaks for itself and I would appreciate it if you would include It In the
Council's packets and give another copy to Justin Mc earthy.
Thanks for your help..Mari
i per- P/;t49
es. 11_
faxed: 05-11-05 time: 3:30PM
number of pages (including cover): 03
49.30E STATE HIGHWAY 74 #86... PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA 92260.
760.837.0093 FAx 760.837.9990
Received fiay-11-05 03:33pm Fror-71300370000 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 01
05/11/2005 14:37 7608379990 MARI SCHMID INTS
PAGE 02
4/46/4W .51Pfe-/A0 5 ,t,
64/1. -Abc"S‘e../7d.../
Adz/ creorie--.";a 7- Aftrxit5i7--
,e
V17,/
. — —
/)(cis./ Ai,eee,‘"rits.)
1,4/4.16-_s /1‘,"
• WM./ •••••V••••0 ••• • .• • • • •
• • • • • • ••• • •• •• • • ••• •
17ge.S.
2/P 77 e34/ .
.. • • ••• 7.1*
(iv 7)( 49W /./
•••••••••••••.•
11
/71- eoArc.x*.il-z7-y
77/5.dieE 1CeatwkAta.) 47eme< .07;74.e
7/71,e4/ .r .42174, Z 4.A(
I/41'S ede;" 77A--
-r •
-J•g7/_-- I P/
1/6k/ ei4/31'J/ 7-41,ey CoAi Tok
4.•./7:0 7-4/45' 40‘,./.:e
, acf4ey-
Atiosp eW "v.(1r- "Yee-7.f e./.,'4 _
77- eeW• fru/ ,,,f7e /fit W",-ele--
IY6Alr etc 77.1--
^••+++"^+• • ,• • + v. v+ • • • •+fte...V+..
7--#5.eE 44/3"--S /1-6,54c-rn
ex 4-Aib
_ ,
.y-czJoild z g "tigo'zrz-pvt.. .
.0i eifz,40/
7/61-7- /rz-Al,22DA/ -7--474.4e
17"*4 Aiffilrd e.4).0 ‚-/c- ‚'-
£ 7;- $,4 1 ce-411 pe-z
• ,•- 1. ^
We e / rizsr .,-/r>A1 /;7/ 442rg
e,./ 446-4.
Received May-11-05 03:33pm From-7505375580
To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 02
05/11/2005 14:37 7608379990 MARI SCHMID INTS
PAGE 03
/474v /T , eg5 Acd 2 / /1, , / . .. %l(/,./d /01/ --
ai• / .407- .'dam.,/ ,,k o ✓4--S ,.✓ /.=� /
r/* tit /' J aW -J4-, c� e) •art o 4/,EL�. _ w•
._.�.T_
D45L/ ✓/ o k's %a i5 ✓E.‹.y / .J✓r /4P4(01.)( .
Laj.la,,�r, 2_ o 7» - e.),✓? e../ riti f‘- , f o-
, tit- 41/4-e- 4 _ LS/i__1_j,bse.- i4/ 4' ./C- 77-41,0
,____4t. v/4 ---7 ___ .... ,L dRs( / o 4.e.4.7- ?fff w.. s- ..,....._.
[f61sw vc(4-� .e- ce,✓ ,9,e , ,me- - ..
�E. 77 ,spar/ ew-e 7 -� ✓ Aez.�, 4ZVE,e / �-
U,,d„/ Ev,°61-'- "v 77/75 2 ?yam ,494//'('.,S
G, ),./E,t‘q-,zi" 7/3k V t)'e-e'd_)' 77 /..1,(577,Gz. 41 ,►f w
.0 L•5L,,z: / !� . $,$ WIS AlicST7ili-e- S7 77,.6_
ie/d k__ .4,Ci1- c'1(3 1) ._. Ge/;T- ea/7,4 -7 'D4/ D/✓ J ... .e/L a.?:;--t..
..._.___......e/:( ,..Xz.74e1.10,L,E,Zee .__#.4. e'AeA4.7- d te#7- _ .,.
• A ?1.--._-/-r..._.."7.._.,.7.T.'.4-..._..4q17/...c...dov,.:i.c.e..31(x..., '..eee.:4z---1?.-Y.______..._...
- - F' • ' ez..7" ea.€ ,fr Y 5 •/ - . tf. • —.
7-�ciite,l7C/L / 77geeA,1 e/47
tt
414 S� _ ✓�,�J r-7����l.� �../ .. -•�4� " ...€ ......—.
1/.66rf v,; 4. s ✓ .
•
�f-C/5/41.Pz/ , %a ,le,14j77Y - _ 'TY s ��� *C.fi�/� S �j. s � ,_5D
diitevEi✓ .5�✓ice` GF/��9
1-do,;c401V/7y 4.44. 77-M47-4.J,t , k E' r s7z 7 Z
Received May-11-05 03:33pm From-7003379990 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 03
MFETING DATE
LJ' CONTINUED TO
«� - /� `� -
�y
� � � �T �
CITY OF PALM DES�I� P�EO TO 2ND REAOING
,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: 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).
Palm Springs, CA 92262 MEETI DATE� —/,�— C5�
�
<
�
�
C'
��
:�
_ -
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager . MEFTIN6 4AT� `� �� y' �S
C7 CONTINUED TO �� � �� —' � �
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: � ;
Indian Springs, Ltd. d PaSSEA TO 2ND REAOING_ C
A California Limited Liability Co►-�pany '
c/o James and Associates, Inc. � � -� . , . .
255 N. EI Cielo Road, Suite 286 �
CASE NO
PM 31862
CONTINUED TO ��c7��'r�
❑ PASSED TO 2ND REAOtNG
DATE:
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:
February 10, 2005
�
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 5300,000
upgrading the 1970 septic system. To connect to the sewer will be expensive,
approximately 54 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 56,000 to S 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:
. :..,1`���
S eve Smith
Planning Manager
Department Head:
� �
Phil DreT
Director of Community Development
Approval:
. .
Ho er Croy
ACM for Development Services
/tm
Approval:
�
Carlos L. Orte
City Manage
(Wpdocs�tm�s�Wm31862 cc4)
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
RF: 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 scwer condition pursuant to Govemment
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 listcd
in "Exhibit A" of the Chapter, which does not include Indian Springs.
As a preliminary matter, the Commission imposed Condition No. 5 pursuant to
Govemment Code section 66428.1, not Chapter 8.60. Chapter 8.60 will apply to the sale of
homcs 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 Councit 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
Govemment 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 Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development has
exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobile home park. To the contrary, Section
GG428.1(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 G6428.1. The section was intended to
("�Uocuments and SelUngs�Robert tlargreevcs�My DocumentsU'ALM t)LSfiR'� MrmuranJum re Indain Spnngs.doc
facilitate mobile home conversions by limiting thc procedural and substantive requiremcnts 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 pazk, sanitary disposal facilities adequate to
service the park, and flood water drainage control desigr►ed 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 requiremcnts of Section 66428.1(d) are satisficd.
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 reflcct 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' �L)ocuinents and tiethngs�Robert Ifar��reavesVvty [)ucuments�PAI Vl l)FJERT Memoiandum re Indam Spnngs doc
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, which was continued to March
24, 2005, 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 densiry system, serving 191 units on a 34.7-acre site, resulting in
5.5 septic systems per acre whereas the general accepted standard is two
systems per acre.
�✓�s� 5— l � � �� .
RESOLUTION NO. 05-18
• 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.
• The Acting Assistant Executive Officer for the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board testified that the system poses a threat to groundwater
resources. Nitrogen builds up when septic tanks are not pumped regularly.
Sandy soil in the desert area has a very high rate of infiltration. What you
flush in the toilet will end up in groundwater within six months if it is 200 feet
of depth to the groundwater.
Prior to 9 998 only two of the 46 septic tank systems serving the park were
accessible for pumping. Forty-four (44) systems were not pumped between
1972 and 1998.
Staff from the Coachella Valley Water District testified that the District
inactivated about ten wells in the south Palm Desert area in the 1970's, 80's,
and 90's due to high concentrations of nitrates.
Installation of the sewer system is an "offsite improvement requirement"
because the requirement is intended to primarily address offsite impacts on
the groundwater; the object of the improvement is to remove sewage offsite;
the park sewer installation will be part of a much larger sewage treatment
system, the bulk of which is offsite; and a portion of the actual infrastructure
improvement will be the offsite connection to the sewer main.
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.
WHEREAS, the City did further find the following additional facts and reasons to
justify adding an additional condition 7 requiring that Indian Springs provide evidence to
the City that a majority of the residents support conversion or, in the altemative, that Indian
Springs enter into an agreement with the City that lots wil! be offered to the residents at fair
market value.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-18
• In adopting AB290 (2002), the legislature added a requirement that the
subdivider obtain a"survey of support" of park residents. The legislature
further expressed its intent that conversions be "bona fide" resident
conversions.
• The survey of support submitted by the subdivider demonstrates support of
only 27 of the 191 residents.
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 Ptanning 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
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
3
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.
Condition of Approval No. 7 is added to read:
7. Prior to the recording of the parcel map, subdivider shall provide to the City
a"survey of support" indicating that a majority of the residents approve the
proposed conversion; or, in the alternative, that subdivider enter into an
agreement with the City that the lots will be offered to be sold to the residents
at no more than fair market value.
//
�
May 26, 2005
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Note: City Councilmembers, the City Manager, City Attorney, and Assistant City
Managers were provided with the complete report, including all attachments from
prior considerations of this case. In the interest of saving paper and time, your
packet does not contain this information.
PI@c�S@ /et the City Clerk's Office know if you wish ro view or obtain a copy of the
entire report for your use.
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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) Case No. PM 31862
(Indian Springs, Ltd., ApplicandAppellant) (Continued from the meetings of
February 10, March 24, and May 12, 2005).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-18, denying the
appeal and affirming the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve Case No. PM 31862.
Action:
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUIL�7NG
1289 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9040�-'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
Cltj� CO11I1C1�
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Wilma Michelson
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Citv Council HearinQ: Thursday. February 10, 2005
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclos�grlewy�r�.eom
N
0
0
�
�
�
�
1
a
_
0
r
0
n
��
D �
= n TJ
r i*t
�mn
m �v t,.�
rn � _
J�1 "�
'° N r*�
�ov
�T
a�
m
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' pazcel 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 Califomia 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, Govemment 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 Richazd S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
City Council
January 31, 2005
Page 3
As you may be awaze, 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. Citv of Palm SprinQs, 96 Cal.App.4`h 1153 (2002).
The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of iilegal 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
Pro oration
.
.
C /
��
Richard H. Close
TWC:twc/ I 12473 I .DOC/I22104
3416.006
Enclosure
Of the Firm �
COPY 70 .� ._s'"^=.�i�'�.— �� ==—
oATE �-�?5
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.)
LAW OFFICES
WiLSHIRE PALISADES BUIL�ING
�299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-'1000
VIA FEDEX
GILCHI2IST 8, RiTTTN:R
r�zor�r:�tiiov,�L c�oicPoiz,�Tln\
January 7, 2005
Ms. Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert Civic Center
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision December 29, 2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Case No. PM 31862
Dear Ms. Klassen:
N
O
�
�
Z
i
0
Z
�
�
0
�
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
Desert.
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
Professio o tion
Richard H. ose
Of the Firm
RHC:app
Enclosures
COPY TO �+-� ���
oarE _.�,ir� — � �
TELEPHONE (3�0) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL. rCloso�grlawyars.com
c�
"O ...�
D ..�
r �
n
= r r+'�
v r*1 C',
r^�rn
N7C—
�Nrn
-+op
_ �
��
n�
�
�RH(' aap/I11739_1 /0 1 0705/34 1 6.006]
D�c-OT-04 12:39p� Froe-PAlll DESERT CITY CLERK
T603400674 T-703 P.O1/O1 F-628
CITY OF PALM DESERT� CALIFORNIA
APPLICATIDN TC? APPEAL
DECISION OF THE P�NING COI�4iISSION
(tvarrw of D�famdninp BodY)
Case No. PM 31862 Date of Decision:
12/29/04
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
N �"�
O
ro � '_1
` D�
�• �'�7p
Z = r Ptl
c7 m n
o �''�m
m�—
Z '°`^m
''ov
=L____ca-�n
O n n
C") m
Description of
Applrcafion orMatterConsidered: PM 31s62 to convert rental mobilehome park to condominium
park.
Reason for Appea! (aitach addRlon�l sheefs lf necessary):
Please see attached sheets 1-3
See Attached
(Signahire of Appellant)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY �-� 33 i�1 ��
Date App�al Filed: 1-1 n— �� � Fee Received: ,� I q� �
Treasure�s Receipt No. � Received by: ��t�' ''t 1.
Date af Consideration by City Counai or City Official: ��
�
Action Taken:
Date:
11:lrkMcsert�WPmb�WPDOC3IFORMSbpp b �ppl�i.Ma
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
COPY TO �--�'
oATE �-�n=� �
���
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 onlv as to Condition
of Annroval 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: t wc/ 111575_ I. DOC/010305/3416.006]
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
thin�s, 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 Communitv 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 l 3360 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.
[TWC:twc/ I 1 I 575_ I.DOC/U 10305/341 G.006] 2
may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of
Water Gode 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 reyuire the Park to connect to
the sewer system.
Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against lndian
Springs will force a challenge to the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60
is vaid 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 iiself, thus rendering propercy 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 sepric system is in full
compliance with all applicable regulations.
As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illega[ conditions on
the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El
Dorado Palm SnrinQs, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Svrin�s, 96 Ca1.App.4`h 1 I 53 (2002). The delay
caused by Palm Sprin�s' 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 Califomia corporation
Its: General Partner
,
����L.
: James . Goldstein
ts: President
(TWC:twc/] l 1575_ l.DOC/010305/3416.00h]
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
March 7, 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 Man No. 31862
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclosa®9rlawyars.com
ry n
c. MC f- -
--+
r m
rnc>
rn
tn •
= 7O`^m
-4a
o C)�
N A n
rn
Dear Mayor Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson and Councilmembers Benson, Kelly and Spiegel:
Based upon what appears to be the desire of the City Council, the Coachella Valley
Water District and the Water Quality Control Board, we have developed a new proposal which
would achieve the results sought by the City, CVWD and the Board, but in a quicker and much
more efficient and effective manner than is required by your Ordinance. If our proposal is
acceptable to the City it would result in every lot in Indian Springs being removed from our
septic system and attached to a sewer system owned and maintained by CVWD in the immediate
future and not as individual lots were sold, as required by your Ordinance.
The following is presented in an attempt to reach a compromise and the presentation of
this offer may not be treated as an admission regarding the sufficiency of the existing system or
its effects upon the ground water in the area; nor may this offer be considered an
acknowledgement by the owner of the ability of the City to impose the requirement of sewer
installation as a condition of subdividing the mobile home park for the purpose of lot sales to
mobilehome owners.
In preparing our proposal, we have consulted with Tom Levy, former Executive Director
of CVWD. Mr. Levy told us that he was unaware of any instance within the District where the
property owner paid the entire cost of construction and hookup where it was necessary to
construct the backbone system down the street to serve the property. Mr. Levy confirmed the
recollection of Councilman Spiegel regarding the situation in his neighborhood. In that
situation, the City obtained a Federal grant to pay most of the cost of the new sewer system.
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
March 7, 2005
Page 2
On behalf of the owner of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park, we propose the following
method to construct and finance the sewer line and the connection to each of the homes:
1. IMMEDIATE CONNECTION: The City's Ordinance requires lots to
connect only as they are sold. As we explained at the City Council meeting, the conversion of
the Park to allow resident ownership does not require residents to purchase their lot. They can
continue to live in the Park as renters. Therefore, even if we assume that the City Ordinance is
enforceable, our experience in other mobile home parks would suggest that up to 50% of the lots
would not be sold and thus not be required to connect to the sewer system. Under our proposal,
the owner would agree to connect all of the homes to the new system at the time of construction
of the sewer line. This would allow all the homes to be connected at one time, and thus
theoretically, improve water quality in the basin.
2. COST SHARING:
a. Resident Households that do not exceed the income restriction for use
of Redevelopment Tax Increment Funds.
Tax Increment Funds or other City funds would be used to pay the prorata
costs for the sewer construction and hook up for all income qualifying households. Income
Qualifying Households are defined as set forth in Califomia Health and Safety Code 50093, Low
and Moderate Income Households.
b. Resident Households that exceed the definitions for Low and
Moderate Income Households as set forth in Health & Safety Code 50093.
The City would pay the cost of the lateral hookup and the governmental
fees for each resident household that exceeds the income level for Low and Moderate Income
Households set forth in Code Section 50093.
c. Backbone System.
The owner would be responsible for the cost of installation of the
backbone system. However, the City would finance the remaining costs necessary to complete
the sewer line system and connection of all the homes at an interest rate commensurate with that
currently being earned by the city. The loan would be secured by an encumbrance upon the lots.
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
March 7, 2005
Page 3
d. Payment by Owner.
Interest would be paid to the City by the owner on a semi-annual basis.
The principal amount of the loan would be allocated among the lots and would be repaid to the
City as lots were sold.
Neither the owner nor the residents could afford the cost of sewer installation without a cost
sharing and funding mechanism such as we have suggested. Our original thought was that we
could establish an assessment district. However, as pointed out by Mr. Erwin and Mr.
Hargreaves, the costs of establishing an Assessment District would be significant and out of
proportion to the amount financed. If the redevelopment agency or the city would agree to
finance the installation, the interest rate could be established to match the return on its current
investments, thus resulting in no additional cost to the city.
We appreciate your consideration of this proposal and we are willing to meet with you
and/or City Staff to discuss implementation of this proposal and answer any questions.
Very truly yours,
GILC;•;►. T & ' UTTER
Proration
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
RHC:aap/1 13775_ I .DOC/030705
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)
Paul T. Selzer, Esq. (Via Email and U.S.Mail)
�� California Re ional Water uali Control Board
� g Q �'
Colorado River Basin Region
Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D.
Agency Secre�vry 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, Califomia 92260 Arnold Schwatzenegger
(760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341-6820 Goti+ernor
http://www.swrcb. ca.govinvqcb7
April 27, 2005
RECEIVED
Stephen R. Smith, Planning Mgr. ���` `�� 20�
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive � 0�1M1'ti:'f1' DEt'EL�iPKE::T GF.PARTMENT
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 riT}� �}�� p.4LM DE�ERT
RE: RE(�UEST FOR COMMENTS ON TESTIMONY CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD
ORDER NO. 97-500 FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK SEPTIC TANK/SEEPAGE
PIT AND LEACH FIELD DISPOSAL �ACILITIES — PALM DESERT
The Regional 8oard staff reviewed the declarations during the hearing of March 24, 2005 pertaining to
compliance with Board Order No. 97-500, General Waste Discharge Requirements (copy enclosed) for
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park septic tank/seepage pit and leach field disposal facilities, and the
potential adverse impact on ground water quality resulting from the discharge since the facilities were
instaHed over 30 years ago. The Notification of Applicability (copy also enclosed) for this general permit
was issued on September 24, 1997, rescinding the individual Order issued in 1987.
Board staff conducted an inspection of the facilities on April 30, 1998 and issued a Notice of
Noncompliance on May 1, 1998 (copy also enclosed). Staff determined that nearly all of the septic tank
systems were not accessible for sampling, inspection and pumping as required by Provision C.11 of this
Order. The systems were required to be accessible by November of 1998. Staff received a work plan on
August 28, 1998 stating that eight systems would be made accessible each year. On December 3, 1998
staff issued another Notice of Noncompliance (copy also enclosed) stating that only two systems were
found to be accessible, and the discharge facilities were not in compliance with the work plan schedule.
Please note, attached is a report from the septic tank pumping company that serves the park. This report
indicates that only until recently have most of the septic tanks been pumped after being made accessible,
and many were noted to have failed leaching systems. Septic tanks serving multiple mobile homes should
be pumped every year to prevent overloading of the tanks and clogging of seepage pits or leach lines.
From the considerable evidence that staff has accumulated from monitoring the regulated septic tank
discharge facilities over the past several years, overloaded systems have shown to discharge sewage
effluent that contains excessive amounts of total nitrogen that converts to nitrates in ground water.
Therefore, since the tanks were installed over 30 years ago and most were not completely accessible for
pumping until 2003, staff has determined that if the discharge from the septic tanks at this park is allowed
to continue, it will be necessary to revise the requirements for the on-site discharge that will include
ground water monitoring wells to ensure compliance with nitrate limitations.
Should you have questions concerning the above, please call me at (760) 776-8940
. J
CHARLES�SPRI���`_�_
Sanitary Engineering Associate
CS/hs
Enc.: As stated above
N
v
�
r_ n
i
�
�
. i
�
�
_
�e
�
�
�
Z �
� -�
r
_.. � "7
'-' r- C 1
�_, r.� �
��:.%� •r�
�'� x —
rn ..;,
� �'r��
-iop
�
��
D n
m
File: 7A 33 1168 011, Indian Springs Mobile Home Estates, Board Order No. 97-500(17)
California Environmenta! Protection Agency
�a Recycled Paper
I,
:�. .�01M�RA • CALIPORNM FMI�ROPAiAtnfAl MO�TECTION IKiENCY
CA REGIONA� WATER �UAUTY CONTROL 00ARD
�p�ppApp pIVER BASIN • REGION 7
rsr.o � w� on.. � �oo
Mu+ o��xr. u► a�eo
� :� ��w,
fnx c�eo► s�,�o
Septembe� 24, 1997
CERTIFIEO MAII: P 435 461 017
James F. Goid:tsin
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2030
Los An�etes, CA 90087
Attn: Anne Jamas, P�asidant
VF1F YVw.g(1M f#t*�nio►
. .,
���z
% � .?�
�.+%
RE: Notification of Applicability for Gene�al Waste Discharge Raqui�sme�ts, Board Orde� No. 97-
500, for James F. f3oldstsin, Owner and James and Associates, Inc., Operator of Indian Springs
Mobll� Home Park Septic Tank/Seepa�e Pit Dispoaal Fa�ilities - Palm Deaen
Re�ional Board ataff recsived s complete Notic� of Intent (NOU on May 19, 1997 fo� the subject
sewags disposal faci{itisa. Ths discharpe from these facilities has besn aubject to waste discharge
requirementa in Board O�der No. 87-013. This order waa rescinded at ou� Board Meetinq on September
24. 1997 (copy of Rescission O�dK enclosedl. Since these fscilities meet the criteria for GenerN W sste
�ischarpe Rsquirements, Board Ord�r No. 97-500 (also enclosed} is hencefonh applicable to regulate
the subw�face discharge of wast�water at th)s facility.
Staff notsd from ths infomnation provided in ths NOI thst this park has a total of 191 mobile home
spa s and a laundry room discharqin� a maximum of 48,000 pallons-per-day of domestic sswage into
��ptic tank/ssepa�e pit disposal systems located throu�hout the park. There are no wells in the
vicinity ot the dispossl systecns, and dapth-to-��ound wate� at tfie nesrest wel� is approximstely 400
feet. The total dissolved solida content of ths water supplied to the park is about 400 mg/L.
Pleass note, this new order of �enKel rsquirem�nt= includes Monitoriny and Reporti�q Pro�ram No. 97-
500, which requi�es annual monitOrin� of the wastewater to det�rmine complisncs with the
r�u��ements. Ssmplin� ot th� waatewster from two of th� s�epa�e pits at separate locations in the
pirk is required durin� Novemb�r for wbmittal of the annusl monitorin� repon (with the analytical
resuhs sttach�dl by Janusry 15 �ach y�sr.
Should you hays questions concsrninq the above� please call Cha�les SprinQe� et 17801 776-8940.
IL ENBERG
Ex�cutiv� Office�
�
CS/hs
�
�
Enc.: As ststed above
cc: James snd Associates, Inc., Palm Sprinps
Fila: 7A331 1 6801 1, Indian Sprin�s Mobik Home Pa�k, Bosrd Order No. 97-50017
. ��
�al/EPA
l {
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
COLORADO RIVER BASW REGION
73-720 Frsd Wanng Dnw - S��le 1 D0. PaLn Dstsrt, G 9?260 Pho�e: �I60) 3I67I91 Fas (760J 3� 1-6820
May 1, 199�
C�i11R� MAIL• P 439 106 676
Ame James, Phesident
James ar�d ASsociaRes
2501 N. Ircian Carya�, N�. 623
Paim S�xings, CA 92262
. .,.
.
r.
r ,ti. ...
� J •
,�T��:
Pde Wilsa�
ca,�.�o.
FiE: Notioe af N�.� �..� ��iarxe with Generaf W�s-te Disdiarge Req�i �� �� �, Bo�arri Order Pb. 97-
500, for Ircian Springs Mobile Horr�e Paic Sep�ic TaildSeepege Rt Dis�osai Facilities - Palm
Desert
Regonai Board s�tsff ir�spected the s�bject facilities on A�xi1 30. 199� ioopy of ir�ection report
aidosedl. Staff d�served that nea�iy all of the 48 sep�c ta�ics in the park were rot �.,.�.�Ue for
ir�spec.�Gon and sarrpling as req�ir�ed by Provison C. 11 of Board Or�cfer iVo. 97-500 laiso �� ,t ��� ��]►.
S�eff hffi �'t � c �� . J tt1Ed It IS �y t0 f1tl�liB bOR�I ,,,,,� � rr: L ���, 6,a O�f 9ad1 Of tf18 96QfiC t81kS In the �
peric ��'ble by ir�stailing ri�ers ar�d lids at gr+aiid �rfaoe. Rease s�bnit a vwrfq�ian �o this affiae
by J�r�e 1, 199� tf�et indudes a time sdiedi.ie for installa6on vF these r�eoessay oorr�ecdve nieestres
for oorrplianoe by No�u�errfier. 1998, when the slucise cieprtti a�d ttidv�ess oF the sa.m lay�er in eafi
�M ,�,� :. �.,� �t of ev+ery sepdc tank in the p�erlc is to be meas�red, as req�.ired by the Mai, .I.: �: �. ad
In�ec,ban Pr�am af tfiis Orcier. �
Sho�id you haue any q�.ies-�a�s ��� �, �, the at�w�e, please call me ac (760) 77689�10.
�,.�-- -
�=r.�= ��." �- - � � j ��.
. . • �...
r-
,w .
Enc.: As stated abonne
�
Jam�es F. Goldstein, Los Ar�geles
Fle: 7A3:i1161011, Irx�an S�xings Nbbile F-bn'�e Park, Board Order f�b. 97-50017
.
�
`
Cal/EPA
� � ,,: :. � 3, 1998
CH�i11R� MAIL• P 436 460 9�90
Am James
Jares ar�d Associates. Inc.
2501 N. Irxian Car�y�on. No. 623
Palm S�xings, CA 92262
Pcle \1'ilson
rovr�no�
RE: Natioe af N,� ���.�iianoe with Ger�al W�s�te Disdtiarge fieq�i, �„ ��� �t�, Board Order No. 97-
500, for In�an S�xings Nbbile Hare Pak Sepptic Tar�lc/See�ac�e Rt and LeacFi Feld Qspos�l
Facilities - Palm Dese�t
Raga�ai Board staff ir�spec.ked the si.bject faaiities on Q �� � L � 2, 1998 (oopy of irs��ectiai reporc
endosed). Staff reoeiv�ed a walq�lan (oopN also endased) on A�g�.st 28, 1996 far ir�staila�tivn vf sepoc
tank lids axi ��,�r� Pit lids that were �,�.� to be oarpleted by I�iau�en�ber, 199�. Staff was
infortr�ed by the nieriger that o�y tv�o sepRic taik systems h�aue been oatpleted as af this date.
Therefore, the rerr�air�ing tar�lc.s arid seepage piLs are sdll no�t a,.�Ue for ir�spec,tion and s�rrpling as
reqi.ired by Ptavision C. 11 of Board Onder No. 97-500 (oopy also er�dasedl. Also, obvia�sly it is
almost in�ossible to determine the thidv�ess af the sam lay�er in eadi �� r►� 4,��l vf a sepdc tank
ttrou� a six inch riser. Staff sent you a lelter of reoeipt aF the vwrl�ian, daited S�.wC.. � � 1, 1998
(oopy also �� J. �� ��1. Fbwe��er, please no�te it is ����, ,� thet either the tfiidaiess af the sarn lay�
in bath ���: t � �]a of all 48 sep�ic tanks be rr�eaared, or all of the tanlcs be p�n�ed lbo�d�
w�ste�n�ter ar�d sdicJs) by .1�x�arY 15, 1999 and by Jarx,�ary 15 of each y�ear tfiereafter, as reqi.ired
by the Meirrtenar�oe axi I� �,.G.� � secGon af the Arrxjal Monitoring and Heportirg Progam
Staff has detertrined that it is neoessay to hau�e lids at grarid sufaoe af adeq�jate cianater for bath
�� y,,a l. ���.a af each af the sep�ic tar�ks ar�d see�ge pits to be aooessble for rr�aas�ring the thidv�ess
af the scur lay� aid for p�r��ing the e�tire tar�c. Rease sutxrit a revised vwr4q�lan to this otfioe by
Q� „�, , t �, 28, 1998 that indudes a time sched�Je fa instailadon aF the ,�.,�,�ry ooRecdv�e meas�ies
for oorr�liar�oe by Jar�rary 15,1999, wheri the arrx�al monitoring report is due. Please norte, this re�ort
also rec�.ires tftiat tvw of the seepage pits a sep�c tar�lcs be sarr�led. For y�ar oorn�eryenoe, we hanne
aiso endased oopies of the report fams.
Shaid you hau�e ar�y qt.�es�tions �.,�� �� �ng the ai�w�e, pleese call me at (76� 77G89�0.
� ' �
Sa�itay Erx,�rieen�ate
: -
6ic.: As stated abon�
oc: Rchard H. Qose, C,dchrist ax! Rutter, Sar�ta M�nica
' ,.,,, .
CALIFORNU REGIONAL «'ATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ��,
COLORADO RiVER BASIN REGION
'3-7� J Fred N'ar�ng Drive - Su�te 100. Polm DtJert. CA 97I60 Phont •�I60) 3l6719/ For (760J ?I 1-6R20
Fle: 7Q331168011, Ircian Springs Nbbile Har�a Park, Board Order No. 97-50017
CAIIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL � l�T r�
A�MD�'�
COLORADO AIVER 8AS1N REGION ��,h . � ��t�
ORDER N0. 97-500
COMM[:�[Tt' DF.`;F.L�F�1F::T f,; P��RT!�IB�T
GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ��Tti Of NAI.'.� DE�ERT
fOR
ON-SITE SUBSURFACE WASTEWATER OISPOSAI SYSTEMS
FOR MOBILE HOME AN� RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS
AND OTHER SIMIIAR FACILITIES
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region, finds that:
1. The California Water Coda requires that any person dischar�in� wastes, or proposiny to
d'+scharge wastes, other than into a community sewer system, which could affect the quality ot
the waters oi the State, shall file a Report of Waste Discharpe with the appropriate Re�ional
Water �uality Control Board. The Regional Board then prescribes waste diachsrfle requirementa
for the discharge of wastes.
2. The Regional Board adopted General Waste Discharge Requirements contained in Board Order
No. 93-600 which regulates on-site subsurface wastewater disposal systems for fuel service
stations, auto garages, vehicle maintenancelwrecking yards, machine shops, bus washes and
car washes.
3. This Board Order of general waste discharge requirements is desi9ned tor on•site subsuriacs
westewater disposal systems of mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, and other similar
facilities such as: shopping centers, restaurants, residential developments, schools, camps and
other commercial facilities. These facilities have caused and/or have the potential to causs
contamination of the State's �roundwater resourcas from total dissolved solids, volatile orflanic
comppunds, pH, nitrate, nitroflen and other pollutants.
4. On-site subsuriace disposal systems are wastewater disposal systems which use septic tanks
followed by subsur(ace infiltration of wastewater as e primary dispossl method. Such systems
include, but are not limited to: seepage pits, leach fields, mound systems (all unlined types) and
evapotranspiration/absorption systems.
5. Wastewater is defined as any water which contsins pollutanta as defined in 40 CFR, Section
122.2. This includes domestic wastewater (toilet, sink, bath, etc.); trom the facititie� previousiy
mentioned in Finding No. 2 above.
6. Section V(B)(3) of the Guidelines for Sewage Disposal from Land �evefopments, adopted by the
Regionai Board in 1984, provides for the ezclusion of on-site wastewater flows less than 5,000
gallons•per-day.
7. The adoption ot general waste discharge requirements for said tacilities using on-site wastewater
disposal would assist in:
a. Protecting the flroundwater in the Colorado River Basin Region from contamination;
b. Identifying potential groundwater pollution problems existing at this time;
c. Simplifying and expediting the application process for the discharfler; and
d. Reducing Regional Board time expended on preparing and considering individual waste
discharge requirements for each facility.
8. The Water Quelity Control Plan for the Colorado River Besin Region of Celifornia (Basin Plan) was
adopted on November 17, 1993 and designates the beneficial uses of ground and surfece waters
in this Region.
9. These general requirements are intended for facilities where the groundwater beneficial uses
and/or potential beneficial uses are for municipal supply, agriculturel supply and/or industrial
supply, as described in the Basin Plan. Under the direction of the Regional Board's Executive
Officer, these requirements would benefit the public and Regional Board staff by accelerating the
review process without loss of regulatory jurisdiction and oversight.
10. Beneficial uses of groundwater in the Coloredo River Besin Region include: municipal supply,
agricultural supply and industrial supply. Beneficial uses for individual hydrologic subareas are
specified in the Basin Plan.
11. These general waste discharge requirements are applicable to subsurface wastewater disposal
facilities for mobile home and recreationat vehicle parks and other fecilities such as those iisted
in Finding No. 3(above) with simila� on-site subsu�face disposal systems.
12. These general waste discharge requirements are not intended to alter or supersede existing
restrictions or conditions or waste discharge requirements imposed by other governmental
agencies on the discharge facility.
13. These general waste discharge requirements are applicable ,to such facilities and systems, as
described in Findings No. 3 end No. 4(above), provided that one of the following conditions
exist:
a. In accordance with Section 15301, Chapter 3, Title 14 of the Celifornia Code of Regulations,
the issuance of these weste discharge requirements, which govern the operation of an
existing facility involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing,
is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code, Section 21000 et. seq.).
b. The installation and operation of the private subsurface disposal system will cause only a
minor alteration to land as defined in the Californie Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section
15300, and therefore are exempt from the requirements of California Environmental Quality
Act.
A Negative Declaration or another environmental document, satisfying the requirements of
the California Environmentaf Quality Act (CEQAI, has been approved for the proposed
project.
14. To qualify for this General Order, the owner/operator of unregulated existing or new facilities
must:
a. Own, operate, lease, or propose to own, ope�ate or lease any type of facility previously
mentioned;
b. Adhere to all current local, State and Federal regulation and applicable permits;
Ea
c. Submit documentation that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Chapte� 3, Division 13, Public Resources Code1 has been satisfied.
d. Submit a project plan and a complete and accurete Notice of Intent (NOI) incorporated herein
as Attachment "A", and made a part of this Board Order along with the first annual fee.
15. To qualify for this General Order, the ow�er/operator of an existing regulated facility must:
a. Adhere to all current local State, and Federal regulations and applicable permits; and
b. Submit a complete and accu�ate NOI for compliance.
16. Following receipt of the pertinent information, listed in Findings No. 14 and No. 15, the Regionel
Board's Executive Officer will determine:
a. It is appropriate to regulate the proposed facility unde� general waste discherge requireme�ts;
b. No funher documentation or clarification is needed; and
c. The wastewater disposal system appears to meet criteria necessary for protection of
groundwater.
t 7. Oischargers that submit complete epplicatiorts end are determined to be subject to these
requirements will be notified by the Regional Board's Executive Officer in writing. This
notification, called a Notice of Applicability (NOA), will inform the discharger thet their proposed
discharge is subject to the requirements promulgated by the Regional Board.
18. Notwithstanding the above findings, individuat cases may be brought to the Boerd for
consideration of waste discharge requirements when deemed appropriate by the Regional Board's
Executive Officer.
19. The Board has notified interested agencies and persons of its intent to adopt general waste
discharge requirements for the use of on-site subsurfece wastewater disposal systems for mobite
home and recreational vehicle parks and other similar facilities, such as: shopping centers,
restaurants, residential developments, schools, camps and any commerciel facilities not regulated
by Board Order No. 93-600.
20. The Board in a public meeting heard and considered ell comments pertaining to this discharge.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water
Code and regulations adopted thereunder, the discharger shall comply with the following:
A. Prohibitions
The direct discharge of any wastewater to any surface waters or surface drainage courses is
prohibited.
2. Bypass or overflow of untreeted or partially treated waste is prohibited.
3. The discharge oi waste to land not owned or controlled by the discharger is prohibited.
3
4. Discharge of treated wastewater et a locetion or in a menner diffe�ent from that described in
Findings No. 3 and No. 4, ebove, is prohibited.
5. Discharge of waste clessified as 'hazerdous" or "designated" as detined in California Code of
Reguletions, Titie 23, Chapter 15, Section 2521(a) and 2522(a), to arty pari of the wastewater
disposal system is prohibited.
B. Specifications
1. This Board Order shall serve as general weste discharge requirements for the discharge of
westewater to on-site subsurface wastewater disposal systems from mobile home and
recreational vehicle perks and other similar facilities.
2. Any person owning or operating facilities of the type described in Findings No. 3 and No. 4,
above, are considered a discharger for the purposes of this Board Order.
3. All facilities referenced in Finding No. 3 above, using on-site wastewater treatment/disposal for
domestic wastewater, shall have officially epproved septic tank/seepage pit or leach field disposal
systems or similar subsurface disposal systems which are accessible for cleaning and inspection.
4. No wastewater other than domestic wastewater shall be discharged +nto the sewage disposal
systems described in Findings No. 3 and No. 4, above.
5. The septic tank systems shall be maintained to remain effective in treating wastewater.
6. Odors of sewage origin shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the individual facility.
7. Any off-site disposal of septage shall be only to a legal point of disposal, with the approval of
the legal disposal site operator. For purposes of these requirements, a legal disposal site is one
for which requirements have been established by the California Regional Water Duality Control
Board and which is in full compliance therewith. Any septage handling shall be in such e manner
as to prevent its reaching surface waters or watercourses.
8. No part of the subsurface disposal systems shall be closer than 150 feet to any wate� well or
closer than 100 feet to any stream, channel, or other water source.
9. No part of the seepage pit or leach field for the disposal system shall extend to a depth where
wastes may deleteriously affect an aquifer that is usable for domestic, agricultural or industrial
purposes. In no case mey the seepage pit or leach field extend to within 10 feet of the zone of
historic or anticipated high groundwater level unless otherwise approved by the Regional Board's
Executive Officer. Furthermore, the seepage pit or disposal field shall not lay above fractured
or impe�meable bedrock. The discharger must submit a technical report certifying that the
seepage pits or leach fields meet this requirement. The report shall be prepared by a California
Registered Civil Engineer or a Certified Engineering Geologist.
10. The subsurface wastewater disposal system(s) shall be maintained so that at no time will sewage
be permitted to surface or overflow at any location.
11. Septic tank cteanings shall be discharged only by a duly euthorized service.
12. The treatment or disposat of wastes at this facility shalt not cause poltution or nuisance as
defined in Section 13050 of Division 7 of the California Water Code.
4
13. Wastewater which has a total dissolved solids (TDS? concentration g�eater ihan 400 mg/L over
the TDS content of the water supply to the facility shall be discharged only to an appropriate
waste management facility approved by the Regional Board's Executive Officer.
14. The discharge shall not cause degradation of groundwater nor adversety aifect any oi the
beneficial uses.
C. Provisions
Prior to any change in ownership or manegement of this operation, the discharger shall transmit
a copy of this Board Order to the succeeding owner/operator, and forward a copy of the
t►ensmittal letter to the Regional Board. The new owner shall submit a N01 described in Finding
No. 15.
2. This Board Order does not authorize violation of any federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
3. The discharger shatl submit a Notice of Intent (es described in Findings No. 14 and No. 15) that
includes the as-built construction and operation details of the subsurface system for review
within 90 days efter system completion.
4. These waste discharge requirements are subject to review and revision by the Regional Board.
5. Individual provisions of these waste discharge requirements are severable. If any provision of
these requirements is found invalid, the remainder of these requirements shall not be affected.
6. The discharger shall at all times property operate end maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenancesj, which are installed or used by the discharger
to achieve compliance with conditions of this Board Order.
7. Sufficlent land area shall be reserved for possible future 100 percent replacement of the seepage
pits or leech fields, until such time as this facility is con�ected to a municipal sewerage system.
Replacement pits shafl be installed in acco�dance with Title 22, Chapter 16, Section 64630, the
Water Works Standards of the California Water Code.
8. Adequate measures shall be taken to assure that flood o� surface drainage waters do not erode
or otherwise render portions of the discharge facilities inoperable.
9. The discharger shall comply with "Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 97-500", and future
�evisions ihereto, as specified by the Ragional Board's Executive Officer.
10. The discharge� shal! comply with all of the conditions of ihis Board Order. Any noncompliance
with this Board Order constitutes e violation of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and
is grounds for enforcement action.
11. All regulated disposal systems shall be readily accessible for sampling and inspection.
:�
12. In the case that sample analyses indicate thet the concentretion of any nitrate or hazardous
substance including�VOCs exceeds the MCL established for drinkfng water, the discharger is
required to resample the wastewater within 30 days of the date of the initial sampling results.
If the resampling res�.�lts eiso exceed the MCLs of nitrate or eny hezardous substances including
VOCs, the discharger is required to perform e subsurface investigation pursua�t to Section
13267 of the California Water Code to determine any impacts to the ground water and/or soils.
If a subsurface investigation is necessary, the discharger is required to submit a workplan to
perform the investigation. The workplan must be prepared by a qualified professional engineer
or geologist. The workplan shall be submitted to the Regional Board's Executive officer for
approval within 90 days of the dated of the resampling results. This provision applies only to
areas where the ground water is designated for munic(pal use in the Basin Plan
13. The discharger shall allow the Regiona) Board's Executive Officer, or his/her authorized
representative, upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law,
to:
a. Enter upon the premises regulated by this Boerd Order, or the place where records must be
kept under the conditions of this Board Order;
b. Have eccess to and copy, et reasonable times, any records thet shall be kept under the
conditions of this Board Order;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control
equipmentl, practices, or operations regulated or requi�ed under this Board Order; and
d. Sample or monito� at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring compliance with this
Board Order or as otherwise authorized by the California Water Code, any substances or
parameters et this location.
14. The discharger shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment.
Any such information shall be provided verbally to the Regionel Board's Executive Officer within
24 hours irom the time the discharger becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submittal
shall also be provided within five days of the time the discharger becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submittal shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its
cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; and if the noncompliance
has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue and steps taken or
planned to reduce, eliminate, end prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. The Regional
Board's Executive Officer, or en unauthorized representative, may waive the written report on
a case-by-case basis, if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.
15. The discharger is the responsible party fo� the weste discharge requirements and the monitoring
and reporting program for the facility. The discharger shall comply with all conditions of these
waste discharge requirements. Violations may result in enforcement actions, inctuding Regional
Board Orders or court orders, requiring corrective action or imposing civil monetary liebility, or
in modification or revocation of these waste discharge requirements by the Regional Boerd.
16. The discharger shall remove and relocate any wastes which are discharged at this site in violation
of these requirements.
6
��. �
17. Prior to any modifications in this facility which would result in material chenge in the quality' or
quantity2 of wastewater treated or discharged, or any material change in the location of
discharge, the discherger shell �eport all pertinent information in writing to the Regional Board
and obtain revised requirements before any modifications are implemented.
18. The discharger shall furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical monitoring program reports, and
such reports shall be submitted in acco�dance with the specifications prepared by the Regional
Board's Executive Officer. Such specifications are subject to periodic revisions es may be
warranted.
19. The discharger shall ensure that all site opereting personnel are familiar with the content of this
Board Order, and shall maintain a copy oi ihis Board Order et the site.
20. The Regional Board's Executive Officer and the Director of the County Environmental Health
Department shall be notified immediately of eny failure of the wastewater containment facilities.
Such feilure shall be promptly corrected in accordance with the requirements of this Board Order.
21. Unless otherwise approved by the Regional Board's Executive Officer, all analyses shell be
conducted at a laboratory certified for such anelyses by the State Department of Health Services.
All analyses shall be conducted in accordance with the latest edition of "Guidelines Establishing
Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants", promulgated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
22. The discharger shall retain records ot all monitoring information including all calibration and
maintenance records, copies of all reports required by this Board Order, and records of all data
used to complete the application for this Board Order. Records shall be maintained for a
minimum of three years from the date of the sample, measurement, or report. This period may
be extended during the course of eny unresolved litigation regarding this discharge or when
requested by the Regional Board's Executive Officer.
23. All maintenance performed shall be reported with the monitoring reports as required.
24. All applicetions reports, NOIs and/or information to be submitted to the Regional Board's
Executive Officer shall be signed and certified as follows:
a. For a corporation -- by a principal executive officer with at least the level of vice president.
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship -- by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency -- by either e principal executive
officer or ranking elected official.
' A change in the material quality of the wastewater stream is defined as a change in the type of
wastewater discharge, the addition of wastewater streams or other similar changes to the
process which would result in a chemical parameter change within the wastewater stream.
2 A significant change in the quantity is defined as a ten percent increase in the daily flow of the
wastewater stream.
F]
u
25. A duly authorized representative of the person designated above may sign documents if:
a. The authorization specifies an individuel or person having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated dlsposed system; and
b. The authorization specifies an individual or person having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated disposal system; end
c. The written authorization is submitted to the Regional Board's Executive Officer.
26. Faci�ities shall be available to keep the sewage disposal systems in operation in the event of
commercial power failure.
I, Philip A. Gruenberg, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
an Order adopted by the Califor�ia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Besin Region, on
March 26. 1997.
�
xecutive Officer �
8
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 97-500
FOR
ON-SITE SUBSURFACE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
FOR MOBILE HOME AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS
AND OTHER SIMILAR FACILITIES
MONITORING
The discharger shall submit an annual status report on the following:
1. Estimate of the total maximum daily flow of sewage discharged to the sewerage systems (septic
tank/seepage pit systemsl.
2. List any proposed changes in the sewage disposal tacilities 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 shalt be monitored for totat dissotved solids before discharge.
5. One septic tank/seepage pit or leach field disposal system for every 20 septic tank systems shatl
be sampled annually during November. The samples shall be analyzed for the following:
Constituent
Total Dissolved
Solids
Volatile Organics
(EPA Methods 601
and 602)
Hydrogen lon
Nitrais as NO3-N
iotal Nitrogen
Uni
mg/L'
N9���
pH units
mg/L
mg/L
Type of
Samale
Greb
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Sampling
Freauencv
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
The collection, preservation and holding times of all samples shall be in accordance with U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency approved procedures. All analyses shall be conducted by a
laboretory certified by the State Department of Health Services to perform the required analyses.
'mg/L - milligrams per Liter
�Ng/L - micrograms per Liter
1
MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION
Septic tanks shalt be inspected and pumped as described below:
Parameter
Minimum
Type of Inspection
Units Measurement Freauencv
Sludge depth and scum Feet
thickness in each compa�tment
of each septic tank
Distance between bottom of
scum layer and bottom of
outlet device
Distance between top of
sludge layer and bottom
of outlet device
Inches
Staff Gauge
Staff Gauge
Annually
Annually
Inches
Staff Gauge
Annually
Septic tanks shall be pumped when any one of the following conditions exist, or may occur
before the next inspection:
a. The combined thickness of sludge and scum exceeds one-third of the tank depth of the
first compartment; or,
b. The scum layer is within three inches of the outlet device; or,
c. The sludge layer is within eight inches of the outlet device.
In lieu of septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be pumped annually.
REPORTING
1. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Regional Board by January 15 of each year
to:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Colorado River Basin Region
73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
2. The discharger shall arrange the data in tabular form so that the specified information is readily
discernible. The data shall be summarized in such a manner as to clearly illustrate whether the
facility is operating in compliance with waste discharge requirements.
3. Report immediately any failure in the waste disposal system to the Regional Board's Executive
Officer and the Director of the County Environmental Health Department by telephone with
follow-up by letter.
2
4. Records of monitoring information shall include:
s. The date, exsct plac�. and time o� •amplin9 0� measurement(sl;
b. The individual(s) who performed th� samplin� or measurement(sl;
c. The dste(al analyses we�s performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the anstyses;
e. The analytical techniques or method used; and
t. The �esults of such analyses.
5. A duly suthorized representstive of ths diachsr�er may si�n the docume�ts if:
s. The suthorization is m�de in writin� by tht person deacribed above;
b. The autho�ization specified an individuN or perso� having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated disposal system; and
c. Ths writt�n authorizstion ia aubmitt�d to the Regional Bosrd's Executive O�cer.
6. Each report ahsll contain the following statement:
"1 declare under the penalty o( law that I have personally exemined end am tamilisr with the
intormation submitted in this document, snd that based on my inquiry of those individusls
immediately �esponsible for obtaininy the intormation, I believe that the information is true,
sccurats, and complets. 1 am aware that there ars si�nificant penalties for submitting false
information, includin� the pouibility of s fin� snd imprisonment for knowing violstions.'
Ordered by.
Executiv� Officer
March 26. 1997
Date
�
----- -... V.a� c�i cuo� to: GC
J b!!'L51 �4PJ5
0
�.,,_,��a�ia5
A 1 tx�x'�-
FAX Cover S6�et
pa�a m PoUoN � .
.� (� � �4��Es sPQ.�� ,
y �
FR+pa„t: A�-1 Caspool S�nka �
P.O. Baoc S=Olii
Na� P�lu sptiey� CA- 9�tS�
C��i 3�S1S Fa�c (760)1Si 3405
� . �. � _.,
" _� .
' � �- . ► � . !, . lR. �I . �•
�: ` .� ' �� � •I• . I.•
�r ir� . �� _ ; 1�, a��.a R
,f,i 1� � !� • i. .� ► ►t I � 11 �
. �� 1i 1� - -�s,
.
' rI " t,� i
/
� u
pAGE 81
an
��� �t/f i+V/l'/
, ', � •��y �
� •• � 1
I � � � ' /7 i � • �,+../ ► �
� � , � .�. • r �li��
j •�� f i, .
! � / ' � � .i� �. ' I
�:� �.'.l. .►...
'
RECEIVED
MAR 2 91005
REG(ON 7
• � , e7,si [tii [dd5 16: 57
76e2513485
0
A 1 txa�r'ue�.
FAX Cover Sheet
� �lZ�loS�
P�r eo Fdbar
� / _ � • � .►
FRiDy[: A•1 CesRpool �rvi�e, IsG
P.o. soac Siolu
No�th tsla� Spcinp� CA. 92�si
(?60) 329•6i�i Fsx (760) ZSi-340S
�
�, t. �� f;.�. � �.
- � � r�!� � . i� � i .i .' i i � � i .
� / 1 1I • .� � // j . . •
� �1 !I _,I /.i
r. �. // I • i
�-!�, t
�.t,41..�
�
.
�
� �
/
�
�
r- �
RECEIVED
NAR 2 8 2005
REG10N 7
RECEIVED
MaK 2 8 � ,
REGION 7
P� ei
� p �
� � m
� °D <
� H m
- o �
J �
N
.�l J J.J J1 � J � Jy..� J J..� �p Q a {� (� �
y�m�•.��OtA710 V qm a�� W u "' NAtyJ�N V A bfud0�4A►���l10 V w0�V1� �
�p ..► �► J �p (� .� .J J J � J J J .a J
�� Q+ � � j � � � � � j j ` Q� � � J � ..� � � � � � � � � � � � � 1 .r J Q� � J ...► � J w
v �l � ►�.,. a .�.���yv.A ..�.,. � ♦ T... � V.ti v
� ��aaaa����� a� a�������a ����aaa���aa���
���������������g��������gg������������������
C i
gg�����Q�g������o����gg��s�s�sgs�����s��������
�
•�j
�
�
�
:�
�
s
�
�
�
�
3
�
m
�
Q
_�� �
a'o .'o w'
� ��
,333
m �r
���
: t� a a0 r� il
i �;$3���
� oo �3 �n B
� ����
=s�,:���
� ���
M
:�
�
�g
.3
�
s
0.
�
�
�
�
�
a
�
3
�
�
�
�
A
s
0
�
3
�
r
4
A
�
3
�
�
3
�
�
�
w
ii
O
�
�
�
�
r
1
N
�
.
4
w
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
ii
�
�
.�
�
O
N
�
�
�
>
J
�
�
�
�
�•
M
�
�
s
�
.
�
7�
v
1�.1
�
�
�
�
�
r
O
�
�
�
a
a
0
0
�
m�
w
�
N
�
�
N
m
O
!�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
A �
�
�
•
Y
:
�
�
�
W
' 03/28/2885 15:57 7682513485
1ob+l� Hon+� Paric Yesr �pp4 d, Z00'S
! �7 Ce�►�• • � 9�4r2oa
���
� `�O�
�1��
d117/2Qp�
1 r0 dl�6/ZOa4
17t g�l2g/2pp4
180 9/26V1004
8/20/Z004
182 3/1dROQ�
1?Jt/200�
183 3/1/2005
� soo
��O
�
1500
t00d
15p0
l00�
1000
i500
Z000
2000
3flQ0
A 1 t.ca�rw�.
M ti
A 11
M M
» „
�� M
lesthtin� System Failed
l�achinq Sybem Faited
» «
lachinq 9yrstem Faikd
�I M
LoeChins Sytb�m Fsil�d
3/Z8l2005
RtCEiVED
MAR 2 8 1005
REGI4N 7
P(t(� 82
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: 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. EI 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. o5-1s 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, afong with a 1 J191 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 safts 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 vnly 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 S4 million or 521,000 per unit because the sewer would need to
be extended from Highway 74 into the park and a!I 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 510,000 per unit, not
521,000 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
-.,.r«. .. . .
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:
���� ��-�
S�ve Smith
Planning Manager
Approval:
. .
Ho er Croy
ACM for Development Services
/tm
(Wpdocs\tm�sr�pm31862 tc4)
Department Head:
� 1�/ [l.�'"
Phil Dref
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Orte
City Manage
�
MEMORANDL;M
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
City of Palm Desert
Fttoht: 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 Ptanning 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 "eYisting 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.f iargreaves'��1�ty Documents\PALti1 I�ESERT Plemorandum re Indam Spnngs Joc
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 a�-eement 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.l[argreaves'•JNy Ducuments'�PALM DESERT Memorardum re [ndain Spiings doc
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFF.SSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BVIL�ING
� 299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 9040'1-7000
January 31, 2045
VIA FEDEX
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spieget
City of Palm Deser�
Clty COUI1C11
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Wilma Michelson
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Citv Council Hearin�: Thursdav, February 10, 2005
TELEPHONE (370) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (3�0) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclosa�grlewyers.com
N
�
t�
Gl1
�
�'1
�
�
�
s
0
r
O
n
_Q �
D'"�
r �
c"�
� r Ts7
C7 m �
r•i�o;,�
�n��
��'� - �
'°"'m
��o
��
D n
m
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.
Condirion 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 Cvde 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 ihe 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
7im 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 Snrin�s, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Sprin�s. 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.
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
Pro oration
;�
1
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm �1
COPYTO � 0��+ �����
T WC:twc/ l 12473 1. DOC/122104
3416.006
Enclosure
DATE �-�'' � 5
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.)
� Dec-07-04 12:3opa Froa-PAL� DESE�ITY CLERK
e -
See Attached
(5ignature of Appellantj
� FOR OFFICIAt. U5E C1NLY ao
Date Appeal Filed: �� t Q�� 5 Fee Received: ,.� I��
' Treasurer's Receipt Na. ?a3 ��n Rsc�ived by: �.{�
Date af Consideration by City Councii er City Officiat: '` �. l�
i603400674 • 7-703 P.Ot/O1 F-618
CITY OF PALM DESERT� CALI��RNIA ���
D �
� ���
APPLlCAT10N TO APPEAL � ���'
4 ���;
DECtS10N OF THE P�NING COMMISSION ���r �
iNeme of Defertr�nk►p Body) . = ' � �
PM 318b2 12/29/04 0 ��
Casg No. Date of Decision: L, �
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
Descriptfvn of
Apprcativn orMafferConsidered: PM 31862 to convert rental mobilehome park to condominii
park.
Reason for Appeal (attach addiilona! sheefs if necessary):
Please see attached sheets 1-3
�4ction 'iaken:
Date:
M,,�,+wamwwPoacs�oa►�� a apoe.ia+oa
Rachelle D. Klassen, Cfty Clerk
� D
�a �
LJ
•
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 onlv as to Condition
of Annroval Number 5("Condition No. 5"1. 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 connectivn 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/t 11575_1.DOG010305/3416.006]
• •
The City does not have the legal authority to impose Condition No. 5 to its approval oi
PM 31862. The applicarion of Section 8.b0 (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, Goverrunent 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,
Goverrunent Code secrion 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.l In In re Matter of Nipomo Communitv Services District, State Water Resources Board
Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Boazd
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. ...[AJ 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.
[TWC:twc/111575_1.DOG010305/3416.006] 2
•
•
may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requiremeuts of
Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied."
Testimony by Mr. Jose Angel of the Regional Water Quality Control Board at the
December 29, 20(l4 hearing regarding PM 38612 made clear that Indian Springs' septic system is
functioning properiy, 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 cannect 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 $e�rion 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, Secrion 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
enforceraent against the Park would consritute a"taking" under the state and federal
constitutions for which compensadon 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 o�'Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4�' 1153 (2002). The delay
caused by Palm Springs' imposirion 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 Califomia corporation
Its: General Partner
/I `�'r- 54�����2�.���c�
: James F'. Goldstein
ts: President
[7'WC:twd111575_I.DOCJ010305l3416.006] 3
PLANNING COMMISSION �ESOLUTION 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 Pianning Commission of the City of Pafm Desert, Califomia, did on
the 7th and 29th days of December, 2004, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider
---- - the request of {NDIAN SPRINGS�T-D.-,- a Califomia Limited Liabifity-Company;-fo� -- -
approval of PM 31862; and
WHEREAS, said application has compfied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 04-106," +n that the Director of Community Development has pre{iminarily
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 Vailey Wate� District documents the
threat that septic systems pose to groundwater resources and
- - - - -- — - ------recommenctthat�septic systems be-discontinued: - - - -------- - - -- - -
• Testimony of the residents regarding a history of probiems with the
system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1.
2
3.
That the above recitations are tn�e and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
That the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the project is a
Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA.
That the Planning Commission does hereby app�ove 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, 20o4, by the fotlowing vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LO
NONE
NONE
NONE
,..
.
ATTE ST:
/ ,�a�+ /C ,� O
STEP EN . SMITH, Acting Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
CHOPP,JONATHAN
�. � � _.-
NAl�"�TAN, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319
COND{TIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PM 31862
Deaartment of Communitv Develoament:
__ _ _.._._ __ - -9.- .--. - T-he application-d�scribed hereir� shall be-s�bjec� to-tMe restric�ions-and -li�nitatiot�s- -
set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordina�ces and state and
federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
2. That pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66427.5 (a), the subdivisio� shall offer
each existing tenant an option to either purchase his o� he� 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 (� (1), for all non pu�chasing
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 appraisaf conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal
annual increases over a four-year period.
4. That pursuant to Govemme�t Code Section fi6427.5 (� (2), for all non purchasing
residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Heaith and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicabfe fees or charges
for use of any p�econversion 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 amvunt 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, shal{ 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 Dese�t
as weli 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 �ouncif conceming this subdivision, which action is brought within the time
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319
period provided %r in Government Code Section 66499.37. This section shall not
apply to any action brought by the app(icant to chaNenge 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 Govemment 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.
Deoartment of Public Works:
1. Application approval by City is subject to compfete parcel map being submitted to
the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shalf 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-Iot subdivision with a
condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile
Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-0071.
APPLICANT: Indian Springs, Ltd.
A California Limited Liability Company
c/o James and Associates, Inc.
255 N. EI 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 requireme�ts 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 shalf defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
of Palm Desert as wefl 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 promptiy
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
C�
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
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 .
I-�omer Croy
ACM for De e pment Services
/t m
Reviewed and Approved by:
for
,, ���� � ,
,�� ��
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 Paim Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 29th 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
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PM 31862
Deaartment of Communitv Develoament:
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) 11), 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 professionaf appraisal
standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period.
4. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) 12), 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 incrsase
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 appfy to any
action brought by applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter.
Deaartment 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.
//
C�
: r - r,� �,ti ; -
• ��
:'�t � ..'�,..
f•. ;i
� �� i�1;�1.'
C11Y Df PRl(il �ESERj
.-}ir . _o vL'nainc DaivE
� Pni�i DESFRT CnuroR.�in 9:;Go-r.-�
itt -Go a�6-oGi:
FA!( '�J j�i-'Cqd
�n•�G-��" c �e e�/
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PM 31862
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held befere *.he Palm QPcert Pianning
Commission to consider a request by INOIAN SPRINGS, LT�7., a CA Limited Liability
Company, for approval oi 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.
>
; = o` „
S "i^u� � o`� f"
g3 I ��� �.�? �°~ �� r�
J � ,�
Z :/VR ° S
v °�a `�. o
F J
= V � ti �I O
{� a�� �Of
_� V o �� �O� V
�� . � 4 � y/
n+cYw �w°A��o�
� t+:c-�li7
I II �-�ll �l � �.
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,
Calitornia, ai 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 propo��d project andlor
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
2
�� S
W >
�
? <v z
�'�1 'T y. = P n -
� � � OD N
� � �
e v
r,� - _ " ,� _ :
C; __ _ _ � _
� �` - _ _ � � � '-
s c , � n � � �
N v P
�/ - _ � _ T � �
2 _ - _ ♦ _ � - � � 0� r ..
z �c % � � a e
y � _ . ' t_ .z = _ p ^
M'0 < _ a , � � $ �c r `o
W V .., � — � a. a. �
M � � � ^
Id..l � �4 - ? �
4 � � �
� � = : ,o �
� Q � �
f Y
� � _ a� � 8� � s c
G� � � �� � � �$ � � �
�3 ti ',� �, ? o Y r ':
� O ` p� _ e U= ly L•; ^ l�.
:J $
��,, P� � ,� - � � �3� �� 5
E-� --� � _ o , i N _ , � � � .� s ;� �r"
.. ...� $ _ ; `- o - _ a, � =
r. � ���p. _ '�t.-. T� � �Q +� �g
M U aWN y=L �� �"^ �� ~� 3
O �" ��� .. � _. � N � � � � '
_ ; _
�1 O � 8 Z ' � j J� a � Yg U O � n
� E.,.i \ ` u z 9 3 � � � 3 q �9 � � � � �
` � {
V � ;<, v 9 m a7 �
� F¢-• \ ` � \ � y - � = � _ c =
. ` � _
x O. ?
LL C/] "' �r snr ' � . ( � -•
� ! «.vsi �gd �i �
N Q r�.oi.risioH ���d�� l � �
� b �
rr I ��996£ � �'i \
! •'�1Fj
� � I � �vt; • ��li � �
� �
^' � ,Fs�N ' \9,�b�s \
� W g � � � as�� '� �
C/) � ; / '�_ �
� � �� � � � � �
�
O � [ y ' � \
c vG etn f / �•�
� �,, � > �
� o a� ��_ �� � ,
;_
z� l � J� lil '��
� � � �` �
3 � III N
z �Lo Q III „ o
c� � , Z r �'i � ;t
� i �
� : c
v � �
aEe
� a �
'� L
d o �
S��
�
z�
� t u
� 6
` �o�
O � oa
Z =
C
�
�
r
� � i 186'CZfi 3„OOQSo005� � • <-
O � r ��8�a��
�/ f Iil �� rGoo�DeV
U6Ly , a ���__,�
� � � � . n,
c,
� I I I� �'o � 3 u� a�,; c::
� �] I� - ,Y o�M<oo
`8r ,II � ,� �; �P��
r 6�
¢ � r�\ � � � �gf�ViTh
� O OD
� �zzyHz
� � I \ / � ���
x °� I � ,y.
�.r (-� � 'D!� .�,' 9 — r n v .n �c
� O � � ��'�� /
O >. � \ �°''o .� '-. �
z ` � ���o� �
w `" � � � '% � =
� W �a �����g p
� 3 M�o�
L. � L / T N � 'TO�.N
[—' I_ �. , l;\ �J+- AD t� P
Y
�;,,, �, ._i: \ ��`�, _
O � I �i� a g � �
x
\ S�. Z � �
z ; o ' oNr
O � J�� �`— —
;' � y
I �' " s . '°
0./ I Ez�a I Ca.�= Q�oo c
Q�j vi e :� J � � n = r. �o .'�+ �
� i �� a,g ��' 3���*, F� ..,�o s
u
/ �B �
I .7� 3 � :�'/� - ��: o0
n'� •�� � � � 8'� '` � �
� 3v�'iz°L �a�� > u -.�,�-,
� 1'"% � �'S . '�� d � ,:,
%' I O
' � -- ��----1— " " ��' �.ao.��o�s =
�— — Z "I i9"EiZ N
,LL9Ifl M.00.II.00N — — — — � — �
G
v
�
CITY 4F PALM DESERT
fNTEROFFfCE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
� � �` �; �; � z,- � �
; :_ � � � 2�04
�••��iL�,:1�JL���,..P�•iE\'i u�(.7}?I'•,F•���,
, . ..- �� ��,� ;,���;�T
SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBlLE HOME PARK
DATE: December 6, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval forthe above referenced project:
(1) Application approvaf by City is subject to compfete 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 ofthe Subdivision Map Act and City
Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal
street centerlines and lot / parcel cocners 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 impravements shall be
dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
� �
r ^f . J
Mark Gre n ood, P.E.''
G.�PubWorks�Contlit�ons of ApprovanPMAPS�TPM 3�862 re�setl wptl
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
REVISION #3
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Department of Community DevelopmenVPlanning
Attention: Steve Smith
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
���i��IVEI�
��c z 9 20�4
�na�ML'�'ITY DEVF.LOP61EVT DEP�RT;,fENT
C�TY OF PAL�t DESERT
TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
December 29, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above referenced
project:
(1) Application approva{ by City is subject to complete parcel map being submitted to
the City Engineer for checking and approvat. 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.
�zMark Greenwood, P.E.
G:�PubWorkslCond�uon5 of Approva�PMAPS�TPM J1862 3rd revision .wpd
�1ATEI�
��STRIC�
ES7ABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
������'et'y!� .
COACHELLA UALLEY WATER DiSTRi
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TEIEPHONE (76a) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS OFfICERS
JOHN W McFADOEN. PRESIDENT STEVEN B. ROBBINS,
PETER NELSON, VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGtNEER
TELIIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHLER,
RUSSELL KITAHARA ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
PATRICiA A. LARSON December 21 � ZOO4 DAN PARKSAASST OEGENERAL MANAGER
REDWINE ANO SHERRILL, ATiORNEYS
File: 0721.1
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
�ECE-�VE.I�
1��f p � zoo�
�t���l�'i��
DEC 2 � ZQD4
Dear Mr. Ortega: �o�s,lit;,����• DEVELOP�tEA'T DEPARTMEYT
�` Cl�Tl�f MA AGER RT
C!?�' pF pqL.N DESERT
Subject: Parcel Ma� No. 31862, Indian Snrinss 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 (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 more than one OSDS per ane-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
GfV�N TO..�����? 1��.
pATEI_c� r,� a�1 !J�'f�
���.L... iNITL ..
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.
Yours very truly,
�� �T/'v/� � f,��CJ��^_i� �
,.�� � Steve Robbins
General Manager-Chief Engineering
BC: md�eng�san'�daclortega
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRtCT
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUT'rER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISAOES BUILOING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90407-'1000
December 3, 2004
VIA FEDEX
David J. Erwin, Esq.
Best, Best & Krieger LLP
?4-760 Highway 111
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Mav No. 31862
Dear Mr. Erwin:
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: r�los��yrl�wyors.com
�,�LEIVED
�:_,. � 7 2�
;`O:�iMUtilTli DEVELCP�tE�T DEPARTHE\T
r(TY OF PALy 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 regazding Indian Springs' Pazcel Map
Application Number 31862 (the "Application") to be heazd 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 Pazk ("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 in&astructure 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 Adminishative Code, section 1004, may a municipality
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RU'ITER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David J. Erwin, Esq.
December 3, 2004
Page 2
or county attempt to assert jurisdicrion over the interior of a mobilehome pazk. 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 irnprovements, among other
things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome pazk 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 aze 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 Ninomo Communitv 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 systemJ is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of
waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a dischazger
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 dischazge 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 8c RU'iTER
rxorsssto�wr. coxroxwTion
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' pazcel
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 Snrin�s, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm SnrinQs, 96 Ca1.App.4�` 1153 (2002). The delay
caused by Palm Springs' imposidon 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 daznages.
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 catl.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST TER
Prof Corpor ion
(
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
Rxc:�i iobaa_in2o3oa
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
PROFESSIOIvAL CORPORATION
WILSHiRE PALISAOES BVILDING
1298 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9040�-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 (3�0) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (370) 384-4700
E-MAIL: rclos��grlewy�rs.com
�,��:���IVED
:,.�� �� � 2004
•'�)':,sii:K!7`' JE'+�E�:'P'�lEN7' llEPARTMENT
�;I?Y vF t•nLM CESERT
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
PlanninQ Commission Hearin�: 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
Pazcel 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 Anproval No. 3.
Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code
section 66427.5(�(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
GILCHIZIST & RL'TTER
PROh'k:SS10NAL l'ORPO}2ATf0r
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 2
jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined b� the Court of Appeal in EI Dorado
Palm Sprin�s, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Sprin�s, 96 Cal.App.4` 1153, 1178 (4�' Dist. 2002)
conversion occurs, and local rent control temunates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no
circumstances ... is it left to local govemments 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 Avuroval 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 hannless 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 � RL'TTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIOI�
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 3
For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the
Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from
draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft
Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft
Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIS & RUTTER
Pro al Co oration
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TWC:twc/1i07i6 t/t20604
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 inaintenance of Indian Springs Mohilehome Park located at 49-345
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 ihe Coachella Valley. We agreed to a program to raise all lids
and risers on the septic tanks to above ground levels, making the maintenai�ce 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 ��vater
contamination, using pumping as an alternative to break up scum layers. This resulted
in the rotation program referred to above.
255 N. EI 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.
With the completion of the program, the Coacliella Valley �V�ater�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, v��ith 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,
�
I-- ` `-'---
-=�—, --
Anne .)ames
President
Cc: James Goldstein
Richard Close, Esq.
L. Sue Lofiin, Esq.
G 1Documents\Propenies'�(ndian Spnngs 4�2�SepucslLetter re \4aintenanee 12-2-04 doc
255 N. EI Cielo, Ste 140 #286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1�88
E-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net
�� �� ���. �i. vv r:a.a � v���i�y�o
�• * Contracting, Excavation, Grading
� ._. ' ���!'�; �
. ,. � "We dig the Coachellac Valley"
��vr. vv�
F7id[ty, DeCembet 03, 2004
Re: lndian Springs Mobr�e Home Pcuic
Pcrlm D�s�t, CaL'fomla
To whom it may concPm,
In 2003 7'ri Stc�r Contraciing Completed an extensiue prog�rrarn to Iocate, inspect
cmd insrcr� mcanhoJes crnd »sers on aI146 systerns cuitt�fri the pa�. This project
hcruing been completed crlong with any repaUs neces.sary to the leach�g cireas
makes this ctn up to date and good working systun.
Any .�� rhdt have heer� made to the leaching system c�e reJariuely sirnpJe
since there is suj,�c�ent room for fi.lrther seepage area e�n. F�.a the�more
th�se repc�rs cme made with the most currenr mate.riaLs �d up graded stcrndards
wirh ° the lndusmy. As an example, see,p�ge pfts haue 6een instaUed and are
bur4ed straight down itato the ground leadir�g ro Q prolonged seepage area our of
reuch of landscape problems.
!n my opinion rhe sept�c syst�ns are in good worl�g condit�[on cand w�rh the
pcuics str�ngerir mainrenance and P�P�9 P�9� �n9 with an occasiona[
repair these sysrems st�ould lasr fnde,�nttely.
Sincerely,
L.arry J. Owens �
..... __.._----�---------------.....---__..._�._._._.._.. __..._._.._. __�.__.,..,_,._..._,�..._...._.........__._..._�........__�.___.�..._.
Bus (760) 2J1-S454 15-501 Liuie Muron�u RoaQ, Drstrt Hor Sprin�►s, G! 92140 Fax (760) ZS3-S458
e-�ur i1: infn(�a,Tri-Smr. in jo
{';
� . _1 � -i:± .� t .. -. .�l
NOTICE TO INDIAN SpRINGS R�SIDENTS
OF TENTATY'VE MAP YiEA�tING
' `� i ; ����4
, . .:�;t .... : �t:. . .., , .
. _ .� �1�� ^ .:.�� � . „
Continuo� upon City Attorney Aad Staff Recommeodahon
and Approved by the Planuing Commfssion
TO: T�� OCC�'ANTS OF YNDIAN SPRINGS MOBII,EI�OME pARK
Located at: 49-305 Hi�hwxy 74, PAIrn Aesert, Califoruia, 9Z260
APN No. 652-120-007-3
HEA.RING: Planning Commiasion Hea�ring
Continued l�om December 7, Z004
bATE: December 29, 2004
TIME: 6:a0 p.m.
THAT tbe owner af this mobilehoaie park, located at the address
indicated above, in the City of Palm Desert, Coaaty of Riverside� State of
California will be appeariag before t6e Plannin� Commissioa for the C�ty of
Palm Deser� 73-510 Fred Wariag Drive, on December 29, 2004, at 6:00 P.M.,
(necember 7, 2044 Y�earing Contiaued) TO REQUEST THE TENTATIV�
MAP 8E APPROVED BY SAYD BODY, to convert this mobilehome park to
condominium form of ownership. The 180 days not'sce to convert has beea
previously served on all residents. Furthermor�, if you still reside on your
unit at the issuaace of tbe Fiaxl Publie Report, you wilt be given an exclusive
rigbt to purchase your ual�
Dated: December 1 S, 2004
By: I,. Sue I.oftitt, Esq.
THE I.OF'I'YN FIYtM
Attorneys for Applicaat
G:1sVis/Notices/ I 1-22-4
THE L4FTIN FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
L, SUB LOFTIN
5760 Fleei Soceet, Suibe l l�
Corlsbecl, Califomis 92008
1aSEPf111VEE. t•E:WIS 'IEt.LFHUNE(760)�3t-2111 .
ARIEI. R BEDEI.L FACSIMII,�E (760)431•200.3
AVrlF.E:T S@FIU
WEB ADDRESC:
www. t�b(yea.CotT{Qi f tirttirt2Lnrm
WHAT'A1V� N�'HE1V' (iF,�UT LIIVES
At the Planning Commission Iieari�ng on the applicaiion to convert
t6s Park iirom s renkal park to a resident owned park, one resident
indicated that approzimately 64 Itouseholds vvere objecting to thcir Lot
I.ines.
• Lot Lines have NOT been sei at this tiine. Lot Lines w�l be set by the
creatian of the Condoqtinium Plan.
• The Condominiu�g Plan is N4T before the City of Paltn Deser�t. The
One Lot Subdivision Map is before tbc City of Palm Deset�t.
. As part of the pr�paration of tbe One Lot Sabdivision 1V;ao, the City
reqaires that a"S�te Plan" be prepared and subm�tted. A"Site Plan"
may look Ifke a Condominium Plan to some people, but it is not. A
Condominiutn PIaQ does NOT depict tLe structures an the Lot.
• The Copdominium Pl�,� must establish the Lot Lines in conformance
with the original plan submitted to tbe State of �alifornia,
Departmeat of �onsing and Cawmunity Aevelopment.
• Overtime, tLe oreginal plan generaUy is dif%rent than the actual use
on the grouAd. How is that dealt with? �ncroachment easements are
granted for actual use.
• If a new home is instatled to replace an oid home, tben the Lat Liaes
would apply.
+ Ynstallstion, including without limit�tion, of a new home or an
additeon will be governed by California Admi�nistrative Code, Tittc ZS
(just the same as now) and the �tule �tad Yte�uiations (just the same as
now).
� After the Cg�dotuiniutn Ptad is prepared and posted for your review
and BEF0�2E the Condominium Plan is recorded, yoa will have an
opportunity to meet with the Engineer who prepared the
Condominium Plan to explain your issues and concerns.
• The Condominium Plau witl NOT be st�rted until sometime after the
- first of the year 2005. Tberefore, you Lave N�T missed your
opportunity to corament on the Lot I.ines.
Dac-2T-04 OA:52am From-WATER DISTp'^T/COACHELLA VALLEY +T608968T11 T-706 P.02/03 F-509
Nl AT � R ESTABNSHED IN 1918 AS A �I,I��IC AOEN[Y
'��STR1� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE 80X 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORM1IIA 92236 • TELEPHQI�E (760} 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-8711
OIRtCTORS. OFFICER3:
�OHN W.MGFADDEN,PRES�DENT STEVEN tl.(1OB01N5,
PETER NELSON. VICE PRESIDENT GENEWtI N,ANAGEfl•CHIEF ENGIkEEa
TELLIS COOEKAS MAHR BEUIiLEP.
RUSSGLL kITArNRA ASST. GENERAL MANASER
PATii1CIA4. I,ARSON Deceanber 21 2004 JUCIA FERNAAOQ. SECAF�ARv
� oAN PARKS. ASST. TO GENERAL MANACEfi
REDNlINE AhD ShERRi�L, ATTORAEYS
File: 0721.1
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring brivc
Pa1m Desen, California 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Ortega:
Subjcct: Parcel Ma� No. 3l 862. Tndian SorinQs Mobile Home Park
It is our understanding that th.e refetenced patcel map is �rnc the purpose of creating a
condominium project from az� existin� mobile home park, The City of Pslm Desert is
recomme�ading that the con�version include the conncction to the local sewer.
On-site sewage disposaI systems (�SDS), including septic tanks, are well knovcr sources of
groundwater conta.mination. The most studied contaminate is nitrate, which is a byproduct
of WaStewBter treatment iuo� �SDSs_ Nitrate leaving OSDS m.i�ces with groundwatex and can
eontaminate nearby drinking water wells. When nitratc lcveis cxcccd drinking water
standards, thc contaminatcd wells aze eithet tTeated To remove the nitrate, which can be cost
prohibitive, or replaced by new wells drilled in uncontaminated azeas of the groundwatez�
basin.
There are many facton that influence the impact OSDSs have on the qua.lity of groundwater,
including dcnsity, pvpulation served, water levels, wastewater volutne, maintenance
frequency and soil conditions. Often, the 05AS density (i.e., the number of OSDSs per unit
of land area) is a driving factor that is used by �egulatory agencies to control adverse water
qua,lity impacts from OSDSs. One such eontrol to protect groundwatcr in the Dtscrt �Iot
Springs area is prohibiting morc than one OSDS per on�half acre of land azea, which
translates to an OSDS density of 2 per acre.
We understand Indian Spzimgs Mobile Home Park has 191 equivalent dwelling units
sesved by OSbS, within a land area of about 35 acres. This equals an OSDS densiry of
approximately S.S per acre. Indian Springs Mobile Home Pazk has a high density of OSDSs,
which represents an increased risk of groundwater contamination. It is for this reason that
the connection to the cammunity sewer is recommended_
TRUE CONSERVATON
USE WATER WISELY
Recaived Dac-22-200d 09:01 From-;7603983711 To-PAL1� DESERT PUBLIC W Paae 002
Dec-22-04 08:52am From-WATER DIST�'"7/COACHELLA VALLEY ;T6089H8711 T-706 P.03/03 F-509
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
-2-
Decembex 21, 2004
Sewer service may be provided from existing sewers located on the north and east
bOtlndalies ��the existing parcel. The Dis�-ict's Engin�ring Dcpartmeni is evailable to
provide the necessary technical informauon required to connect the park to the existing
sew�r systcm.
If you have any questions or require additional infornzation, please contact cither
Bruce C�ar1�, pzincipal Sanitation Engineer, at extcnsion 2266, or Steve Bigley, Water I
Qua�ity Specialist, at exterision 22$b.
�
Yowrs ve�y traly,
SC:mdlopgl�,aldecb rsa�s
��—►r�.,�..��.. 1� �
.� � Steve Robbins
G►eneral Managex-Cbicf Engin.eerin�
C04CNELLA YALLfY wATER OfSTHICT
Received Dec-22-2DOd 09:01 From-+7603983711 io-PAII� DESERT PUBLIC W PaQe 003
� California R aional Water Quality �ontrol Board r;��:;,
� Colorado River Basin Region t; �: �;��
� . .,r
Terry Tamminen 73-720 Fred Wazing Drive, Suite ]00, Palm Desert. California92260
Secrerary� jor (760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341-6820 Arnold Schwarzeneggci
Environmenta! http://�v��lvswrcb ca.gov/rH•qcb7 Gor�rnor
Proteclron
The energ� cha!lenge focrng Ca(ifnrnra is reul. Eve!y Ca(rforxiax needs to take lmmedlale act�on to reduce energ consumption.
For a lisf oJsimple �ra��s you can reduce demand and cut your ener�� costs, vrsit our ,�pbsrte.
December 21, 2004
Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Paim 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-leachfield
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 `8asin 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., trienniallyl.
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
�a Rec��cled 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 poNution,
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 leachfields 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
leachfield 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
mig�ate 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-leachfield 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 a�d
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,
-_ �_,���� . �' c
�'
j�� �L
JOAN STORMO
Senior Engineering Geologist
HS/js
Attachment: as stated above
File: Basin Planning General Correspondence
California Environmental Protection Agency
�� Rec��cled Puper
�� California h,.gional Water Quality �:ontrol Board
� Colorado River Basin Region
Terry Tammiaen lnternet Addras: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/—rwqcb7 Arnold Schwarunegger
Sccnraryjor 73-720 Frcd Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, Califomia 92260 Governor
ErrvuonnuntaJ Phone (760) 346-7491 � FAX (760) 341-6820
Protcction
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 Califomia 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 Pfan is reviewed for
adequacy approximately every three years, hence the term "Triennial Review". The
objective of the Review is to rea�rm 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
regulariy 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
� Recycled Paper
2004 Triennial Review
November 17, 2004
page 2
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
To obtain the most current information on the Triennia! Review process, please contact
us by:
U.S. mail: Ms. Ivory Reyburn
- California Reg+onal Water Quaiity Control Board, Colorado -Riuer Basin
Region
73720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100
Palm Desert, California 92260
Telephone: Ms. Ivory Reyburn at (760) 776-8933
e-mail: irevburn(a�waterboards.ca.Qov
Triennial Review documents also may be reviewed by appointment at the Regional
Board o�ce at the above address.
�
� `-�.�. �� -� ia-�
J .�n Stormo
Senior Engineering Geologist
Attachment: Draft Triennial Review List
File: BP 2004 Triennial Review
_ California Environmenta! Protection Agency
ea R��redPa�.
�1 California Rr�ional Water Quality �.ontrol Board
vColorado River Basin Region
Terry Tamminen 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm peser� Califomis 92260 Arnold Schwarzcnegge
Secntaryjor (760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341fi820 G��a
E,rvvonn�enta! hupJAvww.swrcb.ca.gov/nvqcb7
Protcction
Attachment
Draft 2004 Triennial Review List
November 17, 2004
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 Designafion of Aquifers — Staff proposes to review avaiiable
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 accou�t 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 reasonablelfeasible alternatives are
available. The current 1979 guidelines for sewage disposal do not consider
these factors.
. Water Quality Objectives for Nitrafes and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) — Staff
proposes to revie�w 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 w astew ater
treatment plant effluent, and instead focus monitoring on better pathogen-
indicator organisms. Studies show that indicator organisms that correlate best
California Environmenta! Protection Agertcy
�,A� Rtcycled Peper
Draft 2004 Trienniat Review List � - 2-
with illness and disease are enterococci and E coli for fresh waters, and
enterococci for marine w aters.
. Re-evaluation of All Portions of the Basin A'an F�rtinenf fv fhe 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 qua{ity
assessment, ar.� impiemeniation.
. Saltwater Discharges — Staff proposes to develop policy to address saltwater
discharges from swimming pools and other sources, to ground and surface
w aters.
. New Fbver fblluiion 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
a Rerycted 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 H�ME 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 shali include, but not be limited to, the
internal street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City
Surveyor.
1 � � �' a
,
� i ' � � `t
, -� ����-�,
t/ y J�y 1"f ;��"wVll �/ 5�
Mark Greenwood, P.E. �
C'WINDOWS'�TEA9POR-��OLK4352�TPM3t8-1 WPD
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DATE:
CASE NO:
Planning Commission
December 7, 2004
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. EI Cielo Road, Suite 286
Palm Springs, CA 92262 .
f. BACKGROUND:
�
L:3
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.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Sommerset / PR-8
Silver Spur Mobile Home Park / R1 M
Residential / PR-7
Residential / County
C. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN:
The site is zoned R1 M(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
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests app�oval 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
faciiities, 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
legisfative body.
(d) (1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the
mobile home park for the proposed conversion.
�i
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 baltot.
(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 a�e lowe� 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 attachedl.
(d) f2) 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 resufts 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:
C�
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
� of Support Support
Responses Yes No
84 26 14
31 % 16.7%
le)
(f)
(f)
Decline to
State Support
37
44%
Primary Low Other Loan on
Residences Income Home
63 54 30 10
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.
The scope of this hearing is limited to the issue of compliance with this
section.
(1 y 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 appraisaf 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."
(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 N4. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
project or lots 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 § 66474.91b).
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 strict{y construed in a recent court case (EI 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.
C:?
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
V.
VI
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
A. Adoption of the findings.
B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No
31862, subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
, approving PM
Draft resolution
Legal notice
Government Code Section 66427.5
Municipal Code Chapter 8.60
Tenant Impact Report
Letter Certifying Resident Notification of Tenant fmpact Report
Resident Survey
Prepared by:
,
,D��. ,�:�
Steve Smith �
Planning Manager
Revie nd Con .
Homer Cr
ACM for De el pment Services
/tm
Reviewed and Approved by:
� �� �
� i _
- Phil-Dren
Director of Community Development
F
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNiNG COMMISSlON OF THE C1TY
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
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PM 31862
Deaartment of Communitv 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
applicab(e 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 o� charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase
from the preconversion rent by an amaunt equal to the average monthly
increase in rent in the four years immediate{y 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 Generaf 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 approvaf 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).
Deqartment 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.
//
►,�
�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFfCE 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 shou{d be considered conditions of approval forthe above referenced project:
(1) Applicafion 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.
. /
� �
d
Mark Greenwood, P.E. �
G��PubWorks�Contl�t�ons of ApD'ova11PMAPS�TPP,1 31862 Intl�a� Springs M11oD�le Home Park wpC
8.60.010
Chapter 8.60
SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS
PRIOR TO PROPERTY SALE OR TRANSFER
OF OWNERSHIP
Sectioos:
8.60.010
8.60.020
8.60.030
8.60.035
8.60.040
8.60.050
8.60.060
8.6Q.070
8.60.080
8.60.090
Purpase, aut6ority and
implemsntation.
DeCaitioas.
Recording ot certificate of
requiremea�
Property owoer's responsibility.
Recording of certific�te of
compliance.
Procedures and fees for
obtaining a certific�te of
compliance.
Administrative variance and
certificate of temporary
exceptioas.
Recording ot certifiqte of
temporary exception.
Appeals procedu�es.
V iolations—Penalties.
8.60.010 Purpase, authority and
implementatan.
The purpose of this chapter is to help assure continued
protecdon and high quality of the water resounces available
in the city by requiring all properties. buildings and swc-
tures to abandon all exuting septic tanks, seepage pits and/or
cesspools and connoct to the available public sewer prior
to time of sale or transfer of ownership of said Properties,
buildings or svuctures.
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 pubGc 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 �s appointed by the city manager or the director's
deputy(s).
"Certificate of compliance" means the document ihat
is recorded on said property which releases the certiiicale
tw�, �rt e-��a� 166-4
of requirement, and sdpulares that the said property h�s
been lawfully connected to the public sewer.
"Certi6cate of tempor,uy exception" me.�u�s the document
that is recorded on said proper�ty 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 propeRy indicating that prior to sale
or tiansfer of ownership, the said property shall be IawfuUy
connecte� 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 prep.ue and recot�d with the Riverside
Counry 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:
"CERTIFICATE OF REQUIREMENT"
Assessor's Parcel Number.
Street Address:
Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipa! Code. Section
8.60.010. prior to sale or vansfer of ownership of the
above stated property, a"CertiCcate of Compliance"
showing th�t the above property is legally connected
to the public sewer and shall be recorded on said proper-
ty.
BUII..DWG 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 inswment and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capaciry(ies), and that by
his/hedtheir signatune(s) on the inswment the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted.
execuied the instrument.
� J
•
•
8.60.030
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Ord. 743 (paR), 1994)
8.60.035 Property owner's responsibility.
'The properties listed in Exhiba A auached to thc ordi-
nance codif ed in this chapter and found on fde in �he offce
of the city clerk. a the recorded certificate of requirement,
a the lack of any of the above notwithstanding. it shall
be the property owner's responsibiliry to comply with the
full intent of this chapter which is to assure any new
property owner a buyer that pria w sale o� transfer of
ownership to that new property or buyer. all stroctures 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 ot certificate of
compliance.
Once the properry owner o� owner's authorized agent
presents the necessary documentation acceptable to the
building official demonstrating that the said property is
legally connectod to the public sewer. the building official
shall re�ord with Riverside County Recorder's Office, a
certifxate of compliance which shall contain tt►e following:
"CERT�ICATE OF COIviPLIANCE"
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Street Addness:
Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sectior�
8.60A10, the above stated p�operty 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 u hereby satisfied and
discharged.
BUII.DWG OFFICIAL
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 inswment and
acknowletlged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
hisfier/their signature(s} on the inswment the person(s).
or the entiry upon behalf of which the person(s) acted.
executed the inswmen�
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signatut�e
(Ord. 743 (part). 1994)
8.60.450 Procedures and fees for obtaining a
certificate of complianca
A. The property owner or owner s authorized agent,
at their opdon. 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 fmal inspection signoff by a duly authoriz�d
ciry building inspecwr and shall not be a revaked or ezpucd
pennit. The building offcial shall review and approve the
sewer connection permit and authorize a notice of compli-
ance be filed.
T'he owner or owner's authorized agent shall pay a
twenty-five dollar fee to cover the administradve costs for
the preparation of �he certificate of compliance.
B. If the property owner or owner's authorized agent
does not wish to persoe�ally irsearch 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 doriar nonrefundable
reseanch fee, the city staff shall nesearch, locate and copy
any such sewer connection permit, if issued a available
on microGche records. The building official shall review
the copy of the sewer connection permit as the above
paragraph stipulates and if acceptable, shatl 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 properry 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 accept�nce of final inspection, the building off�cial
shall authorize a certificate of compliance be filed. The
owner or owner's authorized agent sha11 pay to the city
DATE
i..
c� a�n a-9e)
�f 1� 1
a twenty-five dolL�r fee for the preparation and recording
of the certificate of compliance.
D. [f it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the build-
ing official that the property is legally connected to the
pubGc sewer and � certificate of requirement has been
c�ecorded in error on the property, the building official is
hereby authorized to r�ecord a certificate of compliance
on the property at no charge to th� properry owner or
authorized agent (Ord 743 (pait), 1994)
8.60.060 Admiaistr.�tive vs�ri�nce and
certiTic�te of tempor.�rr exceptions.
A. Where deemed unfcasible to conne�t to the public
9ewer. the building official may grant an administr�tive
variance and authorize iding of a certificace of temporary
exception with the Riverside Counry r�corda's office. if
granted, such eertificate of tempocary ezception shall have
an expiration date of not to exceed three years from date
of issuance.
Some, but not all, of the cor�ditions which may wars�nt
an ezception w this chapter are as follows:
1. Building. swcture or propert}r located beyond two
hundred fett of the public sewer;
2. Condorr�iniums whicfi sMue a comrnon sepic systern:
3. Buildings or struct►ms in which the flow line of
the building drain or the building sewer is below the flow
line of the public sewer, adjxent to. or within two hundred
feet of the property, building a swcture;
4. When. in the opinion of the building official. the
cost of construction of the sewer eonnection is excessive
and the ezisting septic system is less than twenry years
of age. (Ord. 743 (pcu't). 1994)
8.60.070 Recording of certificate of
temporary exception.
Upon determination of the building official, or the
au��tion of the building board of appeals and condem-
nation. or the city council. that connection to the public
sewer is anfe�sible, the building ofiicial shall record a�
certificsue of temPorary exception with the Riverside Counry
recorder's office. The certificate of tempor.iry exception
shall contain the following:
"CERT�ICATE OF TEN�ORARY EXCEPTION"
Assessar's Parcel Number.
Saeet Address:
Pnrsuant to Pa1m Desen Municipal Code, Section
8.60.060. the above stated pcnperry ttili been temP�'�Y
exempted from connection to the public sewer at time
of properry sale or transfer of ownership due to
unfeasibility, and has been detecmined to be in compli-
ance with Ordinance No. . The "CeRificate
of Requirement" as recorded by Inswment No. i
is hereby tempocarily satisfied.
This exception to the mandatory sewer conneciion
of the Ordinance No. of the City of Palm Desert
is temporary only. All property sales or transfers of
ownership attex the expiration date fisted below will
require a new "Certificate of Temporary Ezception"
be issued or if warranu, sewer connection wiil be
required and a"Certificate of Compliance" be issued
for this property.
The existing septic system m�y remain in oper.�tion
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 propexty. Mandatory public
sewer connection will be required at that time.
BUILDING OFFlCIAL DAT'E
CERTIFICATE EXPIRATION DATE
State of Califomia )
)
County of Rivecside)
On , before me, , a Notvy
Pubiic in and for said Scate, 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 execuled the same
in his/her/their authorued capacity(ies), and that by
hisJher/their signatune(s) on the instrument the peisoo(s),
or the entiry upon behalf of which the person(s) xted,
executed the insUvment.
WI'INESS my hand and official seal.
S ignatune
(Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.080 Appeals procedures.
Upon the appellant filing the necessary application and
payment of the required application fee, reyuired eLsewhert
in this code, the building bo;ud of appeals and condemna-
tion, pursuant to Chapter 15.24 of this code. shall hear.
review and render decisions on appeal� from the building
official's interpc�etation as to the use of or filing of a
[P•�, n�.� ��� 1 b6-6
�
.
�
8.60.080
certificate of umporary 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 o�cial
notification. All findings of the board shall be transmitted
to the city council through the ciry staff for informational
purposes. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.090 Violations—Penalties.
It is unlawful for any pcxson to vioiate any provision
or fail to eomply with any of the requirements of this
chapter. Any person violating any provision of this chapter
or failing to comply with any of the requir�menLs is deemai
guilty of a misdemeanor in accordance with Chapter 1.12
of this coda (Ord. 743 (part), 1994}
166-7 (Palm Desert &%)
r
Ciry of Palm DesertlAdopted 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 regazding 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, CV WD
Schedule: Continuous
� Policy 5
The City shall provide direction and guidelines for the development of on-site storm water
retention facilities consistent with Iocal and regional drainage plans and community design
� standards.
Program S.A
Establish and enforce regulations and guidelines for the development and maintenance of
project-specific on-site retention/detention basins, which impiement the NPDES program,
enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and address
applicable community design policies.
Responsible Agency: Public Works Department, Community Development Depariment
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 inat 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,
CV WD, California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Schedule: Coniinuous
Water Resources Element
IV-50
�.,
:K.
�
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 1/19155 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�`:1s1/IS/530/7-14-4
SL;PPLEi�IE'�'T TO
TE'�:�I�T IMPACT REPORT
NDIA� SPRII�GS. LTD.
October 29, 2004
T'his document is a Supplement to the Tenant Impact Report for Indian Sprin�s
I�lobilehome Park and does not replace any� information contained therein.
Section 1. Purnose of Supplement to Tenant Impact Report. The City of Palm
Desert (the "City") requested the Applicant clarify demographic information relatina 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 Ievel; 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 o��er and above the
"very low�" and "low income" cateQories and updatin� the qualifying income amount for each
income cateQory. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the Supplemental Sur��e}� that ��as
distributed to all Resident Households in the Park.
Section 2. Procedure. The Survev was distributed to each Resident Household in
the Park on or about October 4, 2004. A General Meetin� was held at the Park Clubhouse on
October 10, 2004 at �:00 p.m. to discuss the Application, includin� without limitation, the
Tenant Impact Report, submitted to the City and the Supplemental Surve�� to be subznitted to the
City. Resident Households could deliver the Supplemental Survev to the Park office in a sealed
envelope for deliver}� to The Loftin Firm, mail it directiy to The Loftin Firm, or personally
submit it to Sue Lofrin at the October 10, 2004 meeting at the Park.
Section 2. Results of the Supplemental Sun�ev. There was a total Resident
Household response of fifty-four (�4):
(a) Very Low Income Households: 20
(b) Low Income Households: 17
(c) Households with Income Above Low• 11 (`'Other")
(d) Decline to State 6
Copies of the Supplemental Surveys ha�°e been sent to the Citv Attorney for review and
verification of the information submitted. The Sun�eys are bein� submitted as confidential
financial information relating to specific households and their potential financina requirements,
and aze not being submitted as part of the public record in this matter so as to protect the pri��acy
of the Resident Households who voluntarily� participated in this Supplemental Survey.
SLTPPLEME'�TAL TO
TE�A�1T INiP.aCT REPORT
EXHIBIT `A"
Supplemental Surve��
SECOI�D SL1tVEY FOR INDIAI� SPRINGS IVIHP
OCTOBER 2004
Demographic Information
The initial qualifyinQ income levels for Ver�� Lo�� and Lo�� Income
Households has increasedysince the prior Surve��. Additionall� . the prior sui•��e��
did not distinguish betvveen persons who earned over the Low Income Household
qualifying amount and those persons who simply choose not to ans��er this
question. Therefore, to provide the City of Palm Desert ��ith 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 LEVELSHOL:SEHOLD SIZE
AivD INCOME LEVELS
Check � Income Levels i 1 Person
OrE i
Ver�� Low
�
Low
Other
� I Decline to
I State Any
Income Level
' 2 Persons
S 21,700 or less
More than
$ 21,701 but less
� than S 34.750
� ?vlore Than
� $34.751
3 persons
� � 24.450 or less
�lorethan
� 24,-151 but less
than 5 39,100
� More than
� $39,101
4 persons
i
I S 2�.1 �0 or less
S 19,000 or less
More than
S19.001 but less
� than S 30,400
I More Than
i ��0.401
i
Uwe, the undersigned, have completed this form:
SPACE NO:
� • � �1
NAME:
(Please Print�
SIGI�ATURE:
DATE:
NAME:
[Please Print�
More than
S27,1 � 1 but less
� than S �3.-3�0
More than
Sa :,4� i
SIGNATLTRE:
TENANT IMPACT REPORT
INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD.
As Amended — October 5, 2004
Section 1. Purpose of Tenant Impact Report ("TIR"1:
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) bu�� the space on which their mobi(ehome 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 w�ith the provisions of 66427.5.
1.1 Descrintion of Chan�e 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 entin�, «�hich 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) Chanae of Use Resultin� in Resident Removal from the Properri•:
Historically, and in some instances today, the impact is that the conversion
to another use means closure of the park in connection w�ith preparing the
property for a use other than for mobilehomes. This necessitates the
vacation of property by the residents. This is NOT what is occurrin� at the
Park. The Park will remain a manufactured housing community, with the
existin� Residents having the right to either buy their condominium unit2
or to remain and rent their condominium unit.
'"Resident Household" or "Resident Households" mean any person(s), entit}�, or group of person(s) �vlio own a
mobilehome in Indian Springs 1�4obilehome Park oii the date of d�e issua�ice and delivery• of the Final Public Report issued by the
California Department of Real Estate. Please note ti�at this definition does not mean the same as "Resident" or Residents" as
defined in Section 1.2 herein.
`"Condominium Unit' means tl�e airspace unit �vhich is defined as 1' below� grade and 40' above grade, with the
lateral and horizontal planes demarked b}• the lot lines established on the ground [in other words, the space the Resident is
SAMPLE
f 06268 - FSNAL - 10/06/04
(b) Chan�e of O�+•nership Rat6er Than Traditional Chan�e of tise: Vl'hile
conversion of a rental mobilehome park to a Resident-ov�med mobilehome
park is identified as a chan�e of use under California laN�, a more accurate
definition would be a change of inethod 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 �;�ili 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 resutt in neither actual nor economic displacement of its
Residents.
(c) Applicable Code Section for 1.1(bl. Catifornia Government Code
Section 66427.5: The State of California recognizes the substantial
difference between the chanae 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 chan�e of use. For all purposes hereunder,
Government Code section 66427.5 controls for purposes of determining
what rights the non-purchasins, Residents will have after the conversion is
completed.
1.2 Definition of Resident(s):
(a) Cateaories of Resident Households �°ithin the Park: California
Government Code section b6427.5 divides the Residents of a Park inio
nvo (2) income categories for the resident households: (] ) 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." 1fie greatest protections are
given to the lo��-income households. The income limits are based on the
county median income and the household size as prepared and distributed
currentiv occupying]. plus 1/191st fee simple o�vnership of the common area and facilities and 1 membership in the
Homeow-ners' .Association to be formed as part of the entitlement process. For those w�ho select to remain renters, tliis meaiu that
those households will continue to rent the same space the}• �+�ere renting prior to the conversion of die Park.
S.4MPLE
J 06268 - FI� AL -! 0.�06/C�
under the United States Housin� Act. To qualifi• as a low-income
household. the folloti�in� income limits �rere established for calendar vear
2004:3 y r
Household Size � of Persons 1 2 3 4
I Income Must be at or Below: $30,400 $34,750 S39,100 S43,450
The Survey discussed in Section 1.2(b) used the 2003 Income Levels due
to the unavailabilit}� of the 2004 Income Levels at the time of the Survey
was prepared. The Income Level Chart on the Surve�� was as follows:
HOUSEHOLD SIZE A'�D INCOME LEVEIS
Check Income 1 Person 2 Persons
OhE Levels
�,e�, �µ, S 17,850 or less $20,400 or
less
�N, �4ore than More than
$17,851 but less 520,401 but
than $ 28,550 less than
�32,650
3 Persons 4 Persons
522,950 or $Z5,500 or
less less
More than More than
$ 22,951 but $25,501 but
less than less than
536,700 �40,800
(b) Resident Surve�• (Demographicsl: 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 Surve}� is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Survey was first provided to the
Board for the Resident Association. On April 1, 2004 the Sun�e�� was
discussed with the Board and a general meeting was held at the Park to
discuss the Sur��e�� with the Park. The Residents' Association has existed
for many ��ears 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 ��as 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 ] 89 occupied mobilehome spaces ( l space for the
" Typicall�•, the income limits are not distributed b� the Federal Housing d: U�an Development Department unt�l
vlarch of each year. The 2005 income limits «•ill appl�� to diis project, but are not a��ailable at this time.
SAMPLE
106265 - F['�(AL - 10/06lD�
manager and 2 spaces with homes for sale and not occupied). The results
of the Survey ��ere calculated on VIa�• 25, 2004.
I� I Suppon Support Decline Priman� � Lo« ' Other f Loan
� Responses Yes I No to Residences Income I on
State I �, Home
I I ` Support � I
1 76 I 27 I 13 � 36 62 53 I 23 i 10
i I
Ivote that the totals in the various categories do not add up to the same
number because not everyone answered ever}� question.
The surveys contain names and addresses, along with very pri��ate
information regardinb 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 response surveys 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 «�ithout
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, Count�- and State laws, ordinances, re�ulations, or
=uidelines.
1.3 Description of the Propert-S�: The Park was constructed in approaimately 1970
and is a one hundred ninet�� one (191)-space "Senior" Park (age restriction
applies), situated on appro�imately (34.7) acres. The fenced Park has wide
asphaft 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, Jacuui, Exercise Room, Auditorium, and Swimming Pool. Alt of
the homes are at least doublewides.
SAMPLE
) 06365 — FINAL — 10/06/0�
4
Section 2. Residents' Current Position/Ri�hts:
2.1 Current Occupanc�•: Currently, a small number of the Residents reside in the
Park on leases ("Leases"). In excess of ninet��-five percent (9�%) of the Resident
occupants reside in the Park on a month-to-month written rental agreement
("Rental Agreement").
2.2 Residents' Ri�hts: In addition to the terms of the Leases and Rental Agreements,
the tenancy rights of Residents residing in the Park are governed by California
Ci��il Code section 798 et seq• ("Mobilehome Residency Law"), other applicable
California statutory and case lav��. and the Palm Desert Rent Control ordinances.
Section 3. Park Owner's Riahts Lpon Conversion:
3.1 Riaht to ChanEe 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 propem� and go out of business or change the
use of the property, providing all applicable law�s are follo��ed. The Park Ow�ner,
however, through this TIR, agrees to waive the ri�ht to terminate an}� tenancies
and existing Leases or require that the Residents vacate the property. Under this
scenario, non-purchasing Residents will NOT be required to ��acate their
space and, as described in more detail in section 4 below, will ha�e occupancy°
rights subject to any Lease or Written Rental Agreement, Mobilehome
Residency Law�, and California law•, as applicabie. Therefore, there will be
no actual e��iction or displacement due to the conversion and Resident-
purchase of the Park.
Section 4. '�10 Actual nor Economic Displacement:
4.1 Imqact of Conversion: Under California Government Code and the
Mobilehome Residenc�� 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, „�hich may be charged by the o���ner of the
space subsequent to the conversion, is specified in California Government Code
section 66427.�. As a result of the conversion, there v��ill 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 ov��ner, a
Homeo���ners� .4ssociation will operate the prope�-t}�.
SA'vIPLE
106265 - F1�JAL - 10.�06l04
4.2 Rental Rate Increases: �Vo Economic Displacement: Tl�e economic
displacement of non-purchasin� Residents shall be mitioated by allo��in� the
Residents who select not to purchase the space on �vhich their home is situated to
continue their tenancy in the Park under the Subdivision Map Acr rental increases
restrictions. See, California Govt. Code section 6692?.5, ("Map Acr Rents'�. The
Map Ac� Rents are based upon two (2) formulas: one formula for non-lo�;� 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
nationall}' 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 othervt�ise 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 �oal of
protecting housing for the lo�v-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 Safery Code
50079.�, which in turn defines lo��� income persons as persons and
families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lo��•er
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.
(i) Rent Increase Formula. The base rer►tal increase is the
avera�e 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.
SAMPLE
106268 - FII�AL - I U/06J04
0
(ii) An�lication 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 ���ere
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 qualifiling 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 HL3D], 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 showin� and
appro��al, institute a hardship rent increase. Attached
hereto and hereby incorporated as though fully set forth is a
chart of the lov��-income rent increase maximums, assuming
the project was converted as of August l, 2004.
(c) Effecti��e Date of Map Act Re�:ts: 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 ��ritten rental
agreement. Without regard to the rype ojrental document, if any,
executed by a gualifred household, the MAP ACT Rents shall be in place
for that laousehold.
SAMPLE
106268 - FIT�AL - 10/06/04
%
4.3 "Conversion Date": Conversion Date is defined as the date of the first sale of a
unit.
4.4 �o Actual Dispfacement: 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 w�aived
its ri�ht to terminate tenancies. (See section 3.) Therefore, there will be no actual
eviction of an}� Resident or relocation of their home b}� reason of the Park
conversion to Resident ow�nership.
4.5 Conclasion: No Actual Nflr Economic E��ictions: Tlie 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 ��as 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,
v��hat financial assistance the Residents would be receivin� 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 O���ner has
agreed, b�� this T1R, 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 belov��) 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 e�•iction of any Resident
because of the con�ersion, 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 ov�-nership 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
ne��- owners of the Park ���ill not be motivated to make a profit, but rather are
SAMPLE
1062fi8 - PSNAL - 40�06f0�1
g
motivated to ensure the best possible living conditions at the most affordable
rates, pa��able through the Homeowners' Association Dues, directly or through
rent, both buyers and renters benefit from the conversion.
Section 6. PUD/Condominium Interest: Ninetv f90) Da�� Ri�ht of First Refusal:
6.1 PUD/Condominium Interest: The conversion provides the Residents «�ith the
opportunitv to acquire an o���nership interest in the Park, which certainly �vould
not otherwise occur. As stated above, the form of ownership will be a
PUD/Condominium Interest. The PUD/Condominium Interest is treated as anv
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 proper}y marked by a certified Civi}
Engineer, and specific legal descriptions shall be set forth on a"Condominium
Plan" �a�hich v��ill be a matter of public record w�hen 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 aeneral rights
and associated factors as set forth in the Articles, Bylaws of the Homeowners'
Association, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, and California la«�
pertainin� to such o���nership.
6.2 Ri�ht of First Refusal: As required by California Government Code Section
66462, each Resident Household shall be informed that they have a ninetv (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 ri�ht to decide whether or not to purchase a
PUD/Condominium Interest or continue to rent his or her space.
Section 7. Leaal Notices:
The Residents have received the Notice of Intent to File a Map with the City of
Palm Desert and ��ill 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 v��il1 also receive all additional required legal
notices in the manner and within the time frame required by the state and local
la���s and ordinances. All prospective tenants have and �vill receive the Notice to
Prospective Tenant(s).
S.AMPLE
106268 - FIN.AL - 10/p6l04
0
Section 8. Conclusion:
8.1 The above described purchase rights, Lease programs, and protections will be
offered onl�� 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. v��hich
is the date of issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report from the California
Department of Real Estate, w�hichever is the later occurrence.
8.2 lipon 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,
shal] abide by all terms and conditions set forth in this TIR. This TIR is a
covenant that encumbers each in�ividual t)nit.
8.3 The conversion of the Park from a rental park to a Resident-ov��ned park provides
the Residents with an opportunity of choice. Park Residents ma}� 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-
o«med, controlled, and managed Park, whose motivation is not profit, but rather,
achie��ino the best living environment at the most affordable rate.
8.4 All Residents choosing to continue to rent will have occupanc�� riQhts exactly as
they have now, and al) 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 cunently have as rent-paying tenants in the Park.
S.4MPLE
106268 -FZNAL - 10J05104
!�
TENANTIMPACT REPORT
INDIAN SPRINGS
EXHIBIT "A"
Resident Survey
XHIBIT `�A' to TE?�AIVT IMPACT REPf
L��LAN SPRIVGS MOBILEHOME PARK
SPACE NO.
Gov't Code § 66427.5(d)(1) SURVEY OF RESIDE.'�'TS
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—purchasine residents in accordance a�ith the following provisions of
Government Code § 66427.5(fj("Gov't Code'}�
(1) As to non purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as def:ned in Section S00'9..i of
the Health and Sajety Code, the monthlv rent, including arry• applicable fees or charges for use of am>
preco�rversion amenities, may increase from the precorrversion rent to market levels, as defined irr an
appraual 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.� of the
Health and Safery Code, the monthly rent, including arry applicable fees or charges for use of am•
precorrversion amenities, may increase from the precorrversian rent by an amount equal to the average
monthly increase in rent irr the four years immediately preceding rhe corrversron, except rhar 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 rnost recently reported period.
This Survey requests information in TWO cateQories: (1) Support for the Change of Ownership [L,Tse] AND (2)
demogaphics of your households. Each household may fill out one {1) Surve�� and mail the completed Survey to THE
LOFTIN FIRM, 43;0 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite ;30, 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 Surve��s; however, the Citv 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 unitJlot [space] on v��hich their
mobilehome is Iocated. 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 answ•er the following questions:
[] 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 parl:.
[] I decline to state my position at this time.
This Survey does noi 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 staiutorily required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the Purchase/Sale
ADreement, the HOA Articles & Bylaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CCSRs).
BY PROVIDLVG THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOli ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOL'RSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OVVNERSHII', INCLUDING
WITHOUT LiMITATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PL'RCHASE IF, A1rD WHEti, INDLAN
SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED
Page 1 of 2
cJ:IsUIS�I'IR.M1SW CSu rvey4-26-�t
XHIBII" "A' to TENANT IlYIPACT REPC '
SECTIOi�' II.
Demographic Information
SPACE NO.
To provide the Cin� of Palm Desert with demoeraphic information. please answer the following questions:
1. Is vow 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 [�5 and over]:
b. Number of Adulu [45 to �4]:
c. Number of Adulu [ I 8-44]:
d. Number of Children [under 18]:
;. In which category� does your household's total income, before taxes, fall? [Cl:eck one box below]
HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELSHOUSEHOLD SIZE Ar'D INCOME LEYELS
Check ! Income Levels
ONE
� Very Low
Low
1 Person ' 2 Persons I 3 persons � 4 persons
i
i$ 17,850 or less $ 20,400 or less �$ 22,950 or less I 5 25,500 or less
I
More than More than More than I More than $25,501
$17,851 but less S 20,401 but $ 22,951 but tess than ! but less than $
than $ 28,550 . less than $ $ 36,700 i 40,800
, ; 32,650
4. Information on Your Mobilehome:
a. Make of ?vlobilehome:
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, vr�hat are the balance owed and monthly payment?
TH,4NK YD L' FOR YO L'R TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS S UR VEY.�
Date:
Signature:
Print Name:
Date:
Signature:
Print I�ame:
Dav Tele: Dav Tele:
'This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a condominium unit or any other real estate interest in Indian
Springs !VIHP. An offer to sell can only be made after the issuance and de[idery of the Final Public Report along
with all statutoril�• required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the PurchaselSale
Agreement, the HOA Articles & Bvlaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs).
BY PROVIDI��IG THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSI3IP, INCLt'DING
WITHOUT LIMTTATION, WHETHER YOli WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE IF, AND WHEN, INDIAN
SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDEN'T OWNED
Page 2 of 2
c/:lsl/ISiI'IR. A1W CS u rvey4-26-�i
:XHIBIT "A' to TENAI�T I�IPACT REP
SP.ACE 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).
SY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT CONIIVIITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDII�IG
WITHOtiT LIMTTATION, WHETHER YOG WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCH.ASE IF, A.'vD WHEN, INDIAN
SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED
Page 3 of 2
c/:lsl/IS/TIR.AIW CSurvey4-26-4
EXHIBIT "B" to TEN�'�1T 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)
�
v
� v� v-.i �� rn� rn� rn rn rn� rn rn cn cn cn cn cn cr cn cn v, cn.t� �.t� .p .�..a .p ..t�•.t� .t� wlo �
� Ul �A W N--► O(D do �) � Ul .p W N--� � c0 OD V� Ut �P W N� O CD 00 �l � CJ� J� W N-� O(D . (D
L
�
�
� �
_..1 � � _1 � �1 � � �a .__1 ...� _1 .__1 �1 _] _1 ..� _1 � _..1 � �..1 _1 .� � � � ...1 �1 �1 _..1 � ..-1 _.i � _1 � "'�
O O O O A O N O N O N-� N O N O N O N O N O N� N--� O-� N O W O N O N O N O N—
�P 00 W W O A O W O-P O W O W O O .p O� O�A O O O O--► O O O--� N-� O O A O� �
.A �P c� CO �A � �1 cp �l �A �I cJ� �l cD �l � J .P �I �A �l �► �! -� W � cD � -J O V CJ� � O 11 � J �A �
L
�
� n
_1 � .� �. _.1 ..� .� .__1 _i .� � .-a �.1 � _1 _.f ..-]. � _..1 � .� � � ._1 �.i � ,__f � � N _-.1 _..1 � � .� � _a � . T
O--� O O A � N O N O N-� N O N O N O N � N O N-► N� �-� N � W O N A N O N O N.='
OD N OD OD � 00 (J� OD CJ� 0o CJ1 00 C.n Qo CJ1 0o U� OD CJl Oo CJt 00 CJt .A C.n Cn � CJ1 (J1 .P �! �� Cll CJ� Oo (J1 OD �
09 CO W W�P 00 OD W 00 0� � N� W 00 00 00 Oo 00 00 00 OD 00 �1 W N N N Oo � N QO Cri O Oo Oo OD 00 'O
C...
N
�
� �
� � v � � � � � � � � � � � i� � i� �i � �{ � � � � � � � � � � � � :� 0 � � � � N �
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(O N CD Cfl � CO � CO --' (D -� d7 -� CD -� (O --� (O --► CO --' CO -� W � � �! �P -� --' O �0 N (31 -� Cfl � L� �
.A C.n --� --• c0 �A c0 --► cD �A cD W cp --► CD � c0 .l� cD � cD -A CO Oo cJt -� �-� cfl -� N O A c0 co A c0 �A• �
w
L
�
�
-� (7
�0
� �1 rn d� cfl O� �l rn �I � �l �l �1 rn �J � �I � V � �! rn �l -J �J �J � �1 �I CO Oo � �l tD 11 � �l O� p
�1 O`! �I -� �l 00 �1 Oo �! Oo W Oo �l ao �l 0� -J OD �1 00 �1 Oo -� OD ��� OD (J� U1 � CD Q OD �I OD �l O
cD CJ� �� W tD U� � CJ� CO Cn aD CJt � U1 CD (J� CD CJi c0 CJl CD CJ� � N cD W(O CJ� O� V O C7� (Jt (fl Ut (D �.
D �,
_1 �1 � �1 �..1 � � ._1 .__f � —1 � .�1 � � � �.1 � -�
Cfl Cfl 00 00 N c0 O Oo O CO O(� O 00 O CD O CD O CD O t0 O CD O(O 00 (O O O� 00 O O� O(D � CO �(p
O W(� cD --• O J� cD � O� 00 �P CO � O �P O� O�P O�A U7 W(T 00 C)� �P N W 0� �P (J1 -P O� O n �
���I �J W-� N�! N-� N O N�J N-� N-� N-� N--► N� Oo (J� O(J� N��I Cn Oo J� N--► N--� N
7
a
�'
�
�
�
�
7�
�
N
�
II'
�D
_
O
3
fD
�
01
�
�
�
0
O
n
C
3
�
�
r+
�
�
�
O
'D
fD
a;
c�
N
�
n.
N
�
Vl
�
1
�
«�
�
.p
CJ1
N
r
�
a
(D
v
a
�
?
(D
�
�
�
�
CD
�
r+
_
N�
�
O
�
N
O
O
�
N
O
O
�
G:�Documents\Properties\Indian Springs 4521SpreadsheetslCPl Rent History 2001-2004
indian Sprinqs Mobile Home Park
Space
No.
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
CPI
Jan 1, 2001
10.44
10.44
10.39
10.84
10.44
9.71
10.44
15.31
15.51
14.67
10.39
10.84
10.39
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.44
9.26
10.44
10.79
10.44
10.44
10.39
10.39
10.44
10.44
0.00
10.44
10.44
10.71
11.06
11.27
11.06
11.27
0.00
13.44
10.39
10.44
CPI CPI
Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2003
10.88 7.94
10.88 7.94
10.83 7.91
11.29 8.25
1 Q.88 7.94
10.70 7.81
10.88 7.94
15.96 11.65
16.16 11.80
15.28 11.16
10.83 7.91
11.29 8.25
10.83 7.91
10.88 7.94
10.88 7.94
10.88 7.94
10.88 7.94
9.65 7.05
10.88 7.94
11.25 8.21
10.88 7.94
10.88 7.94
10.83 7.91
10.83 7.91
10.88 7.94
10.88 7.94
14.38 10.50
10.88 7.94
10.88 7.94
11.16 8.15
11.52 8.41
11.75 8.58
11.52 8.41
11.75 8.58
0.00 0.00
14.01 10.23
10.83 7.91
10.88 0.00
CPI
Jan 1, 2004
6.79
6.79
6.76
7.05
6.79
6.68
6.79
9. 96
10.08
9.54
6.76
7.05
6.76
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.03
6.79
7.02
6.79
6.79
6.76
6.76
6.79
6.79
8.98
6.79
6.79
6.97
7.19
7.33
7.19
7.33
0.00
8.74
6.76
6.79
4-Year
Averaqe
9.01
9.01
8.97
9.36
9.01
8.73
9.01
13.22
13.39
12.66
8.97
9.36
8.97
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
s.00
9.01
9.32
9.01
9.01
8.97
8.97
9.01
9.01
8.47
9.01
9.01
9.25
9.55
9.73
9.55
9.73
0.00
11.61
8.97
7.03
G:1DocumentslPropertiesllndian Springs 4521SpreadsheetslCPl Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Sprinqs Mobile Home Park
Space
No.
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
CPI CPI CPI
Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2003
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
0.00 18.75 19.75
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
14.49 15.10 11.03
10.84 11.29 8.25
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.66 11.10 8.11
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.00 10.42 7.61
10.44 10.88 7.94
11.67 12.16 8.88
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
13.49 14.06 10.27
8.54 8.90 6.50
13.57 14.14 10.33
12.51 13.04 9.52
10.44 10.88 7.94
0.00 20.88
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.51 13.04 9.52
11.06 11.52 8.41
11.01 11.47 8.38
11.06 11.52 8.41
12.07 12.58 9.19
11.06 11.52 8.41
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.14 12.65 9.24
CPI
Jan 1, 2004
6.79
6.79
9.15
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
9.43
7.05
6.79
6.93
6.79
6.79
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
4-Yea r
Averaqe
9.01
9.01
11.91
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
12.51
9.36
9.01
9.20
9.01
9.01
9.01
8.64
9.01
10.08
9.01
9.01
11.65
7.38
11.72
10.80
9.01
11.38
9.01
10.80
9.55
9.51
9.55
10.42
9.55
10.42
9.01
10.48
G:1DocumentslProperties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Sprinqs Mobile Home Park
Space
No.
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
17$
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
CPI CPI CPI
Jan 1. 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1. 2003
10.39 10.83 7.91
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.03 12.53 9.15
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.03 12.53 9.15
10.44 1 Q.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.8$ 7.94
12.03 12.53 9.15
10.79 11.25 8.21
12.07 12.58 9.19
12.07 12.58 9.19
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.46 12.99 9.49
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.07 12.58 9.19
12.46 12.99 9.49
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.26 12.77 9.33
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.53 13.06 9.54
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.07 12.58 9.19
12.51 13.04 9.52
12.07 12.58 9.19
11.08 11.55 8.43
CPI
Jan 1. 2004
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
8.95
8.14
8.14
7.85
8.14
7.85
7.21
4-Year
AveraQe
8.97
10.42
9.01
10.42
9.01
10.38
9.01
10.42
9.01
10.38
9.Q1
10.42
9.01
10.38
9.32
10.42
1 Q.42
10.80
10.$Q
10.80
10.76
10.80
10.80
10.80
10.42
10.76
10.80
10.80
10.58
10.80
10.80
10.82
10.80
10.80
10.42
10.80
10.42
9.57
G:\DocumentslProperties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Sprinqs Mobile Home Park
Space CPI CPI CP4 CPI 4-Year
No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Averaae
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."
Histor-�� of Rent Increase for January 1, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Basis for Calculations
CPI Rent History 2001-2004
4ndian Sprinqs Mobile Home Park
Space
No
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
z�
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4A
45
46
a�
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Rent at
01l01 /00
405.73
455.02
392.45
453.90
392.45
d53.90
392.45
453.90
392.45
453.90
392.45
453.90
392.45
392.45
392.45
392.45
392.45
415.66
456.26
4'I 5.65
392.45
410.41
392.45
4a5.73
544.56
422.15
sso.��
415.66
390.71
415.66
392.45
415.66
392.45
383.11
392.45
453.90
465.00
453.90
392.45
453.90
382.45
453.90
537.20
456.4d
385.30
494.93
558.39
453.90
415.66
383.11
415.66
452.20
413.92
453.90
392.45
453.90
392.45
453.90
392.45
453.90
392.45
453.9�
390.71
453.90
42fi.51
CPI
Jan � , 2001
10.79
�2.10
10.4a
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.44
11.06
12.14
11.06
10.44
10.92
10.44
10.79
14.49
11.23
10.39
11.06
10.39
11.06
10.44
11.06
10.44
1C.19
10.44
12.07
12.37
12.Q7
10.44
12.07
io.aa
12.07
0.00
12.14
10.25
13 17
o.00
12.07
11.06
10.19
� '1.06
12.03
11.01
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.39
'12.07
11.35
Rent in Effe�
Jan 1, 2401
41 E.52
467.12
402.89
ass.s�
402.89
465.97
402.89
465.97
402.89
465.97
402.89
a65.97
402.89
402.89
402.89
402.89
402.89
426.72
468.40
426.72
402.89
421.33
402.89
4�6.52
559.05
433.38
401.10
426.72
401.10
426.72
402.89
426.72
402.89
393.30
a02.89
a65.97
477.37
465.97
402.89
465.97
402.89
465.97
537.20
468.58
395.55
508.10
558.39
465.97
426.72
393.30
426.72
464.23
424.93
465.97
402.89
465.97
402.89
465.97
402.89
465.97
402.89
465.97
401.10
465.97
437.86
CPI
Jan 1, 2002
1 � .25
12.61
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.88
1 a.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
11.52
12.65
11.52
10.88
11.38
10.88
11.25
15.09
11.70
10.83
11.52
10.83
11.52
10.88
11.52
10.88
10.62 .
10.88
12.58
12.89
12.58
10.88
12.58
�o.aa
� 2.58
14.50
12.68
10.68
13.72
20.44
12.58
11.52
10.62
11.52
12.53
11.47
12.58
10.88
� 2.58
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.83
12.58
11.62
Rent in Effect
Jan 1 2002
427.77
47g.73
413.77
478.55
413.77
478.55
413.77
478.55
a 13.77
478.55
a13.77
478.55
413.77
a�3.n
413.77
413.77
a13.77
438.24
481,05
43$.24
413.77
432.71
413.77
427.77
574.14
445.08
411.93
438.24
4'I 'I .93
438.24
413.77
438.24
413.77
403.92
413.77
478.55
490.26
478.55
4'13.77
478.55
413.77
478.55
551.70
481.23
4�6.23
521.82
578.83
478.55
438.24
403.92
438.24
476.76
436.40
478.55
413.77
478.55
413.77
478.55
413.77
478.55
413.77
478.55
a11.93
478.55
449.68
CPI
.1ar� 1. 2003
8.21
9.21
7.94
s.�s
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.19
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
8.41
9.24
8.41
7.94
8.31
7.94
8.21
11.02
8.55
7.91
8.41
7.91
8.41
7.94
8.41
7.94
7.76
7.94
9.19
9.41
9.19
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.19
10.59
9.24
7.80
10.02
11.11
s.�s
8.41
7.76
8.41
9.15
8.38
9.19
7,94
9.19
7.94
9.�9
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.19
7.91
9.'19
8.63
Rent m Effect
Jan 1.2003
435.98
488.94
421.7 �
487.74
421.i1
487.74
421.71
487.74
421.71
487.74
421.71
487.74
421.71
421.7'!
421.71
421.71
421.71
446.65
490.29
446.65
421.71
4•41.02
421.71
435.98
585.16
453.63
419.84
446.65
419.84
446.65
421.71
446.65
421.71
411.68
421.71
487.74
499.67
487.74
421.71
487.74
42'i .71
487.74
562.29
490.47
414.03
53 � .84
589.94
as7.�a
446.65
411.68
446.65
485.91
444.78
487.74
421.71
487.7A
421.71
487.74
421.71
487.74
421.71
487.74
419.84
487.74
458.3'I
C�I
Jan 1. 2004
7.02
7.87
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.74
7.85
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
7.19
7.89
7.19
6.79
7.10
6.79
7.02
9.42
7.30
6.76
7.19
6.76
7.19
6.79
7.19
6.79
6.63
6.79
7.85
8.04
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
9.�5
7.90
6.67
8.56
9.50
�.as
7.19
6.63
7.19
7.82
7.16
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.76
7.85
7.38
Rent ir EffeC.
Jan 1 2004
4C3.00
496.81
428.50
495.59
428.50
495.59
428.54
495.59
428.50
495.89
428.50
495.59
428.50
428.50
428.50
428.50
428.50
453.84
498.18
453.84
428.50
448.12
428.50
443.00
594.58
460.93
426.60
453.$4
426.60
453.84
428.50
453.84
428.50
418.31
42$.50
495.59
507.71
495.59
428.50
495.59
428.50
495.59
571.34
498.37
420.70
540.40
599.44
495.59
453.84
a18.31
453.84
493.73
451.94
495.59
428.50
495.59
428.50
495.59
428.5�
495.59
428.50
495.59
426.60
495.59
465.69
CPI Rent Histo.ry 200i-2004
Indian Sarinqs Mobile Home Park
Space
No.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
64
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
�00
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
'122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Rent at
01 /01 /00
453.90
392.45
453.90
390.71
453.90
392.45
528.00
390.71
390.71
407.46
392.45
392.45
392.45
390.71
407.46
392.45
365.06
392.45
575.66
582.90
551.32
39a.71
407.46
390.71
392.45
392.45
392.45
392.45
348.28
392.45
405.73
392.45
392.45
390.71
390.71
392.45
392.45
532.65
392.45
392.45
402.69
415.66
423.85
415.66
423.85
583.74
505.30
390.71
392.45
392.45
392.45
529.80
392.45
392.45
392.45
392.45
392.45
392.45
392.45
544.88
407.46
392.45
400.63
392.45
392.45
CPI
Jan1 200�
12.07
10.44
12.47
10.39
12.07
10.44
14.04
10.39
10.39
10.84
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.39
10.84
10.44
9.71
10.44
15.31
15.51
14.67
10.39
10.84
10.39
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.44
9.26
10.44
10.79
10.44
10.44
10.39
10.39
1 a.44
10.44
0.00
10.44
10.44
10.71
� 1.06
11.27
1�.06
11.27
0.00
13.44
'10.39
10.44
10.44
'10.44
o.00
10.44
10.44
10.44
10.44
'I 0.44
10.44
'10.44
'14.49
10.84
10.44
10.66
10.44
10.44
Rent in Effect
Jan �, 200'I
465.97
402.89
465.97
401.10
465.97
402.89
542.04
401.10
401.10
418.30
402.89
402.89
402.89
401.10
416.30
402.89
374.77
402.89
590.97
598.41
565.99
401.10
418.30
401.10
402.89
402.89
402.89
402.89
357.54
402.89
416.52
402.89
402.89
401.�0
401.10
402.89
402.89
532.65
402. B9
402.89
413.40
426.72
435.12
426.72
435.12
583.74
518.74
401.10
402.89
402.89
402.89
529.80
402.89
402.89
402.89
402.89
402.89
402.89
402.89
559.37
418.30
402.89
411.29
402.89
402.89
CPI
Jan 1, 2002
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.83
12.58
10.88
14.64
10.83
10.83
11.29
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.83
11.29
10.88
10.70
10.88
15.96
16.16
15.28
10.83
11.29
10.83
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
9.65
10.88
11.25
10.88
10.88
10.83
10.83
10.88
10.88
14.38
10.88
10.68
11.16
11.52
11.75
11.52
� 1.75
0.00
14.01
10.83
10.88
10.88
10.88
18.75
'10.88
1 Q.88
10.88
10.88
'I 0.88
10.88
10.88
15.10
1'I .29
10.88
11.10
10.88
10.88
Rent m Effect
Jan 1, 2002
478.55
413.77
478.55
411.93
478.55
413.77
556.68
411.93
411.93
429.59
413.77
413.77
413.77
411.93
429.59
413.77
407.03
413.77
606.93
614.57
581.27
411.93
429.59
411.93
413.77
413.77
413.77
413.77
367.19
413.77
427.77
413.77
413.77
411.93
411.93
413.77
413.77
547.03
413.77
413.77
424.56
438.24
446.87
438.24
446.87
583.74
532.75
411.93
413.77
413.77
413.77
548.55
413.77
413.77
413.77
413.77
4'13.77
413.77
413.77
574.47
429.59
413.77
422.39
413.77
a 13.77
CPI
Jan 1. 2003
9.19
7.94
9.19
7.91
9.19
7.94
10.69
7.91
7.91
8.25
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.91
8.25
7.94
7.81
7.94
11.65
1 � .80
11.16
7.91
8.25
7.91
7. g4
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.05
7.94
8.21
7.94
7.94
7.91
7.91
7.94
7.94
10.50
7.94
7.94
8.15
8.41
8.58
8.41
8.58
0.00
10.23
7.91
0.00
7.94
7.94
19.75
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.94
11.03
8.25
7.94
8.11
7.94
7.94
Rent in Effec;
Jan 'I, 2003
487.74
421.71
487.74
4�9.84
487.74
421.7'I
567.37
419.84
419.84
437.84
421.71
421.71
421.71
419.84
437.84
421.71
414.84
42'1.71
618.58
626.37
592.43
419.84
437.84
419.84
421.71
421.71
421.71
421.71
374.24
421 71
435.98
421.71
421.71
419.84
419.84
421.71
421.71
557.53
421.71
421.71
432.71
446.65
455.45
446.65
455.45
594.95
542.98
419.84
413.77
421.71
421.71
568.30
421.71
421.71
421.71
421.71
421.7'1
421.71
421.7'1
585.50
437.84
421.71
430.50
421.71
421.71
CPI
Jan ':.2004
7.85
6.79
7.85
E.76
7.85
6.79
9.13
6.76
6.76
7.05
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.76
7.05
6.79
6.68
6.79
9.96
10.08
9.54
6.76
7.05
6.76
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.03
6.79
7.02
6.79
6.79
6.76
6.76
6.79
6.79
8.98
6.79
6.79
6.97
7.19
7.33
7.19
7.33
0.00
8.74
6.76
6.79
6.79
6.79
9.15
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
9.43
7.05
6.79
6.93
6.79
6.79
Rent in Effect
Jar. 1 2004
495.59
428.50
495.59
426.50
495.59
428.50
576.50
426.60
426.6C
44a.89
428.50
428.50
428.50
426.60
444.89
428.50
421.52
428.50
628.54
636.45
601.97
426.60
444.89
426.60
428.50
428.50
428.50
428.50
380.27
aza.so
443.00
428.50
428.50
426.60
426.60
428.50
428.50
566.51
428.50
428.50
439.68
453.84
462.78
453.84
462.78
583.74
551.72
426.60
428.50
428.50
428.50
577.45
428.50
428.50
428.50
428.50
428.50
428.50
428.50
594.93
4a4.89
428.50
437.43
428.50
428.50
CPI Rent History 200'-200�
Indian Sprinqs Mobile Home Park
Space
No
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Rent at
01/01/00
392.45
376.05
392.45
438.86
392.45
392.45
507.17
321.17
510.26
470.30
392.45
662.69
392.45
470.30
415.66
413.92
A15.66
453.90
415.66
453.90
392.45.
456.26
390.71
453.90
392.45
453.90
392.45
452.17
392.45
453.90
392.45
452.17
392.45
453.90
392.45
452.17
405.73
453.90
453.90
470.30
470.30
470.30
468.57
470.30
47p.30
470.30
453.90
468.57
470.30
470.30
d60.80
470.30
470.30
471.08
470.30
470.30
453.90
470.30
453.90
416.65
455.66
CPI
Jan 1.2001
10.44
10.00
10.44
11.67
� o.aa
10.44
13.49
8.54
13.57
12.51
10.44
0.0�
10.44
12.51
11.06
11.01
11.06
12.07
11.06
12.07
10.44
12.14
10.39
12.07
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.a3
10.44
12.07
1 �.44
12.03
10.44
12.07
10.44
12.03
10.79
12.07
12.07
12.51
12.5�
12.51
12.46
12.51
12.51
12.51
12.07
'{ 2.46
12.51
12.51
12.26
12.51
12.51
12.53
12.51
12.51
12.07
12.51
12.07
11.D8
12.12
Rent in Effect
Jan 1. 2001
402.89
386.05
402.89
450.53
402.89
402.89
520.66
329.71
523.83
482.81
402.89
682.69
402.89
482.81
426.72
424.93
426.72
465.97
426.72
465.97
402.89
468.40
401.10
465.97
402.89
as5.s�
d02.89
464.20
402.89
465.97
402.89
464.20
402.89
465.97
402.89
464.20
416.52
465.97
465.97
482.81
482.81
482.81
481.03
482.81
482.81
482.81
465.97
481.03
482. S 1
482.81
473.06
482.81
482.81
483.61
462.81
482.81
465.97
482.81
465.97
427.73
467.78
CPI
Jan 1. 20fl2
10.88
10.42
10.88
12.16
10.88
10.88
14.06
8.90
'14.14
13.04
10.88
20.88
10.88
13.04
11.52
11.47
11.52
. 12.58
11.52
12.58
10.88
12.65
10.83
12.58
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.53
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.53
10.88
12.58
10.88
12.53
11.25
12.58
12.58
13.04
13.04
13.04
12.99
13.04
13.04
13.04
12.58
12.99
13.04
13.04
12.77
13.04
13.04
13.06
13.04
13.04
12.58
13.04
12.58
11.55
12.63
Total 81.828.00 2.086.00 83.9�4.00 2.263.41
Rent in Effect
Jan 1. 2002
413.77
396.47
413.77
462.69
413.77
413.77
534.72
338.61
537.97
A95.85
413.77
600.88
413.77
495.85
438.24
436.40
438.24
478.55
438.24
478.55
413.77
481.05
411.93
A78.55
413.77
478.55
413.77
476.73
413.77
478.55
413.77
476.73
413.77
478.55
413.77
476.73
427.77
478.55
478.55
495.85
495.85
495.85
494.02
495.85
495.85
495.85
478.55
494.02
495.85
495.85
485.83
495.85
495.85
496.67
495.85
495.85
a78.55
495.85
478.55
439.28
480.41
CPI
Jan 1. 2003
7.94
7.61
7.94
8.88
7.94
7.94
1 d.27
6.50
10.33
9.52
7.94
7.94
9.52
8.41
8.38
8.4'I
9.19
8.41
9.19
7.9a
9.24
7.91
9.�9
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.15
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.15
7.94
9.19
7.94
9.15
8.21
9.19
9.19
9.52
9.52
9.52
9.49
9.52
9.52
9.52
9.19
9.49
9.52
9, 52
9.33
9.52
9.52
9.54
9.52
9.52
9.19
9.52
9.19
8.43
9.22
86.1 � 6.28 1.631.68
Rent in Effect
Jan 1, 2003
421.71
404.08
d21.71
471.57
421.71
421.71
544.99
345.11
548.30
505.37
42� .71
600.88
421.71
505.37
446.65
444.78
446.65
487.74
446.65
487.74
421.71
490.29
419.84
487.74
421.71
487.74
421.71
485.88
421.71
487.74
421.71
485.88
421.71
487.74
421.71
485.88
435.98
487.74
487.74
505.37
505.37
505.37
503.51
505.37
505.37
505.37
487.74
503.51
505.37
505.37
495.16
505.37
505.37
506.21
505.37
505.37
487.74
505.37
487.74
447.71
489.63
CPI
.1an 1. 2004
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
fi.79
7.89
6.76
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.B2
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.82
6.79
7.85
6.74
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.'I �
8.�4
8.14
7.97
8.14
8.14
8.15
8.14
S.'14
7.85
8.'14
7.85
7.21
7.88
Rent in Effec;
Jan 1. 2004
428.50
410.59
428.50
479.15
428.50
426.50
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
a93.70
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
5'I 1.62
513.51
513.5'1
513.51
495.59
5'11.62
513.51
513.51
503.13
513.51
513.51
5�4.36
5'13.51
513.5'1
495.59
513.51
495.59
454.92
497.51
87.759.17 1,407.�5 8918'1.52
G:1DocumentslPropertiesllndian Springs 4521SpreadsheetslCPl Rent History 2001-2004
indian Sprinqs Mobile Home Park
Space
No.
1
2
3
4
�
6
7
8
9
1Q
11
12
13
14
15
1fi
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
CPI CPI CPI
Jan 1. 2001 Jan 1. 2002 Jan 1, 2003
10.79 11.25 8.21
12.10 12.61 9.21
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.44 10.88 7.94
11.06 11.52 8.41
12.14 12.65 9.24
11.06 11.52 8.41
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.92 11.38 8.31
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.79 11.25 8.21
14.49 15.09 11.02
11.23 11.70 8.55
10.39 10.83 7.91
11.06 11.52 8.41
10.39 10.83 7.91
11.06 11.52 8.41
10.44 10.88 7.94
11.06 11.52 8.41
10.44 10.88 7.94
10.19 1 Q.62 7.76
10.44 10.88 7.94
12.07 12.58 9.19
12.37 12.89 9.41
12.07 12.58 9.19
CP1
Jan 1. 2004
7.02
7.87
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
6.79
7.19
7.89
7.19
6.79
7.10
6.79
7.02
9.42
7.30
6.76
7.19
6.76
7.19
6.79
7.19
6.79
6.63
6.79
7.85
8.04
7.85
4-Year
Averape
9.32
10.45
9.01
10.42
9.01
10.42
9.01
10.42
9.01
10.42
9.01
10.42
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.�5
10.48
9.55
9.01
9.43
9.01
9.32
12.51
9.70
8.97
9.55
8.97
9.55
9.01
9.55
9.01
8.80
9.01
10.42
10.68
10.42
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a part�� to the action.
My business address is 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330. San DieQo. California, 921?2. On
3 November 22 , 2004, I caused the following listed documents to be served on the interested parties bt�
the following method:
4 DOCUiVIENTS SERVED:
5 1. Meeting Notice for 29`"
6 2. Hearing Notice for Planning Commission Dec. 7
7 3. Tenant Impact Report
8 4. Supplemental Tenant Impact Report
9 METHOD:
10 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.
11
X BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of
12 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
13 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.
14
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and delivery on
15 this date in accordance with standard Federal Express delivery procedures.
16 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
17 to print a transmission record of the transmission.
18 _ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I cause such envelope to be delivered by hand to the above referenced
person(s).
19
20 PERSON(S) SERVED:
21 Resident of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park
Spaces 1-191
22 49305 Highway 74
Palm Desert, CA 92260
23
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
25 correct and that this declaration was executed on November 22 , 200�, at San Diego, California.
26
27
28
c/ab/pos.2004
��
Christa A. Lane
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a partv to the action.
My business address is 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330. San Die�o, California, 92122. On
3 November '� , 2004, I caused the following listed documents to be served on the interested parties b}-
the following method:
4 DOCUMENTS SERVED:
� 1. Meeting Notice for 29`h
6 2. Hearing Notice for Planning Commission Dec. 7
7 3. Tenant Impact Report
8 4. Supplemental Tenant Impact Report
9 METHOD:
10 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.
11
BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of
12 conespondence 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
13 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.
14
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and delivery on
15 this date in accordance with standazd Federal Express delivery procedures.
16 BY FAX: The fax machine I used complies with California Rules of Court, rule ?003, and no error
was reported �y the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2006(d), I caused the machine
17 to print a transmission record of the transmission.
18 X BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I cause such envelope to be delivered by hand to the above referenced
person(s).
19
20 PERSON(S) SERVED:
21 Resident of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park
Spaces 1-191
22 49305 Highway 74
Palm Desert, CA 92260
23
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
25 correct and that this declaration was executed on�� . 2004, at Sa� D:.,S�, California.
%�AL.L1 �r jc`� T��j�
26
27 � -� �
te en e e 1
28
clablpos.2004
HOV-22-2004 MON 12�30 PM �'qMES & ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 7R0416158B P, 02
Ro�ert & Irane Borel__ G��nn :rigere Leciile pod=nc
49-305 ��grway 74 #1 49-305 Highway 74 49-305 z:g'way 74 s3
�a�� Aeser* CA 9226� #CC2 Palm Desert �A ?226�
Pal�. �esezt CA 9226�
Ros�:ee Ca�ver=
uary Fer=ir.
99-3C5 f?ighway 74, #9
Falm Deszrt CA 92260
�re^2 S_ew3rt
99-3�5 Highwd�• 79
lF005
?aim De�2r= CA 92260
�ar:y Cwen
4 �-3�5 'r.iC^wa f i 4 �o
Palm D�ser� C,a 92260
Wi_�ia:n � Lo�.ise Reme;:.us
49-305 F?i�'h.�ay 74
#00�
Paltn Desert CA 422n�
JoZ ; M' �ch 1
49-305 'q way 79 t�l�
Pal� Dese t GA 92260
Adela Mzsca_
99-3�5 Fiighway �4
#013
Palm D2se=t CA 922oG
�rancls S Rose Pagiiarin�
A9-305 i?ighway 74
�016
Pa-r.. Desert CA 9226C
Ja . t � an�s
9�- ' Higrw4y 74
#O1
Pa? Je ert CA 92260
Cheryl Pan_r.der
49-3C5 Highway 7S #22
PaZm Desert CA 9226Q
C2c_le �est
49-305 H_ghway 79
i�025
Pal�: �esert CA 92260
Katherine Robbins
49-3Q5 �ighway 79 #28
Palm Desert CA 92260
Barbara You :g
49-365 xighway 79 �E
Pa;:� Desert CA 5226Q
Nor=is and �oretta O_son
49--305 Highway 74 #O11
Pa�:� Desert CA 9226�
De a B :.ssmer
A9-3 Highway 7Q �►019
Palcr, ert CA 9226C
Judy N.atthews
49-305 E?iqhway 74 #��
Palm Desert CA 9226C
Jack Maliory
49-30� Hiqnw�y 7S �2C
Paln D�sert CA 92260
Jar�es G. Stone
9y�30� Fiig::Nay 7S �23
Pa1Ct Desert CF. 922oC
Jerry � Carole CiCciR.aro
49-305 Hiqhway 74
#�26
Palr� Jesert CA 92260
Jean Wa son
49�30 Hiqhway 74
�02
P�1 Des �t CA 9226C
Yavaz;c� Trbuhcv:,ch
�9-3�:. H:ghwzy 7� �C�?
Palr Deser: CP. ?2260
J'a^ S. �i
99-3 xig2:way 74 #i2
Palt1 sert CA 9226�
Marqarette N.e�necke
95-3�5 3iqhway 74 �15
Pa].m Desert C� 922EC
Edi�h Gagnor.
�5-305 F.�y�way �4
���8
Pa�:n Desert CA 92280
�ooki� Caffery
49-3C5 Highway 74
�C21
Palrr. Deser� CA 92260
killiam And L,ee r'_sche�
49-3C5 :(�ghway 79 �029
Pa:.m, �esert CA 92260
Joan Perkir.son
A9-305 Highway 74 #27
Pai:n �ese:t CA 9220"0
Addie Capova'i
99-3Q5 righway 76 #30
Palm Desert CA 92260
NOU-22-2004 MOK 12�30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 7�04161588 F. 03
Lae & Pat S�rake Diane N.. Morin AnnetLe �ar.��zzo
a9-305 High+�ay 74 49-305 Highway 74 #32 49-3C5 4'_grway �� �033
�C3� ?2i� Desert CA 92260 Pa1n. �esert CA 7e26�
�alr.� Deser� CA 922 "o�
Faul S_ac�c
Joe McLaughl_r.
99-305 F.ighway 74 �134
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ten and Betty Morre:.1
49-305 Highway 7S �35
Pal�r �esert CA 922b�
Roba: c and Jo�ec'r.ir:e ,,.. �•: t::�
49-305 hiczway ;S �3�
Palm Deser� CA 9Z26�
Robert ar.d Polly Duden
49-305 ?iighway 74 #037
Paim Des�rt CA 92260
George and 8arbara Ruppert
55-30� Highwsy 74
#C4�
Pa1�: �esert CA 92260
Mary Piu.'nley
49-305 Highway 74
#043
Pal:n Deser= �A 92266
A. Ri a' Brown, Sr.
49-3Q5 ighway 74 #�046
Paim D s r} CA 9226a
Nick Brandt
44-305 Highway 74
#C49
Palm Desert CA 92260
,;ean-Ja que Sazfati
49-305 x ay 74 #052
Palcr Dese CA 92i60
Tirr, b Helen Taylor
4;-305 H��hway 74
�055
Pa_^� Desert CA 9226C
vincent Giuliani
Evelyn Rall�
4�-305 Hwy 74, Space 58
PAI,M DESERT CA 9226�
Bob Schoelzel
49-305 H:g!�way 74
#039
Palm Desert CA 9226C
Virginia Ross
49-3C5 Highway 74 #�1
Pa?_n De3ert CA 92260
Et ly �pel
49-3 S Highway �4
lM099
�alm De er: CA 9220'0
R4�h *�alatesta
49-305 iiighway �9 �r�7
Pa:� Desert CA 9226G
Alfre F'zzaerald
9y�305 �ghway �4 #5C'
?a�m D rt CA 92260
Harry a^d Sharo.^. Tianna
49-305 F:ighway �4 ii53
Palcr. Desert CA 9226�
Par,:a�a 3agemanr.
49-305 Highway 79 �56
Palm Desert �A 922e0
Sh on arey
Donn K` r.g
J'udy d Ron Wllliams
49-30 ighway 74 M�9
Palm es r= CA 92260
Bea r: �a'._s
49-3 :I_ghway �4 #�3>
Pa_, ese=t CA 5226�
Anne.�e Clyat:
9�-305 Hig::w,y 7S �52
Pa?n Des2rt CA 5226�
Ci:arlotte Sharp
49-305 �ighway 74
!�095
Palm Dese:� CA 9Z26C
Doug:as a::d Bonita Grcbe
55-30� F.ig:�way 74 #C48
Pal:n De�erc CA 92260
Jo2:n s Bect� Ac�c'_ey
S9-3C5 �-?�qhway 74
1►C51
Pal�r Desert CA 9220�
Julie Ann G��_:.b:and
49-3C5 �igrway 76
�1054
Palm Dese=t �A 9226C
�e=cres M::--ay
99-305 F.ig!�way 74
�C�7
Pa�.^.i Deser� CA °2260
Le:�ore Sparling
a9-305 Highway 7S
#i�6C
°alm Cesert CA 92260
KOU-22-2004 MON 12�30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 7604161588 P. 04
Elizabe�h Na�ie Clyde Mitche�l W'_lliam and bax�ara Ca:r
49-3C5 �ighway 79 �61 49-305 H_qhway 79 #b2 49-3C5 �ighway 7� �63
P�1m Desert CA 922c0 Pa'_m Desert CA 9226C Palm Desert �n 9226C
Frnd 0. c=sChler
An�je S. Reck
49-305 �ighway 79 �6A
Paln Dese�t CA 922E�
R_c�ard and Catherir.e Mi'_�er
49-3G5 Highway 74 �C65
Palm Deserc CA 92260
Rcse�arie Sc�ne��e�
49-3C� �'_ghway 74, �66
Pd:� �esert CA �220�
Ma�yanne Harper
49-305 3lghway 74 �67
Pa'_� De�ert CA 92260
Judi=h L. Rosenberq
59-305 3igrway 79 #070
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ja ueli e Doyle
49- H_ghway 74
#07
Pal � ser� CA 9226C
John 0'�cnne�;
49-305 Highway 74
#076
Palm Desert :,A 92260
Margo Iverso^
49-3C5 Eig:�way 74 #79
Palm �esert CA 92260
She�ma Lady S:nich
49-305 qhway 79 �82
?al:n De : � CA 922E0
Dcrc�hy :�11].er
49-305 3ighway �9
#03�
?a::tt Desert CA 9226C
�War:e and arcia Monroe
49-3�5 ' hway 74 #68
Pal� De t CA 52260
" �bella 5oehnleir.
49-305 Highway �4
�071
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ronald and Don^a Rolfe
49-3�5 Hig:�way 74 !�74
Pa1m Desert CA 92260
Patricia A. Greco
99-3�5 Hig::way 74 #77
Falr� Desert CA 922"00
JoAr.^ C'_na
A9-3C5 Highway �4 �Vd80
Fa�r,: Desert CA 9226�
Bas. Ral
49-3a ighway 74 #83
Pa�m D ert CA 92260
Marie Sc?�.midt
�9-305 Highway 79 #�86
Fa1T Desert CA 9226C
Doaaid & �au;a �i:�
49-305 H�grway 74
�069
Palm Desert CA 9226C
Gcorge A. Rex
99-305 H�ghway 74, �72
Paim Desert CA 92260
Dorothy ?ampet�:
9y-305 �ignway 74 #;5
Pa?m Desert CA 92200
Lorraine Huhr.ke
49-3C5 :i=ghway 74
�}078
Palm Dese�t CA 922oG
N,ary Wiley
49-3C5 3ighway 79 #81
Pa?n. Desert CA 922E�
�enny �vans
49-305 Highway 74
��084
Palzr. Deser� CA 92260
JamQs Adamo
49-305 Highway 74 r�d7
Palm Desert CA 3226C
Shazo� ROyal Gary � Mar;a McIztyre Betty Ann To:ns
49-305 Hig:�way 74 �098 99-3C5 Hig'r.wey 74 49-305 :iiq^way 79
Palm Desert CA 92260 1k089 �►090
Pa;r.t Desert CA 92260 ?a�� �e,ert CA 91200
NOV-22-2004 MON 12�30 PM �1AMES & ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 7F�4161588 F. �5
�ara Ro�ero Villai�a Georgwa Fish Nike Condreay
49-305 ��ghway �4 49-30� zichway 74 49-3C�5 �iczway �; r3�
�09'_ #092 �ai� Dese=� CL �22�Q
Pa�� �eser= CA 92200 ?alm D�se_t CA 7ZL��
Paul C:^.apas
49-305 i?ighw3y 74 #099
Palm D�sert CA 922b�
San�'y Symir.g�cn
45-305 :i:ghway 74 `�Q95
Pa:.m �esert CA 92260
Rc�e:� a^d �saza :�orr.�sc�
99-3C5 3�ql:wzy 7:1 *96
Falm Desert CP. 9225�
Morris & Adela Carsor.
49-3�5 Highway "l4
#057
Pa�r� Desert CA 9226C
Richard Gibsor.
A9-305 Hig'�way 74 ��OG
Palm Desert CA 92260
R:ta Alexander
49-305 Highway 79 �►143
Pa:t`� Desert CA 9226C
Jack L. 3ernier
99-305 H�ghway 74 #_06
Faln Desert C?, 32260
Chester E. H:11
49-303 Highway �4 �1��
Palm Dese-t CA 9226�
Stan�ey G12n 4�'iesaer
49-3C'S 3ighway 79
#112
Palm �esert �A 92260
Faui_ne v. Eu�an�ts
49-305 H_qhway 7q �►:15
Paln Desert CA 92200
Patsy Sche:.lbac:�
49-3C5 Highway 74 #98
?a�m Deser� CA 52260
�oah �n•ilkinson
�9-30� i;i�hway 74
����
Palr.t DeserL CA 92260
Carol ,7. Byror.
49-305 :iighway 79 #1C4
Palr.t Desert CA 92260
Elizabeth Carmell_ni
99-30� Kig:�way 74 #107
Palm Deser� CA 92260
C�a es u=tan
49-3 Highway 74 ?��1�
Pa= ser- CA 92260
?:aine Evon Swedi�
49-305 9ighway 74 �1�3
Paln Deser� CA 92260
JoAnn �lna
49-305 Hign�ay 74
#116
Palm Desert CA 92260
c_ank a^d Marle::a ,^looaws_d
99-3�� Y._ghway 7, #9�
Palr.. Desert CR 9226�
M:Cha21 ar.d Barbara Doy_e
49-30� E�qhway 7g #?C2
Pa�� Deser� CA 9LGEO
Raymond Borde:�
49-3�5 �i;ghway 74 �k?C�
Pal�r Desert CA 9226C
Pa11 and Lorice Lof�
99-305 Highway 7� 1►:08
P31m Desert CA 9226G
June Gieason
49-305 �:ig:�way 74 tt'_�1
Pal:n De�e�t CA 92260
:dar:.or. Prz:? i�s
49-305 Hiqhway 74
�17.9
Palm Desert C� 522oC
LaConna F?a:nmenic
4y-305 f?�ghway %� �l117
Pa_m Deserz CA °2260
Marceila K:�ox Eleaner Noyes Fran a Terry S:�anbrom
99-305 Higl:way 74 99-305 Hiqnway 7q 49-3C5 Highway 79
#:18 �119 #�_20
Paltr. Desert CA 92260 Palm Dcsezt CA 9226C Palm Desert CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 MON 12�30 PM .1AMES & RSSOCIATES FAX N0, 7F04161588
Roa anc P4 inda ie=q
49-3C5 3'ghw�y 74 #12�
?a_� � e � :.A 922EC
F.an;c Stro�and
49-3C5 Highway 7q jj'_29
Pal�r Daserc CA 92200
Betty C�ockett
49-305 H:.�hway 79 1�127
?alm Des2rt CA 92260
Jerr_ P!� ams
49-30 _grway 74 1��3�
Palm ert CA 9226�
William & Ma:ler.e Kays
99-305 Y.ig�:wdy 74 Mi33
Qalm Desert CA 92260
George and sally Brooks
49-305 �Iighway 7A $130
2altr. Desert CA 922 �0
Marx�yn J. Godfrey
a9-3c5 �ighway 74
N:39
Pa;r.t Des=rt CA 9226C
Bill �rice
99-305 :iighway 74
�142
Palrr Jesert CA 92260
='ra::k !2eister
49-3�5 H.ighway 79 �1i6�
Palr� Desert CA 9226C
Kantaber. Eng'_neer
49-305 Highway 79 �1148
Palm De9ert CA 92260
Pau: avid Lawscr.
49-30 rl�ghway %� #122
Pa:.:",l J SX't CP. 9L26�
Jchn & Be sy Leffler
99-305 grway 74 #=25
Paim De t CA 92250
Con::ie zonka
49-305 ?iighway 74 $128
Palm Desert CA 92260
Louise Ke�:pf
49-3C5 Highway 79
#�31
Palm Deser� CA 92260
�s�h r M�nn
9 9-30 igi:way 79 #�:34
Palm e�t CA 92260
Roger DLndas
�9-305 f?i��way 79 #137
Paim Dese�t CA 9226C
Bett .7an Kellogg
49-30 3 ghway 74 #190
Pa:.m D ert CA 92260
James s Euler.o Massey
99-3�5 Highway 74
#143
Palm aesert CA 92260
Pob M:Iler
49-305 Hiqhway 74 �146
Pa_n Desert CA 92260
Johr. and Ann D�qga^
49-3�5 Hig?:way 74 #149
ralm Desert CA 9226C
P, 06
F'lorence N.. vGrk�
A?-3C5 ....rh.,a}• i, �:��
Pdl:r: O�sert C�. 92� o;
Kat'r.lee:: Dale
49-3�5 H�ghway ?9 �120
Pa_:1 Deser: C�. 922 c�
:avanka �rb�hcv:ch
49-305 i-I�grway 7q �129
Palm Desert C? 9226�
Ed D� °ar.i
49-305 I:.i�,�way %4
. �i32
Palz► Deser� CA 92260
Lc�.a M. C^ar.tez
� 9-.s05 F.ighway � : � :3�
Fal� �esert CA 92260
Managers
99-305 H�ghway 7�
#ki38
Pa�:n Cesart C� 92260
Max & Lrsula Sava.a.t
49-3C5 cIighway 79
�1�1
Pa=m Desert CA 9226C
Tr�,:dy C. F:ai'_wa�
9y-3�5 Hiqhway 74 #144
Pa�:tt Jesez': C� 92260
Jar Sa :a3:1
9 �-3 ciighway 79
#147
Pal De ert CA 92260
Bar ra , axwe_1
99-3� igrway 74 M15C
Palm e� �� CA 9220"0
NOV-22-20Q4 MOH 12�31 PM JAMES & RSSOCIATES FAx N0, 7604161588 p� �7
��2ry ^ rfey ?earl Marsh �a_ry S"a�ayda
49-3C5 igh�ay 79 ='_5? 5�-3G5 Y_g:w�y �9 �1�2 99-30� ���hwey '9 �i�z
Palm _ CA 9226C� Palm Deser� CA 52200 ?«=� �esert CA 9226�
?a�:icia Taylor
Sa-�05 H:qhw�y ;9 �i�4
Pa'_m Desert CA ?22oC
�canne P• Sa�or.e
49-305 �iiqnway 79 #157
Pa=m Desert CA 92260
Catcer_ne Morris
49-3C� fiiq^way 7S �_5�
Palm Desert CA 9226C
Don anc Jo Fair
99-305 Highway 74 �1158
Pa'_m Gesert C�, 92250
Bet � w bs=er
49-s ' kiC�way 74
�156
F�1 � s�rL �n �ZLC�
Robe t J Evans
99-30 igh�ay %4 t►_59
Palm e erc �A 92260
Jim itirwan
49-305 Highway 74 �:60
Palm Deser: CA 92260
Gler,n and Jessena Ha=en
49-305 H:ghway 79 #163
Pa'_m Desert CA 92260
Norr.. � ika ScacK
49-305 ,.ghway 74 �i56
Pa�m D rt CA 9226C
She:ry Johnsor.
49-3G5 Highway 111 �169
?al:n Desert CA 92260
Jcn.^. and �ynz Tessman
49-305 H:qhway 74 if=72
Pa'_m Desart C?, 522o'C
Dpris ?'r.e_an
99-3C5 E'.iahway 74
#i 175
Pa1m Desert CA 92260
Rosemary Leqeay
49-3C5 F:ighway 74
#161
Palm Dasert CA 92260
Terence ana Ch�:siine Ryan
49-305 H::ghway 74 #1'04
Palm �esert CA 92260
J. C. ith
49-30 Highway ?4 �}16�
Paln: A sert CA 9226C
�ecrqia & Ar:nen �ra'r.am�an
49-305 Highway 79
#170
Fa_:r, �eser� CA 9�260
Dee Jay
49-305 ?iighway 74
�#173
Pa_:n Lesert CA 92260
h:ary Jar.e S:nich
99-3C5 highway 74
#170
Palr.t Desert CA 9226�
Richa=d � �era-dir.c C�c`o�t
49-305 Hic?�way 79
#:62
Palm Desert CA 922oC
Michael and 3arflara M.cG2:^.ee
4�-3C� 3iqhway '74 #165
Palm Deser� CA 9226�
hoz'ma R. Wick_�P=
49-30� Highway 74
t►lc8
?alm �eser� CA 92260
?at Se�_
,9-.30� F:ighw�y 7A
���1
P31m Dese.:t CA 922'oC
Robe ta & Ph:.i�p Carlil�
49-3� ghway 74
#179
?21:n e ex= CA 92260
R2fa . �osado
99-30 :�i1g::way 79 �t_77
Palm e�t CA 922oC
Harvey an M rg�et Dicka;: Jean �enson Ar.re Gaokin
99-305 Hig ay 74 M17t� 49-305 Highway 7A 49-3�5 H_chway 74 k18C
?a�::i Deser CA 92260 �179 Pal:n �eser� CA 92260
PaJ.n �esert CA 92260
NOV-�2-2004 MON 12�31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 7604161588
�A�=�ia� an Jsa�ita w�'_so^
Ci^�y '_'cr�es
65-305 H::gh�ray ,9 �1�&=
Palr� �esert CA 9226�
Ge=a1 a: ' Na��y Bur;cs
49-�C5 ' i�hway i4 i�i87
?a::: D e�t �A 9226C
Ray and Lorie Cohcon
49-3C5 aighway 74 #�187
Pa�� Qe�ert CA 92260
Kaze? G. �aloney
99-�0� :i:ghway '76 #182
Pa�� Daser: CA 92260
SLeven V. Levir.e
4y-305 i�.ghw�y 7S #18�
Pa�.r� Deser: CA 9220"0
Dor.a�d Cameror.
4 9-305 ?iigtiway � 4 # 188
Pa'_:.i De3ert CA 92260
. �
�udi h :�*:a.^.
49-3C '_c�: �vay ?;
#i8,'s
pa�::7 a2�� Cn 92Lo�
Jam2 5 d_th Lang`oru
59-3� rl:gTway ?4
#180
?a_:n ..ese_ � .^.N. CG: ��;
C:^.sc. d V'_cky .�er.;c_e
99-30 3ig?�way 74 e_8�
Palm esert CA 922EC
Christine C'r.ohovi� Kenneth & !ielen c'_sh
49-3C5 Highway 79 #�90 C9-305 iiighway 79
?aim Des��L CA 92260 #191
Falm �esert CA 9226�
NOV-22-2004 MON 12�31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX N0, 7604161588 F, 10
Harvey Dickau # 178
14-1301 rohnston Street
Vancouver BC 'V6H3R9
Canada
Edith Langfard
14636 Carnell
V�hittier, CA 90643
#186
Judith Goldman
c/o Kathy Edwards
130 Ashdale Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Charles T'renkle
695 Vista Lago
Palm Desert, CA 92211
#183
GeraId Burks
2859 Teal St.
La Vern, CA 91750
�i84
#189 Sherman and T.ady Smith �8?
P. O. Box 19�5
Palm Desert, CA 92261
NOV-22-2004 MON 12�31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX K0, 7604101588 P� �°
John Mitchell n 10 Jack Small # 12 Deana Blissmer r 1�
196 ? 4 Oakland Avenue p, p. Box 156Q P. O. Box 10� 16
Ytialto, CA 92377 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Dcsert, CA 9225�
Janet Franlc
P. O. Box 1031
Palm Desert, CA 42?61
#19 Jean'W�atson
p. a. Box 3932
Palm Desert, CA 92261
�thelyn Opel #44 R.ichard Brown, Sr.
1950 Silverleaf Circic #304 4350 Richazd Crest Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92209 Taylorsville, IJT 84119
J�ean Jacque and Pam Sarfati #52 Sharan Carey
42b Marigold Ave, 3099 Rancho del Canon
Corona del Mar; CA 92625 Carlsbad, CA 92549
3ackie Doyle
cJo Abel Krieget
73-350 E1 Paseo #20I
palm Desert CA 92260
Ron & Melinda Lerg
527 Cienega Road
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
#73
#121
#�9 Bea Davis �39
121 San Femanda Ave.
Silverstrand Beach, CA 9303 �
#46 Alfred Fitzgerald �50
P. O. Box SOb54
Pasadena, CA 9I 115-4657
#59 Warren Monroe #68
P. O. Box 3322
IdylIwild, CA 92549
Bart Ralla #83
P. 0. Box 1962
Palm Desert, CA 92261
Paul Lawson # 122
P. O. Box 727
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Esther Mann
901 Henman Ave, Apt 4r}
Evanston, IL 60202
Jeri Mirams # I 30
7 Rue Morsille
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jane Santman
1929 Sylvan SE
Grand Rapids, NII 49506
Betry Webster
1957 Temple Ave #204
Signal HiII, CA 90755
# � 47 Tom Rebentisch
Barbar� Maxweil
49-080 Burtonwood Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
# 156 I2obert Evans
72956 Tamazisk St.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Chazles Burton # 110
73-427 Cabazon Peak Circle
Palm Desert, CA 92260
John & Betsy Leffler
64690 E. Drifter Drive
Tucson, AZ 87739
# 134 Betty Jane Kellogg
P. O. Box 1195
I'alm Desert, CA 922b 1
#1?�
�t 140
# 1 SO Cheryl Caffey � 1 � 1
P. �. Box 187
Cedar Grlen, CA 923? 1
# 159 Norm Stack # 166
3'72�0 S E Liewood Apt 15
Boring, OR 97009
J. C. Smith # 167 Phil and Bobhi Carlile # 174 Rafael Rosado # 177
74-47$ T�wy 111 PMB 266 514 N. Hanover St. 27 'W. 370 Geneva Rd #87
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Anaheim, CA 92801 W. Chicago, TL 60185
CIIYO�PRL�IOfSfR�
I73-gto FRED WARING DRIVE
PALAt DESER7, CALIFOR\1A 9z�Go-ag78
TEL: ]GU 34G—o6c c
I Fnx:�6c ;ai--cq8
� �nFoWpalm-caurt org
CI7Y OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PM 31862
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub�ic hearing will be held before the Paim Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability
Company, for approvai 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 652-120-0071.
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 shal! 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
VIf. 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 pa�cel 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 Decembe� 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 refated to the Permit
Streamlining Act, the project needed to be acted upon earlier than
January 18, 2005. Consequentty, 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 rnade 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 Quafity Board might be offering testimony
tonight.
Relative to Community Development Conditian 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 ihe 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 ihanked 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 th� Board's
primary jurisdiction is water quality control for the region. lt 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 ihe 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.
0
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 devefoper 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 tF►is particular system
was installed in the 1970's.
Mr. Angel confirmed it was the 1970's.
Commissioner Finerty asked how Iong 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 Iot 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.
C�
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 deafing 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 ihat 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 wark with
the residents out there to procure funds fike 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 rnunicipality'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. The�e is funding available and grants.
Commissioner Finerty asked about grants being available.
�
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. Propflsition 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 quesiion.
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
noncompiiance 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 1 1, 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;
�
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 {oose. 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 ihey 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 Generaf 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
ta 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 ta�k
about the total nitrogen. She asked if those were high as well.
Mr. Angel said they were relativeiy low. He expfained that the
standard for nitrates in drinking water is 10; 10 milligrams per liter
or 45 for total nitrogen.
So the way they keep these contaminants out, Commissioner Finerty said
they continue to pump.
Mr. Angel said that was correct. Also, within the septic tank there
are some microorganisms that digest or convert some of these
constituents into less threatening constituents.
If they go a few pages back under Maintenance and Inspection regarding
space numbers 30 to 50, and on the inspection date of November 17,
Commissioner Finerty asked for information about the category that said
Thickness Inlet Scum Layer/(Inches} and they just had "pumped" and
then there was a Thickness Outlet Scum Layer/�Inches) and a date. She
asked if that meant that between October 6 and November 17, 2004
there was enough stuff in there that they needed to pump it out.
M►. Angef 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. Angei 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 10127, 1 112, 1 1/19, 1 1/26 and asked why
tf�at was.
Mr. Angel said that was a good observation. Some septic tanks
have more units connected to them, so there was a more rapid
build up of solids.
Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that meant they weren't
equally divided.
Mr. Angel concurred. He said they have a total of 44 pits out
there. On the average they were probably looking at a little less
than five units per pit. If there was any consolation in their
deliberations, he said they weren't alone facing this issue. It is
throughout California and certainly in the region it is a problem. So
their Board would take a broader look at the current regulations
and its current policies regarding septic systems. And they weren't
going to get more relaxed.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant claims that the Regional
Water Quality Control Board couldn'i 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. Angei. 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 fina! 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 o en, 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 fu{I 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, a1t written materiaf 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 tafk 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 besn in full compliance with all aspecis 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 5300,000 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 probJem
offsite? And the answer, again, was no, not from this specific
septic system. There are septic systems from the RV parks in
other a�eas 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 COMMlSSION
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 af it
does not apply to their particu�ar 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 S4
�•�
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
million to create a private sewer system. That is S21,000
approximately per lot that upon the purchase residents obviously
would be paying for that. They have to pay a monthly fee af
59.00 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 fihey were estimating would add about S90 to
iheir 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 58.45 a month. That is what they
would pay, plus the reserve in order to build up for all of the items
of approximate{y 59.00. 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 heafth 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 {isted
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 heafth 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 lisiening 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 p�oblem from
this sewer system.
As they heard from Mr. Angel, they do not have tf�e 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 ail 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
P�
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'i have their attorney with them this
evening. They were going to be speaking.
Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Loftin alluded to the cost being 54
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 {ike 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 54 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 lineai 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 verba! 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 S90 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 wo�ked 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, k�ow a CPA vvould then determine tt�at it wouSd be about
S90 to put aside for the maintenance for the lines.
Ms. Loftin said that the S90, again, there are three parts to, and
she would get to her question, there are three parts to a
homeowner's association budget that reiate to any specifiic item.
There's the monthly fee, which in this case is around 59.00. There
is the annual divided by monthly operating cost to do the generat
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 graund 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 tiinear 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.
�
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, al) 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 conside�ation, 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 58.45 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 510,300;
the annual repair maintenance when there's a problem with the
feach 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
S90 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 ihat 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 undesstand how for a sewer
system they were talking about S90 per month, where to maintain and
put reserves aside for the septic it was only S 17.45 per month. She
wasn't getting that connection. So if she had the 510,300 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 S 17 per month versus the 590. 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
59,070 for an annual cost, and that was an average over seven
years. This did not include the S300,000 in upgrades that were
just completed.
Commissioner Fine�ty said that would have been from reserves.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct. So they have an S8.45 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 5300,000
over time and that was where they got the dollar amount.
Commissioner Finerty asked if that was the 59.00.
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 probfems 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 ihe public sewer,
and so forth. He asked if inechanically this was a cost that the applicant
would bear prior to any sale of any unit.
Ms. Loftin said that mechanically how it wouid 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 COMMISStON
DECEMBER 29, 2004
would have to have a laterai 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 cfear 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 ki�d 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 cast through to the
buyer, Mr. Hargreaves said his understanding was that there was an
appraisaf done which sets the value of the iots and that's what the
individual buyers are charged. He asked if that was correct. He also
asked if that p�ocess had within it the ability to pass through the cost
apart from the appraised value.
Ms. Loftin answered yes.
�
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
MR. RICHARD CLOSE, Attorney for the Applicant, 1299 Ocean
Boulevard in Santa Monica, Ca4ifornia, 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 samething 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 adequate{y 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 ihat 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
�eason he marked that he was for it was because he wanted to go
on record that he completely supporis 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 smalf 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 peopie 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 S25,000 and said it would be
added to the cost of what they were going to pay. That wasn't
reiterated tonight. And part of that quote was $4,000 to pay
Coachella Valley to hook up.
He said he did a little checking on his own, he worked for a water
company, and the person at Coachella Valley Water said they
range generally 56,000 to S 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
521,000. 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 Pfanning
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 disptaced 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 Cornmissioners, 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 fand that they would be required to
buy, and they didn't even know how much this land will cost until
the conversion is nearly compfeted. And they were worried about
an aging infrastructure, particufarly 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
ieft 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 seniQrs 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. Befl 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 stiil 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. 8ell said yes.
Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that Ms. Bell's sense is that people
understand that and nevertheless were in favor of the sewer installaiion.
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 far 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 wonde�ed how long it will
be in the future betore 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 decisian 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 essential(y 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 contamina�ts 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 ihe 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 raitroaded. 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
��
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
septic system. They are a!I 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
ihat 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 confi�mation 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
ihan 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, ZOo4 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.
:
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Ms. Schmidt said perhaps.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if she wanted to continue ta{king 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, samp►e CC&R's, and
encumbrances as stated in the fetter were nothing the Commission had
anything to do with.
Ms. Schmidt asked who does.
Chairperson Jonathan didn't know. He reiterated that the Planning
Commission was there to address the approval of the parcel map and the
conditions that the City's staff has recommended.
Ms. Schmidt asked if they were approving the one-lot parcel.
Chairperson Jonathan said yes.
Ms. Schmidt asked what happened to it if the Commission
approved it, where it went.
Chairperson Jonathan assumed the process would continue in terms of
converting these units to saleable lots.
Ms. Schmidt asked if it was through with the City and if it then
went to the DRE.
Chairperson Jonathan thought the applicant's attorney addressed that to
some extent and suggested that perhaps she might want to contact Ms.
Loftin after the meeting to find out, or staff, he wasn't sure. It was not
the Planning Commission's area.
Ms. Schmidt assumed what they were doing, and should correct
her if she was wrong, was they were deciding whether a piece in
paper in front of them is properly marked for boundaries. She
asked if that was the extent of it.
39
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan stated that they were approving the parcel map
which establishes a one-lot subdivision. It was all part of the staff report
package and invited her to acquire one if she hadn't already.
Ms. Schmidt said she had it.
Chairperson Jonathan further explained that there are conditions of
approval that staff has recommended and that was what the Planning
Commission was addressing tonight. Just thai.
Ms. Schmidt said she was also a litile 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 ihey 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 kirid of psacedure and she did not understand
what they were doing.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if she had anything else.
Ms. Schmidt said she would like to understand, and would like the
people to understand, what was going on. She came here tonight
thinking, after reading everything she cou{d find to read, that the
Commission was imposing conditions vn 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.
.�
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETlNG
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 ieeway 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 noi 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. 1 10. 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 cfean up. Will the current owners pay or the
will the new owners of the lots pay? He thanked them and said
that was all he had to say.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak.
MS. MARGO IVERSON, 49-305 State Highway 74, Space No. 79,
addressed the Commission. She was not on the side of
41
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
management and was just on her own side. First of all, Mr. Angel
talked about the land up there. He talked about density. They had
to remember, as someone else mentioned, the majority of people
are over 65. Probably 75% of them are. Just guessing, maybe
50% is one person in one unit. In the most there are two in the
other units. They don't have residents a portion of the year
because they have snowbirds who only come for the season. In
her looking at it, the septic tanks weren't a problem. At all. They
aren't used like a usual home situation. They have five units on 47
septic areas. Sometimes there may be only two people using
them. Mary mentioned that they are older people. They don't do
ten tons of wash a week because they have kids; they don't have
all that. But she did agree with Mary Schmidt that said if they
could do it now and the management that's there, the owner that
is there could pay for it, that's a good deal.
But someone mentioned adding S20,000, 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 S 100,000 and adding
another 520,000 onto it. The mortgage company may say that's
really nice, but we're only going to give you the money for that
5100,000 and not the 520,000. Let's say they do, do they want
to pay 8% or 9% interest on that 520,000 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 520,000 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. Recentfy he
had the pleasure of having his yard, driveway and front torn up
while they replaced his particular septic system. He said the
management of the park did an excellent job and they were very
very cooperative. But while they were doing this, he got to
examine what they were tearing up and he believed it would be
unfair to the citizens of Palm Desert, also to Indian Springs Mobile
Home Park, if an impact study was not done before any decision
was made on the sewer system. Because as Mr. Angel said, these
systems do fail and they could have a great deaf 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 al4 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 wonderfu! 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
C�c3
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 tast forever. She
said the Commission really had to pay attention to what's going
on here and asked them to please do that. She ihanked 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 174 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 tor 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.
..
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISStON
DECEMBER 29, 2004
However, for 28 years he has lived in this city, he has worked
here at the Oid 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 ihe concrete and found out where their septic tank
was. And it wasn't tao 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
ihese 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 tonighfi 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 lndian 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 ihe Planning Commission that
wished to do so at this time.
45
MtNUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
QECEMBER 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 Pa(m
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
.�
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
pipes and relocating them. So a failu�e of a septic system is not a
difficult problem to sofve. It wasn't an expensive problem and that
is why the testirnony earlier about the 58.60 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 wefl 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 calied and the Water District told him
it would be 5fi,000 to 510,000 to hook up to a private system in
the street. And that's true. What the person answering the
question didn't understand is there is no hook up in the street.
That has to be built. That is why there is such a significant
difference in cost in this project then in a more typical project.
The last kind of item was some of the things that had been
commented on are part of the day to day maintenance such as
every day the manager does check every septic connection. That's
part of his job, that's part of his duties, and that's part of
management.
47
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
She wanted to answer one question for the audience that came up
last night and she answered it, but she wanted to answer it again.
Who pays for the repairs after this is a condominium project?
Whether it is septic or it is sewer, the homeowner's association
will pay for the repair without regard to whose lot the problem
occurs on. That is the monies they were discussing earlier that go
and are calculated into the homeowners association dues.
In closing, they wanted to reiterate their request that they approve
the project and delete Condition No. 5. They thanked the
Commission and everyone who came out tonight to give input on
this matter.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked them, closed the public hearing and asked
for Commission comments. He did have a question for Counsel and said
it touched on some possible legal ramifications and asked if they should
very briefly convene into closed session or discuss that here. Mr.
Hargreaves said he would need to hear the question and requested him
to ask the question. If he felt it should be more appropriately handled in
closed session, they could adjourn to closed session.
Chairperson Jonathan hoped this was appropriate and then Mr.
Hargreaves could guide them from there. In his opinion the applicant has
made it clear that should the Planning Commission not make a decision
that the applicant is happy with, it was very likely that some level of
litigation or legal action may follow. He asked if Mr. Hargreaves had
considered that and if he felt they would be acting within their legal
authority, regardless of what their decision was tonight. Mr. Hargreaves
said yes. First of all, the applicant made it clear one way or an�ther 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.
.;
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETiNG
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was a heaith and safety issue, or an
existing hea(th 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 inember 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 wsre 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 wouidn'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
.•
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
he intended to express eariier, 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 actua(ly 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 COMMtSSION
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 f�ealth 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 especially a septic tank
of this age with this density.
Commissioner Campbell noted that they also heard testimony during the
previous meeting of December 7 and some of the owners complaining
about their septic tanks overflowing and their toilets overflowing every
few days because there was only one large septic tank for so many units.
Now alsa 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 contami�ated 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 understoad 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 M�. 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 ihere isn't
an existing condition that threatens the health and safety of the
residents; in fact, Mr. Angel fett 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 actuai 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 fram 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 conce�ned 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 viofation 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 ga through before ihey
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 forwa�d, 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 app(ication that comes before
them, they rely on staff's report, as well as testimony before the
Commission, whether it be for or against the application itself. He
thought what he heard this evening from the testimony given to them is
that there are situations where there are malfunctions within the septic
system that currently exist today. Those malfunctions have been
addressed by the management of the park, but nevertheless there are
malfunctions that occur. When those occur, however long it takes them
to discover those occurrences, during that time there is something going
on that is going down into the earth and whether it is a day, or two days,
55
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECENIBER 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 sewe� and she thaught 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 Commissianer 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 t�ave that situatian.
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 apprapriate 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:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
�
EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS - PLANNING & ZONING COMI�1ISSlON
December 29, 2044
GOOD EVENTNG - MY NAME IS MARI SCl-IINIDT AND I OWN TfiE COACH OT�' SPACE �#86 IN
IND[AN SPRINGS 1T IS MY PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
I HAVE A STATEMENT WHICH I WISH T'O READ INTO T� PERMANENT RECORD
OF TrQS PUBLIC �ARING ON TE-iE MATI'ER OF TE� CONVERSiON Ofi INDIAN SPRINGS
MOBILE HOME PARk FROM RENTAL SPACE TO MOBILE HOME CONDOMINIUMS.
FIRS7"L,Y, LET ME SAY THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING AND
ZON[NG COMM[SSION CONVENED THIS EVENING FOR TI-� PURPOS�S OF Tt-IIS PUBE.IC
I-IEARING [S AlY ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE C[TY COUNCIL AI�ID THAT YOU
PURVIEW IS TO STUDY T� PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION AND MAKE
RECOMMENDAT[ONS TO THE CtTY COUNCIL AND [T IS TI-� C[TY C4UNCIL'S DECIS[ON
A� l�K llt�� CONSiJEKp+ ��G� �����! ri�K AC,CEPT OR REJECT Tf-iE APPLICA770N
SUBMITTED BY TNE APPLICANT. WE ALSO ICNOW YOU WANT TO PASS THiS ON ASAP TO
Ti-!E COUNCIL. ALEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS VERY CLEAR TO US IN Tf-IE PARK AND.
HERE TONIGHT.
SECONDLY. [ WISH TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSITION ON T[-� SEWER/SEPT[C
ISSUE PERTAINTNG TO TI-� PARK CONVERSION. LET h1E SHARE WITH YOU THAT THE
RES[DENCY AT INDIAN SPRINGS IS FULLY IN FAVOR OF YOUR REQU[REMENT THAT THE
PARK OW'NERSHIP BE REQUIRED TO CONVERT THE ENTIRE PARK TO T}-IE CITY�S SEWER
SYSTEMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO SELL ANY LOTS. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT
Ti-� CITY WILL HOLD F[RM TO THAT POS[TION AND. WE FULLY SUPPORT YOU [N THAT
DECISION. IT IS EXTR£MELY 1MPORTAN7 TO PLACE 1NT0 THE RECORD OF TMS
CONVERSION APPLI�ATION PROCESS THAT THE SEP?IC SYSTEMS OPERATING IN
1NDIAN SPRlNGS MOBILE HOME PARK IS OYER 30 YEARS OLD, FAILiNG, REQUIRE
CONSTANT MAINTENANCE AND POSES A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD TO THE
RESIDENTS. IT ]S SIMPLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE WE WILL BE REQUIRED `f0
CONNECT TO THF SFVI'FRS SR�1CF TF-iE PARK OWNERSH(P HAS OPT�D TO CONVF.RT THE
PARI: AND SELI.OFF THE LO'TS. IT SHOULD BE TI-iEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPENSE TO
UPHOLD THE LAW AND CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. IT WOULD BE
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING TO LEARN FROM PARk RECORDS T}iE INCREASING
FREQUENCY THAT TI-�SE SYSTEMS MUST BE PUMPED AND PAMPERED. I CAN
PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT IT 1S OFTEN AND ONGOCNG.
THIRDLY_ I FEEL IT 1S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SPEAI� BRIEFLY TO SEVERAL
OTHER [SSUES IMPERATNE TO THE CONVERS[ON APPLICATION.
i) RECARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT - iN THE EARLY PART OF APRIL (200d) WE
VI�'ERE MFORI�4�D BY TI-IE OWNERS� REPRESENT'ATIVES THAT A LETTER OF INTENT TO
CONVERT THE PAR� H.4D BEE;�I F1LED WITH Tf-IE CITY OF PALM DESERT. THIS CAUGHT
MOST EVERYONE BY SURPRISE AND CREATED GREAT UNREST IN THE COMMUN[7Y.
THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIAT[ON BOARD APPO[NTED � RESIDENTS TO FORM A
'"CON`VERSiOiV CONiivlliTEE". t%vC �'EL7' IT t�i%AS IMPORZ"ANT TO WO� WITH THE
OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES TO AVO[D ANY PITFALLS THAT WE MIGHT ENCOUNTER
AND KEEP A DIRECT LINE �F COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER DURING THE
PROCESS. WE WAITED MOST OF T� SUMMER, COMM[Ii�ICATIONS DWINDLED AND
Recetvsd at Ptat�Nnp Commise�on nbettrr,
Dete� '�}�� � � � c y C.ase N0� �fn 3 I�S� �l
Fiaii �� ��'� r 1 S�-i �►111 �'� r
TE�N. WI7�-tOUT MUCH NOTICE TO THE ASSOCIATION. THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIYES CALLED FOR SEVERAL RESIDENT MEE7TNGS. TI� INTENT AND
T[htING OF W!-IICH IS SOMEWHAT SUSPECT.
LONG STORY SHORT, THE RES[DENTS ARE TOTALLY CONFUSED BY THE
PROCESS. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE ' PRELIMINARY SURVEY PLAT" WAS IN T�iE PAR�
MANAGERS OFF[CE FOR [NSPECT[ON BY THE RESIDENTS TO ASCERTAIN [F THE PLAT
VVAS CORRECTLY DRAWN IN REGARD TO INDMDUAL LOT LINES. T}-�E PACt�ET OF
DOCUMENTS AND TE� MAP SAT IN Tf-IE OFF[CE FROM SEPTEMBER 8TH UNTIL M[D
OC?OBER WITHOUT ANY NO'TICE'TO 7'f-IE RESIDENTS FROM THE PARK OWNERSHIP
THAT IT WAS TE-iERE FOR RES[DENT �ISPECTION. I WILL ADD THAT BOTH PAT BELL
AND i RECENED SIM[LAR PACKETS IN SEPTEMBER BUT WITHOUT THE MAP. NOT UNTIL
O�.IR NQ�'EMI3F.R (:E1`FR.�►L HOA MEETlfYG CiD ��'� :,�.�.nv}� T[u;�r �I�fD DWCIf1G'NTC
TRULY HAD NO IDEA THA'T THEY HAD A1V UPPORTUNITY TO V1EW THESE
DOCUMENTS AS THE PARK OWNERSHIP HAD NOT INFORMED THEM THAT THESE
DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR VIEWIIYG. IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT
1NCUMBEN? ON THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA'TION TO ANNOUNCE THE PURPOSE OF
TI-�SE DOCUMENTS. DUE TO THE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED FROM
RESIDENTS, Tt-IE HOA COMPOSED AND CIRCULATED A FORM THAT ALLOWED 7'�iE
RES[DENTS TO COMMENT ON WHETE-�R OR NOT TE�IR LOTS LOOKED PROPERLY
DRAWN . WE RECEIVED 64 RESPONSES TO 7'HAT FORM, A COPY OF WI-DCH IS ATTACHED
AND RECAPPED. YOU WiLL SEE T'HAT 64 RESIDENCES IN THE PARI� FILLED OUT THE
HOA FORM AND RETURNED IT TO PAT BELL. I HAVE ATTACHED A COLOR CODED MAP
SHOWTNG WHERE TE�SE fNQUIRIES OCCUR. THE RESULTS ARE:
9 RESPONDED THAT "COMMON AREA APPEARS TO BE [NCLUDED IN
MY LOT BOtRVD.4RIES".
4 RESPONDED THAT "ADJACENT PROPERTY BUILDRVGS APPEAR TO BE
I�' MY LCT f3C;L"`GAP.I£S".
�39 RESPONDED THAT �'TE�Y COULD F[ND NO VISIBLE WAY TO
DETERI�4INE THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES".
24 RESPONDED THAT "THEY ARE PHl'SICALLY UNABLE TO DETERMINE
W'I� I'HER THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES ARE CORRECT'.
8 RESPONDED TO "OTf-[ER�' AS FOLLOWS�
- "M1NE APPEAR OBVIOUS."
- "LOT BOUNDARIES APPEAR CORRECT."
- "APPEAR OKAY.-.
- "IT LOOKS OK TO US."
-"WE LOOKED AT T}-IE MARi;,S AT T7-� FRONT OF �UR HOUSE ON THE
- CURB AND WE CAN SEE THE PROPERTY L[NE FOR THE WIDTH BUT
- WE CAN'T SEE THE DEPTH OF OUR PRQP�RTY."
-"WE DON'T FEEL WE'RE QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE EXACT
BOUNDARY L[NES."
- "NO LOT L[NE STAKES!"
2
TI-IESE (NQUIRIES REPRESENT 34% OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. LET ME SAY
THAT THESE ARE NOT "OBJECTIONS" TO T� BOUNDARIES BUT RAT�-�R LEG[T[MATE
CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS TRY"IIJG TO DETERMINE VVI-iETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO
BUY T�IR LOTS AND JUST WHAT [T IS T'HEY WILL BE BUYING.
Z) THERE IS CONSIDERABI.E CQNCERN REGARDING THE "SAMPLE CCBR'S" - I
WANT TF� RECORD TO REFLECT MY CONCERNS REGARDING T�-� LANGUAGE AND
COND]770NS PRESENTED IN THIS `'SAMPLE DOCUMENT''. I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED WI7�-i DOZENS OF CCd:R'S OVER TE-� YEARS AND I AM AMAZED AT TI-�
INCLUSION OF A REQUIREMENT PERT'AINING TO A 5 YEAR CONTRACT FOR THE JAMES
AND COMPANS' TO MAIYAGE THE PROPERTY COMMENCING UPON THE SALE OF THE
FIRST LOT. THERE IS O?HER UNACCEPTABLE `'GRAY MA7TER" IN T'NIS DOCL�+IENT'
THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED rt1vD C'JRRF(�'FD R�F72�' ��r ;F' ,^.�;.°,�'Q'� ,"�;�L ,WC��.^ET�.
3) REGARDING THE EXISTING ENCUMBRANCE OF 55.7 MILLION RECORDED
AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE (NO1��U'�ILITY) EASENIEN'TS WI-IICH�HAVE BEEN
RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY SINCE� 1971 - ARE�TI-�SE ISSUES THAT ARE ADDRESSED
AND RESOLVED DURING THE CITY'S REVIEW OF TE�S APPLICATION?
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE CONCERNED REGARDING HOW TEIIS APPLICATTON
PROCEEDS. TI-� FURTf-�ST TE-QNG IN OUR MINDS. C-�ARTS AND ACT'[ONS IS TO SLOW
DOWN T}� PROCESS. BELIEVE ME. WE WANT IT DONE AND DONE AS QUIC�LY AS
POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, NOT AT THE EXPENSE AND DISRUPT[ON OF T� EXISTING
RESIDENCY OF THE PARI:. W'E APPEAL TO YOU ALL HERE AT TI-� CITY TO ACT ON OUR
BEHAL.F_ AS ��VELL AS_ THE APPLICANT'S. T'�IlS WHOLE EXPERIENCE HAS AN INCREDIBLE
PRICE T.4G ATTACHED TO IT. WE WANT TO BE DEALT WITH FAIRLY - NOTf-ffNG MORE,
NOTi-QNG LESS �ND WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU ALL TO ACT IN EVERYONE�S BEST
TNTEREST. TH.ANK YOU.
RESPECT�FULLY SUBMITTED,
MARI SCHMIDT
49-3U� HWY 74 #86
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARiC
.
�
lTlUltil� ��!'lilg� irlVtlttC�ivuic r sa� n•
Management Of�'ice •
49-30S Hi�;hway 74 � •
Palm Desert, CA 92260 .. .... , .
N . �i�19 1'7' d5� 11 a'! 37 i3 9� 3 i 24 2') ,
`\�������IJ/I/� t�nu�r rrw.•c� a:ri�t �►qR� � ,' ,
� Ifrr /� sl ' �
�"'� ,�I'/�/� `�3 ' a8 �16 26 ?.{ � � '` �
� � � � . .�.t � 10 2i � l
�% ��C? ) t�-? ta /
j �r�+ 57 S �= r JO 19
M.�' j'J °j:
ii� ,_.�._. �, s9 s: �+'� �'�.�. 32 �6 a� r' ,
�// `-� `� ; �1 � S� . � `Lc ta is ^d.,!
� � J
'/' ;�� � ,(y'� �'� j� �� � u 4� � ����
�� +y�
,+���1�� ' , •
� ' aSr �!` (,� � 2 z i l
, „ , `� i
� '�� `�,�~ 62 l8J � 181 �� . �, /� �
69 �t'�' �l �r isQ g v 9 %�' /
�" 185 "' 7 % �.
� .O�Y � ` 6 : t
,n �� 18� Q 179 , �,� s f �
3 f
7S ,�,'� 191 18� 187 ��77� i9� 2 a ;� rl
� K.'XD,�.vCL' Dki��. ' � � � �
;�j� s 'Ii1' .
7S
�_ �; 1� 1�9 ���euW��£ '� fT3 i7� h.�' jJ
• • �1 yb '' �G° ` M7 v� r
�., '�{ ��' 136 a` t�7 �� a !6a ,
� Af `��.� �� 192 : .1]6 � � i'f-0 168 v �% .
� _ 16�1 ,
�^�� y��Q 90 � � � �� h~ �� l�i t7S �� ? �6t , .
,t� 92 � .r t�t�` :� 154
, � " �o�. t�s , � t� - ;
...... w �Ot � y � � .�':. � 12'a `� �z lit. ibt " ,
4 ; j � . � IS7
, _... ,r ' ..� i SS
�-•...o ; lOb��� �� �� 1� �10 it«,11� ll6 ii8 t2i !?Z 1�1i ta8 tS0 1�S2IS�1 I36 !S8 16� � ,
�►;,:
�`� IQS !0_ 1� W.�� Lt�Y� SDI�� 9D['tB L�DI.I.\ YfA7�i.5 DRI� C„Oi. 1� �,
,y��
--a *�10�i;" �03 itt U3.Ifs tU 119 't2! 123 f2s 12��l29 I�l 133 33tK IJ7 !J9 i�11 11J IaS !�? ��� 1S1 .�
1f �
� �
" •� � ,
.....,�.�
�
_�
�
� `p 12�����
.
�
INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEQWNERS ASSOCIATION
GENERAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2U04
UWe have loo�ed ai the map posted in the Club house per the instructions
of the park owQers representatives.
Uwe am Unable to detenmine if the lot lines are comect as drawa on that
preliminary survey map.
Ther�fore I request a re-survey map justificateon of my resident lot
boundaries for the following reasons:
`� ►� � Common area to be included in my lot boundaries.
aPP��
�
�
l
A �
� �
� Adjacent property buildings appear to be in my lot boundaries.
� There is no-visable way for me to determine my lot boundary
line.
5 '�
� � -
� i aru pnysicaily unabie to determ:ne c�nei��er my l�t bc►i�daries
G � �o�t_
. (o�- �i 5
� �
� O Other �_�--. D �� �0 11-��
� � 5��� ����p ���5 t �o N S � ��5
5 Name: Space ## �� �� � �� l ��
� ��E. �---��-r.
Phone: Date: �2�� �°`�
"Ihis form has been provided by the Homeowners Association for the
conv�nien�e of tSe resp:,����g r�siden*s.
Put a check wbere appVra4le and retum to Pat Bell, President, # t 7 I,
773-377I, !�.S SOON AS POSSIBLE.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Mr. Drel! had no items t� report for the November 18, 2004 City Councif
meeting.
VI. ORAL C�MMUNICATIONS
PATRICIA BELL, President of the Indian Springs Homeowners
� Association, addressed the commission. She said she was to speak to
the Pianning 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.
V11. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMW 04-22 - BRAVA DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND
GERHARD BEFELD, Applicants
Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust Parcel
"A" 30 feet to the north to facilitate the land plan for the
Brava Development, TT 32420.
B. Case No. PMW 04-23 - BERNARD DEBONNE, Applicant
Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two
lots on Village Court to facilitate building construction.
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNlNG 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 af 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 condit+on
relative to the prohibition of amplified sound and be!!s. Chairperson
Jonathan and Commissioners Lopez and Tschopp concurred.
� F. Case No. PM 31862 - INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., Applicant
Request for approval of a parce! map to establish a one-loi
subdivision witn a condominium overlay at the 1 91-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 wQuld 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 1 970.
He explained tna� tlie applicant seeks to change the ownership structura
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 alrer the
existing 191-unit density or impaci 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, prescribeci 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 app(icable 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 naa 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 likeliiioou wo�ld be the se�ond meeting in January,
January 18, 2005. He explained that the procedure was to ask the
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISS.ION _, _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 adciressing the
P�anning 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 ir tney wisf�ed tu addre�s
the Commission.
MS. SUE LOFTIN, an Attorney representing the applicant, 433 C
La Jolfa 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 earfier tiiis evenir�g, vvi�ici� vvas r�evv
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 wantPd 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, Pres;�a�� or 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.
Condrtion No. 3 from the Department of Community Devefopment,
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. ror exaii�ple,
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.
1Nith 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 1Vir, Owens with �� �-
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 Governrr�ent 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 p�ovidz that �t co�ld be
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004
completed in one year with an unsecured agreement and that was
in 66528,i Subsection E.
Lastiy, with regard to the indemnity, they accepted that it was a
common practice that a subdivider indemnify the City; however,
this was a litt(e broad, so they were requesting that tf�ey include
at the end of the first sentence, "except as to any claim, action or
proceeding brought by the appiicant, or any of the residents, to set
aside, void, or annul any of the conditions of approval." Obviously,
if there was litigation, ihey didn't befieve 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 shalf not determine whether the fiiing of a parcel or
tentative and rinal map shall be required." Therefore, as to tfie
approval of this one-lot subdivision, they couldn't have a condition
that requires a final map, and '+n 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.
Nis. Loftin said they were very pleased to �e befcre 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
peopie 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 t�vo
interests. Over time it would become 100% owner-occupied
without any rental of the land and an owner of a mob+le home that
has resulted in other cities in other areas in projects which are
maintained we�l 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 tlia�
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 �ommission.
Ms. Loftin informed Commission that Mr. Owens is an engineer,
as well as a contractor. With that they shortened the presentation
ir� light of if�e fact t�ey w•ould 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 ihat 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 fot, 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 ihe 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. i hey understood tnat the resiaents
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 ihe precautions, the
costs of this maintenance was app�oximately 58 per month per
space. That was the same amount that would be paid on a
monthly basis to the City or agency that wou�d administer a sewer
line. So if S4 million was spent, the cost would not go down. In
��,
�
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLA.NNING 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
S4 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 Iocal 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, wnicn estanlisned tne
rights of the park and ihe responsibilities of the city. He said there
was an ongoing S6 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. The�e were approximately 120 people who were to
come this evening to publicly hear what the applicant nad 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 ineetings 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 hesitatea t� Cve��
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 matfer 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 pub(ic 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 ihe park ana part of ner point tonignt
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 P�ANNING COMMISSION ___.,_ DECEMBER 7, 2004
Referring to the Request to Speak Cards, Chairperson Jonathan next
asked Pat Befl 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 fisten 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 ior ihem.
She believed that the City Ordinance 743, which was based vn the
state plumbing code, both of those were applicable in this case
and that was the stand she woufd 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 1 8th.
She believed that was just about all she had to say tonight and
thanked ihem.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the
Planning Commission regarding this matter.
..
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ _ DECEMBER 7, 2004
MR. CHARLES BURTON said he bought a place in Indian Springs,
Space No. 1 10, in September. He did not know these issues were
coming up. He knew there was a possibility of canversion. 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 �onatnan informed the a,udience
that they should be available at that time. ln 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 n�t, 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.
:��
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Department of Community DevelopmenUPlanning
Attention: Steve Smith
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
��� � _jL � �,T� �
_ �_ " . 2�Q4
��f�ii.�':: i�t'�'ci.i,r'11c'�"�
. �r'.iRi1r:\T
-���� .��.�1��!`�c;F�T
SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
DATE: December 6, 2004
The following shouid 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) Fuil 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 instaltation of the above referenced improvements shall be
dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
'
. � �/1 l � ►i7.�/
- �::. '
G'PuC'Norks'_ConOibo�s cl ApprovallPMAPS'�TP�d J1962 re�nsea np�
�W OFFICES
GILCHRTST 8, RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPOR.ATIO\
WILSH�RE PALISA�ES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENIJE, SV�TE 900
SANTA MONiCA. CALIFOfiN1A 9040 7-7 000
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 Man No. 31862
Dear �Ir. Erwin:
TEIEPHONE (3t0) 393-4000
FACSIMII.E (3t0) 39a-a700
E-MAIL: •clos�pgrlawy�rs.com
�,��`C��;IVED
��
� _ ; � 7 �u
-�n;t)fC`I'fT JEti'£�CP>1£�T DEPART�lE�T
C:T�' OF P� L�1 DESERT
On November 29, 2004, Sue Loftin and I met with Philip Drell and Stephen R. Smith of
the Ciry of Palm Desert (ihe "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
LqNV pFF10ES
GILCHRIST � RL'TTER
PROFESSIOVAL CORPOR,�TI0�7
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 conshuct 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 mirigate 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 secrion 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 substanrial evidence that such�septic system will cause water quality
damage.l In In re Matter of Nipomo Communitv Services District. State Water Resources Board
4rder No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17b09 (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 Boazd 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 Boazd 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 8.6Q
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 a�ainst 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"takin�" under the state and federal
constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full
compliance with all appticable regulations.
Water Code §§ 13280-13284.
l._!AW OFFiCES
GILCHRIST 8s RL;T'rER
PROF'ESS[O�AL COFtPORATiOP
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' pazcel
map approval a requirement that the Pazk 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 SnrinQs, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Sprin�s, 96 Ca1.App.4�' 1153 (2002). The delay
caused by Palm 5prings' 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
pazcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST TER
Prof Corpor ion
(
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
RHC:aap/ 110644_ 1/ l 20304
3416.006
cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, Ciry Clerk (Via Federal Express)
Sabby Jonathan, Chauman, Planning Commission (�ia Federal Express)
Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Sonia Campbell, Member, Planning Commission (Via FederaI Express)
Jim Lopez, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
LAW OFFIGES
GILCHPIST �.-. RL�TTER
PP.nr'P:SSIO\AL ('O1:YOR�TIO�
WiLSHIRE �'ALISADES BUILD�NG
�299 OCEAN AVENUE. SVITE 900
SAN7A MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9040�-1000
December 6, 200=�
Vt� FEnEx
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 Nlonroe
TELEP�-+ONE (3�01 393-4000
FACSIM�LE (3t0) 39•s-4700
E-MAIL rclosa@griawVors com
.,, -._ _.. ;-� � 1.�
' • :. 'r•i.j�J�
� :�.i�: :� .�.
:._:: ' i 2004
•�)•,1.`•;�.`:''f`. �F.•;�,.;.'n,���'7' llEPAHT�iEhT
•:i.': .: �.4i.',i �^,ESERT
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Pazk
Parcel Map No. 3 i 862
PlanninQ Commission HearinQ: Tuesdav, December 7, 2004
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice-Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community Deveiapment Staff Report regarding
Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Pazk ("Indian
Springs�' or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staff's proposed
Resolution to agprove the Application with the attached Canditions of Approval. Following are
our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence
and argument at the Hearina on the Application on Tuesday, December �-, 2004.
Condition of Approval No. 3
Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code
section bb427.5(�(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
arnount 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
GIL('HKIST ��. Ri�T'r�R
PROt't:ti�lUNAI, l'OIt}'OIL�TIO�
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Pa�e 2
jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined b� the Court of Appeal in EI Dorado
Palm SprinQs. Ltd. v. Citv of Palm SprinQs, 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.) Accordin�ly, 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 vf Approval No. 5, which
purports to require Indian Springs to abandon its septic system and connect to the Ciry's sewer
system is illegal and improper, and must be removed as a condition of approval.
Canditian 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 cwrently 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."
{_,n,W OFFiCES
GIT,CI-I1�IST &, RL�"1'1'EP.
PROFk�S10��1• CORP02�T(O�
Chairman Sabbv 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 letier 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. S altogether, and (3) insert the additionallanguaDe 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
Prof al Co oration
/
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TW C: rwc/1 I 0716 I/120604
3416.006
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
JAMES 8� ASS�CIATES, INC.
R � ew� s 1'I� -, e .4;•'F��"[''.<•>:,Y ,.�a,. .�.nr : - _ ' , �' , ,. : ��..�.: > � . -. . ' . .. _ - - _'..� -' ' _ '�a
-}.:
DecemUer 2, 2004
City Clerk
Cit�� of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Warin� Drive
Palin Desert. California 92260-2�78
Re: Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Conversion, Pursuant to Government Code
Section 6642�.I, 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 �.vith the
management and maintenance of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park located at 49-30�
Highway 74 for the last eighteen (18) yeaz�s, 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 proQram 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 a�ld 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 �roject and wil] continue to be pumped on a scheduled
three year cycle.
VJe had discontinued the use of chemicals because of possible gi-ound ���ater
contamination, using pumping as an alteri�ative to break u�� scwn layers. This resulted
in the rotaiion program refeiYed to above.
25� N. EI Ciclo, Ste 140 #286
Palm Spi•ings, CA 42262
Phone:(?60) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1�88
E-mail: jamesk.assoc�verizon.net
JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
�I� •.'�3:.;::J.�Y_ ...y:.y _�f-.�.c�c..^a.'t:t!i" i.:: .��r:'•: 'o,Y'"'.::5,,::.,�a7C.F1���,. � �� "`C?x:a�..`�c�+A,:,.R�.�w...J _
F%� Y' �� i
With tlie completion ortlie program, the Coacl�ella Valle� VJater Disti-ict
confirmed that as tong as the Sep[ic System is maintained in good workino condition_
there is no Uasis; environmental or other���ise, to require hool: up to se��-er�
The septic system consists of a solid cement tank with two separate
compartments, with a line froin the home enterin� the tank on the solid waste side,
letting the liquid flow througl� the outlet side of the tanic to a leach field or seepa�e pit,
which filters through gravel and sand. We have 46 tanlcs ranging from 1;�00 to 2,�00
gallons, depending on location, and serving 3-5 spaces per tanlc.
Our maintenance program includes a routine of checking the septic tanks for
scum azzd 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 Vailey 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 t.he 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\Docu.nenu'�ProperiieSUn�iian Spri�:�s 45=�Se�;ucs\Letter re �12mtenar.ce 1'_-:-04.doc
2�5 N. E1 Cielo, Ste 140 �28G
Palm Sprit�cs, CA 92262
Plio�ie:(7G0) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588
L-mail: jamesk.assocCverizon.net
- �" Contractinb�, Excavation, Gruding
�� �
._ , __.,,...= ���G�%%�!� "We dig the Coachella Yalley�"
�
F7iday, DaCemb� 03, 2004
Re: Indian Springs Mobi�e Home Pcu�c
Palm DesP1t, Calijomict
To i.vhom it may conc�n,
1n 2003 'Tri-Srar Contracting completeci an extensive program ro Iocate, inspect
nnd instc� manholes crnd risers on a114,6 systems t.uithin the park. This project
hcrving be� complefed ctlong wifh any xepc�trs necesscuy to the lecrch�g crreas
makes this an up to date and good working system.
Any re�airs than c�rve been mode to ihe lecrching system are relariuely simple
since there is su�`'ident room forh.rrther seepage area expcu�.sion Fi.a�thermore
these re�irs cire made with the mosr cwrenr mareriaLs and up graded standcrrds
wirh in the indusrry. �s an example, se�age p�s have been installed and are
bc.u�led straight down into the ground leaciir�g to o prolonged seepage area our o�
reQch of landscape problems.
!n my opfnian the se,ptic systems are fn good worldr,g condirion and w�th the
pcu�cs str�ngent mc�nter�ance and purnping pmgrcun along with an occasionai
repair rhese sysrPms should lasr fnde,�nitely.
Sincer�y,
Larr� J. Owens
..._....-----------__--.--.----__.___._.__.._..---._ ..__.---.-----._ _,...,_._._--____.__._�._____._.�_._
Bus (760) TSI-S4S4 IS-501 Lisile:lluronRu Rout� Drsert.florSp�i�gs, G 92140 Fux (760) Z51-5458
Y-ntail: iitfn(a�Tri�Star.ihfo
JAMES 8� ASSOCIATES, INC.
Recetved at Planning Commisslon meeting
, _ �, ;;
Date� -�� '; r `/ Case No� �^�' _ • � ., � �c
From• �,�C �< 7-t��.
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 1Docume�lts�Properties\lnd�an Spnngs 4521Sept�cs\Leuc� Chailes Sprin�ei 12•21-04 doc
255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760) 320-2217 �'ax:(7G0) 416-1588
ATS
LABORATORIES
December 1 S, 2004
Indian Springs Mobile Park
Gentlemen,
Enclosed please find results of analysis of samples submitted by you on
November ] 7, 2W4 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
fur[her assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 760-344-2532.
Sincerely,
��!'� � U}�:��✓
Linda L. Webster
Lab supervisor
104 S. 8TH ST, BRAWLEY, CA 92227 (760) 3442532 FAX (760) 344-3459
ATS
LAB4RATORIES
Lab no: 4603
Indian Springs Mobile Park
Reporied: 12-15-04
Received 11-17-04
Discharge
i. Space 96 2. Space 150
EPA 60l /602 reported in ug/1
Space 96 Space 150
DLR
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromodichlormethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Di chlorodifluoromethane
1, ] -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
l,l-Dichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
l_0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
104 S. 8TH ST., BRAWLEY, CA. 92227 (760) 344-2532 FAX (760)344-3459
ATS
LABURATORIES
Lab no: 4603
Indian Springs Mobile Park
Septic discharge
EPA 601/602 continued:
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
],2-Dichloropropane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Di chl oropropene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chJoride
1,1,1,2-Te�achloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorcethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofl uoromethane
] ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Tota]
Reported: 12-15-04
Received:l]-17-04
Space 96 Space 150
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
74.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
22.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
?�iD
�H 6.43 6.95
Total dissolved solids 663 492
Nitrate 0.58 l .76
Total Nitrogen 41.00 46.66
Porti of analysis b}� D Tek Analytical, cop}� of report enclosed.
' v''��i /��_,,%G.��-(1.'ti%"✓'
Linda L. Webster, Lab supervisor
DLR
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
1.0
NA
1
NA
0.1
104 S. 8th Street, Brawley, Ca. 92227 (750) 344-2532 FAX (760) 344-3459
� California Re -ional Water Quality C��ntrol Board �-��. �.
r 1,.��.
� Colorado Rive Basin Region ����:!
TCrry Tamminen 73-720 Fred Waring Dnvc. Suitc 100, Palm Desert, Cahfomia 922GG Arnold Sch�� arttiie;;�ei
Seu•e�or� for (7GU)3aG-7491 •Pax (7G0)3a1-G820
Goi�cr��nr
�ni�ir•o�ime�rrn! http://w�+�w swrcb ca.gov/rwqcb7
Prorecfion
Tl�e e»e+gy clinllenge fncurg Cnlrjorn�n �s ren! Ei�er�� Cnl�jo���rrnn needs to rnke �nunedrnte naion �o rcA��ce e,rerg�: ca�swnprron
For n l�s� ojs���rple u�n��s pou cnn �•educe deornnd nnd cw yoin• energ�� costs, i�rsii our mcLslu-.
Navember 3, 2004
Indian Springs MH Estates
225 N. EI 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 discfiarge during a required reporting period, the
discharger shall forward a letter to the Regional Board indicating that ihere 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
submitial 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 enforcemeni actions including,
but not limited to, administrative civil liability of up to S 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 (760j 776-8941 .
?vtarinei <�orfriguez
Sanitary Engineering Technician Trainee
MR/hs
File: 7A 33 1 168 01 1, Indian Springs MH Estates, Board Order No. 97-50017
Califor�ria Enviro�r»re�rtal Protectio�r Age►rcy
�� Req•c/ed !'nper
CALLFOItNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CAN7ROL BuARb
COL�RADO RN�R BASW REGION
MONITORING AND REPOCtTWG PROGRAM NO. 97-500
iNAIAN SPRINGS 1ViH ESTA'T�S
WDiD NO. 7A 33 IY68 UI l YEAR. ��� �
OR.DER NO. 97-SOOI7
}2�POR7TJ�1G FR.�QUENCY: ANNUALY.Y
� � � �1�0 ..3
ANNr.JAL R�PORTI�VG / Iv n � � � �
J ��
1. E6timate of the total mnximum daily llow of sewage discharged to the s�werage system (septic tanklseepage p�t
systCtns)
2. . List any proposed changes in tha sewage disposal faeilities during the upcoming year.
3. Roport any surfacing of wastewater or othez ftulures in any of tht systems during the past yenr.
4. Swimmiag pool wastewater shall be monitored for Total Dissolv�d Solids befure discharge.
S. Oae of the scptic tank/seepag� pit or )eech field dispossl systems for every 20 septic tanlc systems shall bc
sampled during November. The samples (all grab samples) shall be analyzed fos the following:
Totai Dissolved Solids
Volarile Organics
Hydrogerti ion
Nitrate as NO3-N
Totul Niuogen
�S�-
mg/L
pH
mgll..
mglL
l D (� `�
ATTAC�i RESYTY,TS
��. � 3
Q� �� I�
� ��
`T�. ��
Tt�e collection, presarvation and holding times of all samples sball be in accordaneo with U.S. Envisonmcatal
ptacotion Agc�cy approvod�prnceduns. Ail anulysis shnl! be conducicd by a leboratory cu�fiod by. the Statc
Departnxat ofHta1th Savices to parform the required anelyses.
1 declare undcr peaalry of law that I hav� pecsonslly examined and am fatniliar with the information submitted in
tbis document, arid that based on my inquiry of tbose individuals immediately responsible for obtaining thc
infomoarion� I believe that thc information is vue, accurau, and compteu. 1 am aware that there are significant
penaltics for submitting fake iaformation, includiag tht possibility oi a fine and imprisonmcat for know�ing
violations.
ANNE JAMES (President)
JAMES & ASSOCUTES INC.
Agent for Owner
255 N. El Cielo Suite 140 #�286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone(760)320-2217
Siguature: ( �
\
r,tle: ���.C�i��\��-�1���, �,��r-�
Datc. _ \Z�\2\\O�— -
�
CALiFORNIA 'VI�ATER QUALJTY CONTROL BOARI�
COLORADO �tl'VER BASIN REGION
MONiTORING AND REPORTWG PROGRAM
F�R
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBIL.E HOtvSE ES7ATES
WDID NO: 7A331368 0� l
ORDER NO.: 97-50017
REPOR'T�VG FREQUENCY: ANNUALi.Y
'YEAR
G/� '3
��� �
�6� 3
ANN'Y7AL RBPORT[NG � � � � � ���
2.
�
4.
Esdmate of thr tntal maximum daily flow of senvag� discharged to ti�c scvvcrage system (sepric tank�s�epage
pit system6) ��\ �'`i,_ `,�\�1 ,1 \�1 � =
aso `� �� �.� `-�-'i�� •
List anY Pmposed cbanges in the sewag� disposal facilities during the upcomimg year ���
Report any sucfacing of wasteovaber ot other failutrs in atry of the systems during the past yesr: S�� a���e�
5�.� �i . . ,.. C
Swnz�uiag pool wastewater sha21 be manitored for total divolved sot'sds befote discharge. l�Q ��,� O��p`�
Z��- .
5. One of thc septic tank/eeepage pit or leach field dispoeal systerns for evcry 20 sepdc taak sysierns shall tx
saznpkd during Novembez. 'C'he samples (all grab saatples) shall be analyud for the following:
ToCtl Dissolved Solids m�f1, � / �
Volatik Organics
Hydrogen Inn
Nitrate as NO�-N
'Tota] Niaogen
mg/L
pH
��
�-
A'Y"Y'ACA RESULTS
____j.� , 9�
/, ��
��. �i% �
'Ibe eolketion, presesvation apd holding times of aI1 sazaples shall be in accordance with U.S. Envuanmeatal
Prouecrion Agency approved procedusrs. All aaaJysis shali be canduc�d by a laboratory crrrified by the State
Deparpneat of Ncalth Servicca t� perform thc rcquired analyses.
1 declate tmder the pcnalry af law that I 3�ave personully examined and am familiar wish the information submimd
in this document, and that bs9od on my inquiry of tl3ose individuais immediately res�onsible for obtaining tbe
infonnation, T believe that the information is true, accwate, aud eomplete. I am aware that there are signiiicant
ponalu�s foi submitting false infonnatioq including the possbiiiry of a fine su►d irnprisonmcnt foz knowing
v�olations.
ANNE JAMES (President)
3AMES & ASSOC�ATES INC.
Agent for Owner
255 N. EI Cielo Suite 140 �286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone(760)320-2217
o -
Signature: � ---� . _� •
Tit1c: ��C��G`z'S�� \��J �. �,�_
DB�: �2�`�—�\O�
.
a,-TEK Analytical Lgboratories, I� ..
902Q Kenpmar D�ive, Suite ZQS
San Diego. CA 92121
(aSE) S66�S40 FAX (855) S66�S;Z
ATS LABORATORiFS
l04 S. 8" Street
Brawlry, CA 9Z2Z7
Attn: Ms. Lind� Webstcr
Date of Report:
SampllnR Date:
Date SamQfe Reeeived:
Date Aostlyzed:
Analyzed By:
MetLod:
l3nets:
Sampie Type:
Projcct Name:
,�nalvsiY
Ben7�ene
Bromobenzene
Bmmodichloromethane
BromofoTm
t3rcrmomothane
Garbcm Tetrachloride
Chiombenz�e
Chlorotthant
Chiorofcxm
Chloromethane
D ibrc�moch i �ro methane
Uibromomethane
i ,2-Dichlor�benzene
1,3-Diehlor�benzene
1,4-Aichlorobenzene
l,l-D�chloroethane
1.2- Dichlocoeth:tnc
1,1- Dichlurc�cthene
i 2/14J04
11/17/04
t 1118/04
November 22, Z004
ASL
EPA 60l -60Z
µg/L
Waste Water
4b03 / Iadiaa Springs Mobile Park
ANALYSES RESULTS
Detectioo %g Nnmber: 04-557A 04-5525
Limits Sample iD; Space 96 , 5pace l 50
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0_S
1.0
U.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Q.5
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT�
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
:VU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nn
ND
NT�
I�'I)
NU
Ni)
NI�
NI)
�
ND
T�(I)
ND
Pagc 1
..-7'EK Anatytical Laborataries, I►
90Z0 Keopmar Drive, Suite 2Q5
Ssu Diego, CA 921Z1
(858� 566�1540 FAX (s58j'_�66-454Z
AAalysis
Uetection
Linllts
L.og Number: 44-5524
Sample ID: Spacc 96
I7ichlorodifl uorcrmethane
cis-1,2- L�+chloroethene
�ans- 1,2- Dichloroethcnc
1,2-llichluropr�pane
cis-1,3-Uichloropropene
trans- 1,3-nichioropropenc
Ethylbenzcr�e
Methylern: Chioride
1,1,1,2-T�trachloroethane
1, I ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tolneoe
1, i ,1-Tri chloroethane
] , l .2-'frich3oroe�hane
"C'rirhloroethene
Trichlaro i1 uorome;hane
Vinyl Chlonde
Xyicncs (Tntal j
`ND = None Detected
Ellen Atienza
Oper�tion� Manager
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0_5
0_5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Q_5
9.5
0.5
Q.5
0.5
I .0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TJD
i1D
ND
ND
74.7
ND
1�1D
TID
�
ND
ND
P�ge 2
04-5525
Spscc 150
ND
ND
NU
ND
Nll
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
22.5
ND
ND
Ni?
ND
ND
TJT)
D-T�2C ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
9020 Keaamar Drive, 3uitr 205
9aa D�eg�o, CA 92122
l858) 566-4540 FAJC (858) 566-�542
?►TS Laboratorieg
104 3. 8th St.
Braaley, C11 92Z27
Attn: Linda Webater
ProjeCt ID: 4603-Indian Spriage Mobile Park
Analyeie:
Method:
Date:
J►nalyst :
RL:
Units:
Log Number Sample ID
04-5524 1. Space 96
04-5525 �. Space 150
Date Reported: 12/I4/04
Date Sampled: 11/17/G4
DSLe Received: 11/18/04
Sample Type: Water
Nitrate-I�
SM4500NO3�
11/19/09
OJ
0.10
mg/L
0.58
1.76
Page 1
�ALIFORNIA WATEA QUALITY CONTROL BOARp
COLORAflO RIV�R BASIN REGiON
WDID Na.: 7A331 �680� 1
Oi�DER NO.: 97-500('17i
REPOf�TfNG FRECIUENCY:
MONlTOR1NG AND REPORilNG PROGRAM
� FOR
lNDtAN SPRiNGS M081LE HOME PARK
ANNUAL.iY
MAiNTEhlANCE AND fNSPE�TiO�t
YEAfi: L ��' �
Fteport shalt inciude the iocat5on of the septic ianlc/seepage ��ts systems, nearest space numt�e�.
and measurement ot the thecknsss af the scum {ayar in each com�artment. Pleasa vse this form
tor additianal septic tanks.
Resufts ahalt be reported for the iotbwirtg:
Date
ot lnspec2ion
i ///�/��
�j%rZ�n�.
% ��� 7/ C S/-
;1/��/��
��/���a�
/! �
Nearest
Spece No.
7
�
1 :s"
��
2 .s`
Zfi
Th;ckness Snlet
Scurrs i.ayar/flnches)
�u i✓l��
�������
J"'c��nl��
����
�4 -�;p �C:1�
J'" u-rN��
Thickr►ess Ovtlet
Scum Layerl(lnches)
�'/�/� y
,
��/ i�/�s�
. ,
�/ �7/��
/�/��f�'�
/j zcjv�
,
�//���'�
!n fieu of septic tank measu�ing, the septic tank rnay be annually cheCked by an euthorized septic
iank pum�ar and pumped fif nee�ed)-
! declare under th� penaEty of faw ihat ! have personaqy examined and am famitiar with tt�e
intormation submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those indiv;duals
immed'sately respans�ble for obtaining the intorrnai�on, 1 beiieva that the �niormation is true,
accurate, and compleie. i am aware i�iat thera are s�gnifcant penal�ies for submii2ing fzlse
information, includir�g the possibiiiry ot a iine and imprisonment ior knowing vioiations.
Signdture �l���,�i���� "�
.•
Tit1e: ��lC�l�,��'
l
oate: % � // / �' S�
CALIFrJRNIA WAi�ER �i3ALITY COMTROL BOARI�
COLOR�,flO RIVER 8ASiN F�EG10�1
WDiD NO.: 7A337 ;S80i�
aR��R No.: s�-�ooi�7�
R�PO�TiNG FRE�i.iET�CY:
T�fONITORING AND R�pORTIlJG Pf�OGRAM
� F�R
1NDiAN SPRiNGS M081�E HOME PAFiK
ANNUAi1Y
MAiNi�NANCE ANO Ih1SPECTi0�1
,.��: 2 � c y
�ieport shall include tha Iocstion ot tha septic iankJseepage p+is systerns, nearest space num�e�.
and measurecnen2 oi Lhe t+�ickness af the scum ieyer in each compartmeni. Please use this form
for additionai septic tanks.
Resu[ts ahaii be taporied for the tolfowing:
Date
of �nspeciion
/�/ i�/,��1
J/ 1� G' .
/ f7 p
1 i �e
/ ���2 ��C� 1%
,
iO�a�/c�
Negrest
Spece No.
3,e-
3 s"
3�
�3
��
�c
Th;ckness lnlet
Scum tayaslilnches}
�i-+s. /I.,G.O
���'�%�
1'a�.n,�-c�v
._.___l.��►s�t,,��
�
�a�s�s,p �
����
Thickness t7ut'.et
Scum Layer/;tnches)
it�� �� c ,%
�1 /��`c5�
/� /!�/C�
/ �% ����
lo%i/�s/
,
�o�'�.���
1n tiei� of septic tank rnea�suring, zhe septic tank may b$ annLally checksd by an a�thorized septic
tank pum�at snd pumped (ii neerled},
! dEclare urder the pena{ty o1 Jaw that ! have personatly examined and am far:�itiar with the
information subrtzitied in this document, and thai based on my inquiry of those individva�s
irnmediately respans+ble for o�taining the iniorrnat�on, 1 betieve that the infocmaiian is true,
accu�a;e, and completa. E am aware ti�st the�e are significant penalUes for submiiYing fafsa
informa:iOn, including the possibility of a fine and impr:sonment Sor knowing violafior�s.
u.
Signatuce: /!'(�l�
T�tfe: �%�/14�r_.et�f 0-c/
�ate: /y2/ � / C y
�
CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL aOARD
COi�ORAflO RfVEft SAS1N REG10tJ
woti� �so.: �As3� asaoy �
ORflER Nq.: 97-b0�i� 7i
R�.Pi�f�T1Nv �REQLJENCY:
MONl7�RING ANp REf OATING PROGFtAM
.. fipR
lNDiAN SPRiNGS M08iLE HOME �ARK
ANNUAI,LY
MA�NiEl�ANCE AND ItVSPEC7i0%t
Y�.�: 2 � r� y
�ie�ort st�all include tfi�e location of ihe se�tic ianfc/seepage pits systems, r�earest space nc;mber,
and measurement o! the thickness of ihe scum 18yer in eacfit �omQ�rtmeni. Pfease use this torm
for additiona9 septic tanks,
�tes�its ahatt be reporied for the folfowing:
Date
of ins�ection
/l c�
'�/,� �/� y�
�5—/�i o �
�/��� �i
�1�i�/P�
,
i�'/ �/� y�
Nearest
&pece No.
�3
-��
•5�I
�y
E7
7�
Thickness Snlet
Saum �ayar/iinches)
'1�`L��
- `�"7 ,��
�.rs1/,��1��
^ �f
�J���
�u>���
���
Thickness Ovtlet
Scum LByerJ(lnehes)
i � /����
Ef/�l�/e��J
�/�%/n f/
������
�%i�/� �
��/�/��!
tn lieu ef septic tank measuring, the septic tank may be annuaily checked by an auit�orized septic
tank pum�ar and pumped (if nseded)_
! dec�ars under the penaliy of law ihat ! have parsonaily examined as-,d am famitiar with tf�e
iniormation Subrnitted ict thiS dqCument, and thai based �n my inquiry of those irdividuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the intorrnai�on, 1 beiieva iha; the information is true,
accurate, and completa. i am aware il^at ihere are significant penaities ior submii:ing talse
in'.ormation, including tt�e possibiiiry of a fine and irnpr:sonment tor knowing violat:ons.
Sigr.atui e :��G��/
T;tfe: %1�,�.���r�
oat$: !/%�7/0�
CALIFOf�NiA WAT�EA QUALiTI' CONTROL SOARI�
CO�aFtAbO filVEfi BAS1fV AEG10t�
MONlTORl1JG AND REPOFiiiNG PROGRAM
� FDi�
lTdDiAN SPRfNGS M081LE HOME PARK
WDID NO,: 7A337 3580'S 1
ORDER Np.: 97-bOC}{� 7}
REPOf;TiNG FREDUENCY: ANNUALLY
MAiNiEhtAtVCE AND tNSPfC'�IOi�t
Y�Ai�: � � � 7
Rsport shsll inc�ivde #he iocation of ths septic tanklseepage pKs systerns, nearesz space number,
and measurament of the th;ckness of the scum leyer in each �ompartmeni. Plsase use this form
for add'stional septic tanks.
Res�lts ahail be reported for tha iol�ov�rirtg:
Date
oi ir�spection
�/ �//c�
�,l%�/o�
�
�1�1 /� j��
�/�i�,�'
��'��/cs�
Near�st
Speca No.
7�`�
7�
� yv
J
� �
4�
��
T}vckness (nlet
Scum i.ayer/tlnches)
T i1t�,� �
��� ��
,
����—
/ G'�lil ��
��,��
������
Thickr+ess t}ut7et
Scum Layer/�fnchesi
�/ ��os/
�����
�/���
/
i / / �.s`/� �
, .
.�-/�/n�'
.���i��
!n tieu of septic tank measuring, the septic iank may be annUally checksd by an auihorized septic
tank pumpar and p�mped (if neeried}_
! declare under the penairy of iaw that ! have personaily examined and am famitiar with the
iniormation submirted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals
immediateiy resppnsibie #vr obtaining the intorrnaiion, 1 betieve that the iniormation is true,
accurata� and comp{ete, i am aware t�at thefa are significant penaltes for Submiiling falsa
ir�formation, includir�g the possibiliiy of a fine and imprisonment �or knowing violations.
/� i
Signatute:��.:1��C.-� �,��i���y�.
�- - !� ��
Titfe:`ri��` �l_�
�/�
Oata: !f� l7��' y
CALIFQRNiA WATEA Ol1ALdTY CONTROL 80ARD
CG�OR�,DO f�IVER BAS1N REG�ON
�/dD1D t�10.: 7A3313S8071
O R�ER NO.: 97-b001 � 7}
��PO#�T1NG fiRE�iJE.t�CY:
MON4TORINC� AiJD R�pO�TiNG PROGRAM
` ��
lNDiA�1 SPRINGS MOS}LE HOME PARK
ANNiJAU.Y
MA#NT�NANCE AND ftVSPECTiON
Y�.�: 2- G C 1-I
Report shall inciuda the iocation of the septic Lank/seepage �its systems, r�sarest space ntamber.
and measurBment ot zhe tt�;ckness ot the scum iayer in each comp�rtment. f'lease use this form
�vr ed�itios�at septic tanks.
fiesUtts ahaii be repoRed for tha iolSowir�g:
Dxis
of Inspection
0
��' f g 1 � �l
�/� �/�s�
�IPI�z-/ct/
��f�ja���
9�� q�cc/'
Nearest
5pece t1a
��
/n�
�i�
1!q
iz�
1Z�
Thickness Snlet
Scum �ayerJ(Inches)
�� ��
_�����
�����
���
�� p�.�
����
ihickness butiat
Scum Layer!(1n�i�es}
_____����� Y
� / 9 ��'S�
,
�/>�i��
/�� ��/��
♦> / 3�/��
9/�y,/��
tn fieu af sepcic tank measuring, the sepiic tank may ba arnually checksd by an authorizad septic
tar�k �um�r and pumped (if neededi.
1 declare urdet the penaliy ot law tt�at ! have personaily examined and am famitiar with the
iniormation subrnirted in this documen;, and that based on my inquiry of those individvals
irr,mediately respons�ble for obtaining the inforrnation, I befieva thai the info�mai�o;� is irue.
accurata, and complete. i am aware that ihere are significa�t penatiies for submiiting faise
snformation, including the possibitiry oi a fine snd impr:sonment fpr knowing violaiions.
Signature�6 �'t`-� �
_ /���
T i t t c��y�C -�+•d��.i�L�
Data: /�/ f l O �
�
CALIFOfi'�lA WAiEA QUALiTY CONT�i(�L BOAR�
CO�ORAtiO R1VEfi 8AS1N i�EG10N
WD1D NO.: 7A3317S80y 1
ORDER NO.: 97•50Q;� 7}
R�POftTiNG FRE�LI�NCY:
MOfJITQRf�1Ci AND fi�pOATiNG PROGRAM
� F�R
1NDiAiJ SQRlN�S MOBf�.E HOME PARK
ANNUAi.,.i.Y
MA#NTENAtVCE AND iNSPEC'3�10�1
YEA�i: � � f' �
Report shall inciude the locaiion of the septic tanklseepage pits systerns, r�earest space num�er.
and measurament oi Lhe ti�ickness af the scum leyer in each corr��artment. Please use this form
for additiona4 se�tic tanks.
Res�tts ahatf be reported ior the iotbwir�g:
Data
oi inspection
/�'�/�/cy
, ,
!!/3c/c�
! /% ��'/e �
r � '
� �//t l� y
,
/a/��cy�
�C�%i 5� /m �'
IJearesi
Spece No.
/�7
/ 3�
I�C
Thicfcness 1n�et
Sci, tayerlf�nches}
u
���
_ �����
I `� �' �u-1u D�D
,
/ ��' -�cc�p.�
i � c ��r���
Thickness i5utlet
Scum Layer/(tn�hes}
i�'�iv�/c�y'
!l/�r;/�%�
!lf �� /'�%�
,
��I/ /cy
,
��/�/c�
:,�� � y/��/^
,
tn iieu oi septic tank measuring, the septic tank may ba annuaily checksd by an authorized se�iic
tank pum�er and pumped (if nee�ied}-
! deciare under the pena}fy oi law thai ! have personaily examined and am familiar w'sth the
inSo�mation submitted in this documsn;, and that based �n my inqu�ry o4 those irdividuals
immediate�y responsibie for o�taining the ir,forrnaiion, 1 betieve that the information is irue,
accusate, and complete. f am aware t�iet there are significani pena{ties for submit7i;�g fa}sa
informat;on, ;nc2uding the possibiiiTy of a fine and impr:sonment ios knowing violations.
Signature�����
.�y� ' j
T;tta: /���'l9�Li
Oaie: _ %� � � � C �
�
CALI�ORNIA YVATER OUAL3TY CpNTROL BOAR�
COLORADO RIVER 8ASlN REG10Sd
WDID �lQ.: 7A331 �$SO'11
URDER NQ.: 97-b00i� 7t
f��i'OATitJv fiRF�i1ET�tCY:
MONI�'OR1NC7 AND REPOR7ING PROGAAM
FO�i
lND1AfJ SQRfNGS M08iLE HOMF PARK
ANNUALLY
MA1Ni�t�ANCE AND tNSPEC7'1pN
Y�: � � � y
RepoR shell incic+de the location of the septic 2ar►k/seepage piis systems, nearest space nurr�ber,
and measurement of the theckness ai the scum ieyer in each comQarcmeni. Please uss this form
ior additional septic tanks.
Reslilis ahait bs reportod i�r the folfowi�ng:
Daie
of tnspection
�/1/ l��
�� ����
�/��lc�
���/�/c�
.,
��9,��y�
� /�� �o�
Ne�rest
Space No.
% -sI
l � ��. _
/ S"9
�� �
���
1 �7 0
Tfvckness (niet
Scum Layerl(3nches)
T Qt� �E/,
�����
�,
���
��a�
���,�
}�k����i �
Thickness Ovtlet
Scum LByerlttnohesj
�/�/ In�i
������
,
� / i F � �' �1
�c/� io�'
9/ 9l�'�/
dA�d G�o f%
tn tieu of septic ia�k measu�ing. zhe septic Lank rnay ba annualiy checkad by an autttorized septic
tank pumper and pumped (if near3ed}_
1 decldre under the pena(ty of law tfiat I have paTsonaily examined and am famitiar with the
ini0tmation 5vbmirted irl thi5 dOcumEnt, and Ihat based on my inquiry of those sndividua�s
immediately responsible #or obtaining the �niorrnaiion, i bei�eve that the intormation is irue,
ac�urate, a�d compleie. 1 am aware that there are significant penattses for subsn's2Iing faisa
informa?ion, including the aossibiiiry flf a fine and impr�sonment tor knowing viofa;�ons.
�
Signatute�(�/`��'Lii 7f�°�
�l
Titie: �1�12Z%_ .•/
o�ta: l� Ji / � �{
. ,
CALIFOfiT�IA y1iA7 ER flUAL�TY CONTROL a0A9D
COIOA.ADO RIVER �3AS1N REGi0t1
1VSONiTOR1NCa AND REpOi�TlNG PROGRAM
� F�Oii
1NDiAN S�RiNGS M08iLE HOf�AE PA}�K
WDiD NO.: 7A337 iS80! t
ORDER NO.: 97-500157}
A�POfZTiNG FRE�iJ�NCY: AN?�iL1AU.Y
MA�N7�NAN�E ANb fNSPECTION
YEAR: �--- �' C� �
Report shafl include the Eocai3on of the septic tank/seepage piis systems, r�sarest space num�er,
snti measuremen2 oi Lne tt�ickness p! Yhe scurn 18yer in each GompertmenL. Plesse use ihis form
for additional se�tic tanks.
Resu[ts ahati bg reparted ior the toliowing:
Daie
oi inapection
�%9/��/
�,i-�/��
�/.�c%y'
� �I����
,
/�/,�J1��
Nearest
$pece No.
� 7f
� �� _
/��
1��-
C'L�r b��f�,�'�-
Th;cicness Snlet
Scum Layer!(lnchesl
u�� ��
���
����
P" zc�cr��
����
�
Thickness Out3et
Scum Layer!(fn�hes)
�/-,2 y�C' �
9�� q��y
.�%z��� y' ia/f/ � �
� �, '
i�o;���by
!n lieu o! septic tank measuring. the septic Iank may ba annua3ly checksd by an authorized sepiic
tank pumpar and pumped {if nea�iad}.
! declare under th� penaliy oi law that I nave personaily exzmined and am famitiar with the
ir,formation subrr�ired in this document, and that basad on my inquiry of t►�ose irsdividuais
immediately resp�ns�bfe for obtain;ng the �ntorrnation, I bel�eve that the in`orrr,atio� is tr�e,
accurate, and comp�ete. i am awate i�i$t thesa sse s�gnificant penalUes for submitIing fafse
informsiion, induding ihe �ossibiiiry of a fine and imprisonment ior knowing vioiations.
�
�/% .
Signatuseej��� (�L�� ����
Titfe:- //'LE�i�$�pC.L�--- `
r
oate: /� / i / �'�
� U � z
_ � � � � � o
7 07 00 W V V O� L� U1 U1 (l� U1 A a W W N N N.... .r � fD fD (D 07 OJ V V V� O7 V� N(l� th A ta 4: (..: G: N N " a V f:
� � N O-+ O�! A(D W-+ O N O O� CP V Q� N(D A� W�[T m tJ� Q: U� n] -J � tD O� W O 6� W Oo V� O V C,� O� (!� �p � D
Z
m �
.� �� D?� ...� N -• N T� T N-+ A N N� N �� N � � � IJ N D� D T7
N .D � n j D O� N A p � D d�= A j A A� � � A A CJ� 't'' � Z
! � ? N � .'i1 .R1 .i7 7.77 � � .Z1 .i1 N ^ ."D Q Zl iJ � � Z7 :i1 .'a .Z7 %1 N W � G:
IJ N ry N 1D N N U• N 7 N 1I� � fD V' m � N fD � � N !v'J !D W ' _. C/7
o m �? �o m a m ;o m m m �p (n
� � Q 7 N N 1n � 1A j N j N V' b� ��� O
O O � V 7 �C �G � O a �
< ^ � W �' - � _
� (D V+ O O � L !-
� m
� H � O
� o < t�n
N � �O
4 D
r r m� r r r a7 r � r r r r C� r r r r-p p r r � r r r r r r r t1� .- r � r
0 o A^, o 0 0� o� o 0 0 0�� o 0 0 o y o� o ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �
c� c� a co 0 0� ci o 0 o c� y� o n o ci �� o� o o � o � � � � � n(!� � T
m w o' n; v o, m� c; a� ?: p: c °' °: °' n: s� m m o m m c, n� m d v D m °^' °:
m m -' Fo m m a o o; m �o m cc m a m m m m�� m m m m m �o o m m m � � m� o
a a. � n a a c n� a a a a o c n a n a,� � a m a n a n a a n n � c a m�
� � � �
n
r
�
m
0
m
+
Cf
.il
N
�
fD
�
w
�
0
0�
�
A
O
0
� �
01 N
7 �
0
cp OO
� �
� o
N
U
R
�
QN)
`o
N
�
N
7
J
O
�o
t?o
�7
m
(.71
w
0
0
w
» ,� o r.
�
� c�i u�i m o�i c'�i w m N
� > > > > > a F �
� o 0 0 0 0 0� o
� m �u � m m m� m
+ + + + + + m a
� mrn a�rn rn a�� o
fD ' ' _ ' ^
� .� ,�1 �1 .z7 .� i"0 7 N�D
m N fy0 m m m � ••
� -. a A
-+ (D N N � 0/ m (D
tD (�D fA fD (�D f�D m �
(O
d N � d
a � m �
J 7 ^ J
0 0 0
� � 'p �
Q^ u° o a°
� � �
� e`"o m
W W
O O
a o 0
0
�
�
7
7
0
N
f?�
�7
�'
fD
�
N
O
N
. j
CTt (Jl Ul
cD tD c0
N � p
� m m
v �
� T j
fp � (9
'pQ�
m
� N �
� O —
O .ja N
�
O o
a
�
�
�
0
Lb
.i7
m
A
S
� � �
m m m
> > >
s � �
0 0 0
m � co
� � �
� � �
tf� N tA
A m A
A
O N
-+ O O
�
G1
7
�
0
m
�
�7
N
(L
�
�
O
N
�
W
�
�
O
�
40
�
m
f.D
�
N
0
W
� � � �
O1 d 61 N
7 7 > >
� S T �
0 0 0 0
m m m m
W Ro Ro R�
�1 �7 � :Tl
(A N N N
(D l9 tD (D
c�'o�NN
O � � �
N N N N
� � �
N a1 �/1
� � �
O p �7
m m v,
{�" R" O
�7 �7 �
N N
i� f�
N �
A O
O O
�
d
3
�
D
m
R�
�
�
V
w
0
0
w
�
0�
7
S
O
m
fN
�
N
N
�
cD
0
� � � � �
5 7 7 7 7
T 7 � 7
O O O O O
m` m m m m
4e W f?� S7e 4�
xl �7 7J �1 �7
�D N � (D lD
�l 01 V
�'' c`3°�rnc�.
� o�'oo
0 0 � w o
N
�
N
(D
i 'D
d
�
m
�
N
C`
c�n
A
�
�
7
0
Ro
�
m
A
a
0
�
m
�
0
�
w
A
N
A
A
O
� � � �
v m m m
� � 3 �
� � s z
0 0 0 0
m m' eo 0
wwwco
� � � �
N N V� �
CJ (D T f0
^ ^ N
O O O O
� � � �
O O
N N
a o
N N
O O
O O
�
N
�
�
0
m
G�
�
N
(D
cn
�
0
w
o ro
m 7
0
Ro �
a .�
.T7 R° f�D
N � fO
m ]
W d
(�D Q
�
c
3
m
n N
� O
0
� o
N
N
a
��
3
a
n
Q N
� O
O
7 J
a
m
n
�
3
0
n N
Ro �
0
N N
�
a
� �
C p�
� S ��
Q � �3
� o
W �
a iv
� � R° o
� v+' — w
� � N
W � N
°� n
0
w
C�
�
i 7
�r
�
�
."L7
(0
a
N
N
�
O
A
�
3
m
a r,�
Q0 O
3 p
N
I�
��
�n
�
�
N
0
O
A
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILEHOME FARK
PUMFING SCHEDULE
Space Space Schedule Date
7 2nd Wed in January
8 3rd Wed. in January
15 1st Wed in February
18 2nd Wed in February
25 3rd Wed. in February
27 4th Wed. in February
30 1st Wed. in March
35 2nd Wed. in March
38 3rd Wed. in March
43 4th Wed in March
46 1st Wed. in Aprii
50 2nd Wed. in April
53 2nd Wed. in January
56 3rd Wed in April
59 4th Wed. in April
64 1st Wed. in May
67 2nd Wed. in May
72 3rd Wed. in May
75 4th Wed. in May
76 5th Wed. in May
85 1st Wed. in June
86 2nd Wed. in June
95 3rd Wed. in June
96 4th Wed. in June
98 4th Wed. in June
106 140 2nd Wed in July
114 3rd Wed. in July
119 4th Wed. in July
122 1st Wed. in August
126 2nd Wed. in August
127 3rd Wed. in August
135 4th Wed. in August
138 2nd Wed. in September
140 3rd Wed in September
145 1st Wed in October
150 2nd Wed. in October
151 2nd Wed. in October
158 3rd Wed. in October
159 4th Wed. in October
159 continued
164 5th Wed. in October
167 1st Wed. in November
170 2nd Wed in November
171 3rd Wed. in November
180 4th Wed in November
182 1st Wed in December
186 2nd Wed. in December
Ctubhouse 3rd Wed in December
12/2 � 1200�
Dates Pumped
OS/04/04
11/12/04
06/17/04
11 /18l04
10/29/03 11/26/2003 12/2/2003 12/5/2003 12/23/2003 1/20/2004
06/17/04
10/06/04
11 /18/04
11l12/04
11 /04/04
10/21 !04
10/21/04
11 /04/04
02/06/04 3/29/2004 4/7/2004 4/21 /2004 4/26/2004
05/04/04
08/04l04
01/11/04 9/12/2004
11 /04l04
09/04104
08/18/04
08/18/04
12/22l03 �2J3112003 4/21/2004 11/15/2004
05/03/04
10/06/04
09/09/04
08111/04 919/2004
09/17/04
11/12/04
11 J30/04
09/29l04
10/14/04
11 /30/04
11/30/04
08111/04
12/01 /04
10/14/04
08/11 /04
08/04l04
10/27/03 11 /10/2003 11 / 19/2013 19 /26/2003 12J21 /2003 12/5/2003
12/03/03 12/23/2003 'i129/2004 2/6/2004 2/14/2004 2/18J2004
10/06/04
06/07l04 8/16/2004 8/20/2004 8/26/2004 9/4/2004 9/9/2004
08l26104
09/29/04
09/29104
11/14/03 4/4/2004 8120l2004 12/1/2004
08/04/04
10/2�/04
Note This leaves at least 7 Wednesdays open
Annual Pumping Schedule, per agreement with the
Water Quality Control Board.
Septic Pumping Schedule
Tank Number
7
s
15
]8
25
27
30
35
38
43
46
50
53
56
59
64
67
72
75
76
85
86
95
96
98
106
114
119
122
126
127
135
138
140
145
150
151
158
159
164
167
l70
l7]
180
182
186
Clubhouse
Indian Springs M.H.P.
Last Date Pumped
5/4/04
1 l / l 2/04
6,' l 7/04
l ]!3 8/U4
1 /20/04
6/ l 7/04
J 0/6/04
11 / l 8/04
l 1/12/04
11 /4/04
10/21 /04
10/21 /04
11/4/04
4/26/04
5/4/04
8/4/04
9/ 12/04
11/4/04
9/4/04
8/18104
8/ 18/04
4121/04 11 /15/04
5/3/04
10/6/04
9/9/04
9/9/04
9/ 17/04
11112/04
11/30/04
9I29/04
10/14/04
11/3Q/04
11 /30/04
8/ 11 /04
12/ 1 /04
10/ 14/04
8/11/04
8/4/04
2/ 18/04
10/6/04
9/9/04
8/26/04
9/29/04
9/29/04
8/20/04 12/1/04
8/4/04
10/21 /04
Year ,eptic Pumpin�,� Rec.or�
Ot}Ier
DE� C; t 2���
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PKOFFSSIONAL CORPORA'PIO�7
WILSHIRE PALISAOES BUILOING
i 299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA. CALIFOIiNIA 80407-�000
TELEPHONE (370) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclosa�grlawyars.com
December 22, 2004
VIA FEDEX
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner 3ames Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
r �' '� ��% � � �� 3..� J..!
� �._;
' ��� � v �VV i
'�:.� ;;; '.;•�} ;,,;1 „�i !'11�:�'f JF'P?hTkEM1T
.�.._ t)�• !+��r r,�,�pe�
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Plannin� Commission Hearin�: Tuesdav, December 29, 2404
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice-Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community DevelopmenUPlanning (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 AppIication, 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 �-iearing on
December 29, 2004, following are our initial observations and comments on the
recommendations contained within the Memorandum.
LAW OFFICES
C`.ILC;IIRIST � RU7'TER
PROFESSIO�AL COFfPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 2
The Memorandum recommends reguiring 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 fiirther 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 Pazk. 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 CaIifornia Department of Housing and Community
Development has exclusive jurisdictian 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
GIL�:HRIST � RUTI'�:R
FKOFF.SSIO�AI. CORi'012ATION
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 SnrinQs, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Sprin�s, 96 Ca1.App.4`h 1153 (2002).
The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused E] 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 aze
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 attogether, and (5) insert the additional language proposed previously to draft
Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately.
� AW pFFICES
GII.CHRIS'1' Bz RL;TTER
YROF7:SSIO�AL COF2PORATION
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,
T W C: twd 111262 l 1122104
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)
1Zichard H. (:lose
Of the Firm
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFESSIOI�AL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9040�-�000
January 7, 2005
Vu, FEnEx
Ms. Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert Civic Center
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision December 29, 2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Case No. PM 31862
Dear Ms. Klassen:
�
a
0
�
�
n•
2
O
�
s
a
c.�
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
Desert.
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
Professio o tion
,
Richard H. ose
Of the Firm
RHC : app
Enclosures
coPv Te ����,,:.�.�
DATF
�--i n.-� �
TELEPHONE (3�0) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (3�p) 394-4700
E-MA1L: rcloseQgrlawyers.com
h
-o �
��
���
"" r'- ='TI
C�m�;
m au rn
���
r^ --�
��rn
-+ o 0
��
v�
r*i
(R}iC aap/111739_Ii010705i3416 006]
„ Dec-OT-04 12:39ps
/
,
r -
;'
Cas@ No.
Frco-PAI�I DESERT CITY CLERK
i603400574 T-T03 P.Ot/O1 F-626
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALlF4RNIA
APPLfGATtON TO APPEAL
DECiSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(Name of Oetem�a�MQ Body)
PM 31862 Date of Decision:
12/29/04
Name of Appellant Indian Springs, Lcd. p�one (310) 393-4000
Richard H. Close, Esq., Gilchrist & Rutter
Address 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900, Santa Monica, CA 90401
N C7
� � "i
� n�
a• � c-� x
x Q � �.,
O mx7m
�x—
? 'vcnrn
�ov
= � -�,
O D n
w r,.,
Descripfion of
ApplJCatiOt7 0fM8�el'COI7SIf�e1'IBd: PM 318b2 to convert rental mobilehome park to condominiun
park.
Reason f�r Appeal (aftach additional sheefs lf necessary}:
Please see attached sheets 1-3
See Attached
(Signatsae of Appe!lant)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONI.Y �`'� 33 ���oo
Date Appea! Filed: 1-1 n— �r� � Fee Received: .� (�� '�'
Treasure�s Re�eipt No. n Rec�ived by: ���' ''r � .
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: ���
Action T�ken:
D�te:
Rachelte O, bassen, City Clerk
H:1r�+aemWPmta�WP00CS1FORT�ipFe to appeN.wpa
COP'Y TO �s� l nl � �'
DATE _I ��d S
� �z
.
i ,
may only properly pmhibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of
Water Code Secdons 13280-13284 aze satis�d."
� Testimony by Mr. Jose Ange! of the Regional Water Quality Control Board at the
December 29, 2004 hearing regazding PM 38612 made clear that Indian Springs' septic systesn is
funcfiioning properly, is not in violation of water discharge requirements and does nvt represent a
health hazard. He fiuther 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 lndian
5prings will force a challenge to the Ordinance's validity. Of cowse, a ruling that Section 8.60
is void will likely cause a great numbea of other property owners who have been forced to
compiy with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City_ As written, Section 8.60
is an iilegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms
exceeds the value of the propeRy itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its
enforcement against the Park would constitute a"taking" under the state and federat
constitutions for which compen,4ation by the City is requir�d, as its scptic syst�m is in fu11
oompliance with all applicable regulaiions.
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 Snrin�s, Lid. v. �itv o� Palm Spri��s, 96 Ca1.App.4�' i l 53 (2002). The delay
caused by Patm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,OQ0,000 in
damages, and is the subject of cuirent litigation against Palm Springs for thase damages.
Acc:ordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Applicant agpeals as to the imposition of
Condition of Appraval Number 5.
INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a California limited parmership
By: Goidstein Properties, Inc., a Caiifornia corporation
Its: General Parhler
, 1 ,
: Jarnes . Goldstein
ts: President
[TWC:twc/111 S75_ 1. DOG01030513416.006]
,_, .
,� . .
��
�
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 onlv as to Condition
of Aanroval 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. S would require the costly removal of the septic system and the construction of a
private sewer line within the Pazk 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 cvnnection to the sewer system, and we are amenable to
working with the City and others towazd that goal. However, the cost to ii 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 rec}uire expensive construction and
maintenance of a private sewer line within the Park, connection of each of the 19l 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 witl cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage.
(TWC:twc/ I 11575_ I. DOC/O 10305/3416.006]
� �
>
�
i
, 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
j 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 addih�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 Deparhnent 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 tentarive or pazcel 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,
Govemment 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 pazks.
In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Bvard cannot require abandonment of a
septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality
damage. � In In re Matter of Ninomo Communitv Services District, State Water Resources Boazd
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.
[TWC:twc/111575_ I.DOC/O I0305/3416.006J 2
L1>W OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFE.SSIONAI. CORI'O[ZATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
t 299 OCEAN AVEIJUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFOPNIA 90401-�000
VIA F�DEX
December 22, 2004
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Comrnissioner 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: rclosa�grlawyars.com
�.�..��.;.a±,T��'�l�
� _�: -�-� 2fl04- - --- - -
� �.`h�t1��'�i �'�' llr t';:i: P1fEKT DEPARPME�T
�•i•=. n� �nLP�f �FJERT
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Pazcel Map No. 31862
PlanninQ Commission Hearing: Tuesdav, 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") StaffReport regarding Pazcel 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 Attomey, 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 Applicarion, 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
i�ecemh�r 2Q, 2004?�lln�aci.ngate_QurinitiaLnhsencatinn�at�GommenL.t on the
recommendations contained within the Memorandum.
�• .
' -�_ --= � • :.�< ._. .
. : a � . . > . Xji � . M �, . . .
- �_ . -y'.... _. -'-- ' � - � - - . -' - --... . . .. ---- --_',`^- _" ... . .. -- --' —._
"...�_ _" �..
LAW OFFICES
GII�CHRIST � RL'TTER
YROFF.SS[U\AL COF2PORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 2
-- - Th�Memorandum recommends requi�ing-�ndian Sp�ings-to construct full pubiic ____.
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. 1fie
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 Pazk'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 detetmined 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 Tndian Springs) for cars to decelerate out of the lane
of traffic before tuming 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 apartrnent 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 Pazk 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 Pazk'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.
: ,•. ..
. ..
. �. : .
... .
,._.
. . . . .
, . . . . .: ,
s
, . . :.,
.
-�-- ---�-----.. _ .
. - � �- --- - - � - - ._ -.. . . . . . _ _.�. . ,. ,
_ .___. --=-�--
; - .
�.:= �' .
--- - �..,_ � . •. .
L!aW OFFICES
C'�.ILCHRIST Bi R[JTTER
['F2nF'ES,S[OYAL CORPOfUTt01
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 SvrinQs, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Svrinss, 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 hazazd.
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 condorninium-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 improvernent 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 &om
interfering with the conversivn of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to
extract improvements, make dedications or other exactions from the pazks.
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.
•�.r;. , ' _ . :: � , Y " �
: .. .
.,._.. . �. .
. . . , . . . _ . . . •
�, , R
r,t �: �i ', . . _ • -fs
•:
� �
. _ . ... ' :� . '. . ' � _.- - - -- '. ... _ _ . ..----'-----'`'-- � ' .. . . . , .
...... ..._ .. . ._ -� - � '-� �-.s., . . ---"-�... . ._...---''---- --'.-.. ._. .f.�..s�,.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RLJ'PTER
PROFESS1nNA1. CORPOR.ITIO:V
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 c}nestions,�lease give me a call_ _ __
;
7' W C. twc11112 62_ I/ 12 2104
3416.006
Very truly yours,
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express)
Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
-�;;.; - , . -
� ' _ � : . �: � '
_ `� ��
i:�.Y � ;y If'� .
Of the Firm
MY NAME IS PAT BELL
49305 HIGHWAY 47, UNIT # 171,
PALM DESERT, CA 92264
I AM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE
-- - - --
INDIAN SPRINGS HOME OWNERS'
ASSUCIATIUN.
TUNIGHT 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.
Unce 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.
VVe are worried about the cost of the Iand we are
being required to buy.
We vvon't even know the cost of this land until the
Conversion is aimost 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 HUW 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.
3
Both the City and the State say...
"Abandon the old septic system."
SU 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
4
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS - PLANNING & Z�N1NG COMMISSI4N
December 29, 2004
GOOD EVENING - MY NAME 1S MARI SCHMIDT AND I OWN THE COACH ON SPACE #86 IN
INDIAN SPRINGS. iT [S MY PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
f HAVE A STATEMENT W�-�CH I WISH TO READ INTO TEiE PERMANENI' RECORD
OE T�llS PUBL[C HEARING ON 'THE MATTER OF THE CONVERSION OF INDIAN SPRINGS
MOSILE NOME PARK FROM RENTAL SPACE TO MOBILE NOME CONDOMINiUMS.
FIRSTLY, LET ME SAY THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION CONVENED TI-IIS EVENING FOR Ti-� PURPOSES OF TE�S PUBLIC
HEARING IS AK ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT YOU
PURVIEW IS TO STUDY TI-� PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION AND MAKE
RECOMMEI�IDATIONS TO TFiE CiTY COUNCIL AND [T [S TE{E CITY COUNCIL'S DECiSION
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION TO E1Ti-�R ACCEPT OR REJECT T}iE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. WE ALSO KNOW YOU WANT TO PASS TF�S ON ASAP TO
7� COLTNCIL. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT Ti-DS IS VERY CLEAR TO US IN TZ-� PARK AND,
HERE TONIGHT.
SECONDLY, I WISH TO 1'HANK YOU FOR YOUR POSIT[ON ON THE SEWER/SEPTIC
ISSUE PERTAINtNG TO THE PARK CONVERSION. LET ME SHARE WITH YQU THAT THE
RESiDENCY AT IND[AN SPRINGS iS FULLY IN FAVOR OF YOUR REQUIREMENT THAT THE
PARK OWNERSHIP BE REQUIRED TO CONVERT Ti-� ENTIRE PARK TO THE CITY'S SEWER
SYSTEMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO SELL ANY LOTS. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT
T[-� CITY WILL HOLD FIRM TO THAT POSITION AND, WE FULLY SUPP4RT YOU IN THAT
DECiSION. IT IS E�TREMELY IMPORTANT TO PLACE INTO THE RECORD OF THIS
CONVERSION APPLICATION PROC'ESS THAT THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS OPERATING IN
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK IS OVER 30 YEARS OLD, FAILING, REQUIRE
CONSTANT MAINTENAiYCE AND POSES A POTENTIAL HEALTH HA7.ARD TO THE
RFSIDENTS. IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF T1ME BEFORE WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO
CONNECT' TO TE� SEWEILS. SINCE TF� PARK OWNERSHIP HAS OPTED TO CONVERT THE
PARK AND SELL OFF THE LOTS, IT SHOULD BE TI�IR RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPENSE TO
UPHOLD TEIE LAW AND CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. IT WOULD BE
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING TO LEARN FROM PARK RECORDS THE INCREASING
FItEQUENCY TFiAT Tf-�SE SYSTEMS MUST BE PUMPED AND PAMPERED. i CAN
PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT I7' IS OFTEN AND ONGOING.
7'�llRDLY, I FEEL IT IS VERY [MPORTANT FOR ME TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO SEVERAL
OTHER ISSUES IMPERATNE TO TE� CONVERSION APPLICATION.
1) REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT - IN THE EARLY PART OF APRIL (2004) WE
WERE INEORMED BY T'E� OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES THAT A LETTER OF INTENT TO
CONVERT THE PARK HAD BEEN FTLED WTI'H 77-IE CITY OF PALM DESERT. TI-DS CAUGHT
MOST EVERYONE BY SURPRISE AND CREATED GREAT UNREST IN TT� COMMUNITY.
TI-� HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD APPOINTED S RESIDENTS TO FORM A
"CONVERSIOI�i COMMITTEE". WE FELT IT V1TAS IMPORTANT TO WORK WITI-� THE
OWIVERS' REPRESENTATIVES TO AVOID ANY PITFALLS THAT WE MIGHT ENCOUNTER
AND KEEP A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATI�N WITH TI-IE OWNER DURING THE
PROCESS. WE WAiTBD MOST OF THE SUMMER, COMMUNICATIONS DWINDLED AND
Tf�N, WITHOUT MUCH NOT[CE TO TI-� ASSOCIATION, THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVES CALLED FOR SEVERAL RESIDENT MEETINGS, THE INTENT AND
TIMING OF WHICH IS SOMEWHAT SUSPECT.
LONG STORY SHQRT, THE RESIDENTS ARE TOTALLY CONFUSED BY'Tf�
PROCESS. WE WERE TOLD THAT'I'I-IE "PRELIMINARY SURVEY PLAT" WAS IN Tf-IE PARK
MANAGERS OFFICE FOR INSPECT'[ON BY THE RESIDENTS TO ASCERTAIN IF THE PLAT
WAS CORRECTLY DRAWN IN REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL LOT LII�IES. THE PACKET OF
DOCUMENTS AND TF� MAP SAT IN TF� OFFICE FROM SEPTEMBER 8TI-i UNTIL MID
OC'TOBER WITHOi3T ANY NOTICE TO TI-IE RESIDENTS FROM THE PARK OWNERSHIP
THA1' IT WAS THERE FOR RESIDENT INSPECT[ON. I�WILL ADD'THAT BOTH PAT BELL
AND I RECENED SIMILAR PACKETS IN SEPTEMBER BUT WI'I'HOUT TI-�E MAP. NOT UNTIL
OUR 1vOVEMBER GENERAL HOA MEETING DID WE LEARN THAT OUR RESIDENTS
TRULY HAD NO 1DEA THAT THEY HAD AN OPP4RTUNITY TO VIEW 'THESE
DOCUMENTS AS THE PARK OWNERSHIP HAD NOT INFORMED THEM THAT TIiESE
DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR VIEWIIYG. 1T CERTAINLY WAS NOT
INCUMBENT ON THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATiON TO ANNOUNCE THE PURPOSE OF
TE�SE DOCUMENTS. DUE TO 'TF� MANY, MANY QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED FROM
RESIDENTS, TI� HOA COMPOSED AND CIRCULATED A FORM THAT ALLOWED THE
RESIDENTS TO COMMENT ON WHETEIER OR N�T TI�IR LOTS LOOKED PROPERI,Y
DRAWN . WE RECEIVED fi4 RESPONSES TO T'HAT FORM, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED
AND RECAPPED. YOU WiLL SEE THAT 64 RESIDENCES IN'TI�-IE PARK FILGED OUT Tf-�
HOA FORM AND RETURNED IT TO PAT BELL. I HAVE ATTAGHED A COLOR CODED MAP
SHOWIIVG W�-IERE Tf-�SE INQUIRIES OCCUR Tf� RESULTS ARE:
9 RESPONDED TEIAT "COMMON AREA APPEARS TO BE INCLUDED IIV
MY LOT BOUNDARIES".
4 RESPONDED THAT "ADJACENT PROPERTY BUILDINGS APPEAR TO BE
IN MY LOT BOUNDARIES".
49 RESPONDED TNAT "�Y COULD FIND NO VISIBLE VVAY TO
DETERMINE Ti-�IR LOT BOUNDARIES".
24 RESPOI�iDED Tf-iAT "'I'I-�Y ARE PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO DETERMINE
WI-IETT-�R THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES ARE CORRECT".
8 RESPONDED TO "OTHER" AS FOLLOWS:
= "�liIVE APP�AR QBVIOt�S." - - - -
- `LOT BOUNDARIES APPEAR CORRECT."
- "APPEAR OKAY.,,
- "IT LOOKS OK TO US."
-"WE LO�KED AT TI-� MARKS AT THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE ON TI�
- CURB AIYD WE CAN SEE TI� PROPERTY LINE FOR T� WIDTH BUT
- WE CAN'7' SEE THE DEP'TI-i OF OUR PROPERTY."
-"WE DON'T FEEL WE'RE QUALIFIED TO DETERM[NE EXACT
BOUNDARY LINES."
- "NO LOT LINE STAKES!"
2
TNESE INQUIRIES REPRESENT 34% OF THE ENTIRE COMML�IVITY. LET ME SAY
THAT T'HESE ARE NOT "OBJECTIONS" TO TI-� BOUNDARIES BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS OF REStDENTS TRYING TO DETERMINE W��Tf-IER OR NOT Tf-�EY WANT TO
BUY 'IT�[R LOTS AND lUST WHAT IT IS THEY WIt,L BE BUYING.
2) THERE IS CONSIDERABLE CONCERN REGARDING THE "SAMPLE CC&R'S" -1
WANT TE� RECORD TO REFLECT MY CONCERNS REGARDING TI-� LAIVGiJAGE AND
CONDITIONS PRESENT'ED IN TI-IIS "SAMPLE DOCUMENT". I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN
[NVOLVED WITH DOZENS OF CC&R'S OVER THE YEARS AND I AM A1tiIAZED AT THE
INCLUSION OF A REQUIREMENT PERTAINING TO A 5 YEAR C4NTRACT FOR TI� JAMES
AND COMPANY TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY COMMEI�ICINC UPOH THE SALE OF THE
FIRST LOT. TI-IERE 1S OTI-IER UNACCEPTABLE "GRAY MATTER" IN T�IIS DOCUMENT
THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED BEFORE'CE�SE CC&R'S ARE RECORDED.
3) REGARDING THE EXISTING ENC'UMBRANCE OF 55.7 MILLION RECORDED
AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE (NON UTILITYI EASEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY SIIYCE 1971 - ARE T�SE ISSUES T'EiAT ARE ADDRESSED
AND RESOLVED DURING THE C1TY'S RE'VIEW OF TI-IIS APPLICATION?
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE CONCERNED REGARDING HOW THIS APPLICATION
PROCEEDS. THE FURTI-�ST T�ffNG iN OUR MINDS, E�ARTS AND ACTIONS IS TO SLOW
DOWN THE PROCESS. BELIEVE ME, WE WANT IT DONE AND DONE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, NOT AT Tf-IE EXPENSE AND DtSRUP"TION OF TE� EXISTiNG
RESIDENCY OF TE� PARK. WE APPEAL TO YOU ALL HERE AT'T7� CTIY TO ACT ON OUR
BEHALP, AS WELL AS, TE-IE APPLICANT'S. TFiIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE HAS AN INCRED[BLE
PRICE TAG ATTACHED 'TO 1T. WE WANT TO BE DEALT WITH FAIRLY - NOTHIlVG MORE,
NOTI-�VG 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
1_.__�
�
����
�", �y �'•
o� �� �
d '�,, � V�
�
�� o �
�
�- � � m
��
r � o�,
o ;►
�
C'�
to
�
�
�
- . .. _ .. � . ... . ._ CATF.y_..._ _- __.....,...., �X W 3r: ?4 .._�
•---�........,.....,.,_.._,.._.,____
�
....�
�
,���io�.
� � �
nvn�.zv s�RnvGs Hor�ov���s Assoc�,�o�v
GENERAL MEETIlVG
I�IUVEA�ER 14, 20(f4
UWe have looked at the map posted in the Club house per the instructions
of the p�aric owners cepresentatives.
Uwe am unable to dete�mine if t�e lot lines are comect as drawn on that
pmeliminary survey map.
'Therefore I reques�t a r�-survey map justifica�ion of my resident lot
boandaries for the following rea.soas:
`�'� `� Common area t�o be included in m lot boundaries.
� �� y
�
0
T
� �
� �
� Ad��t ��y b�i� �� r� �� my lo� t�aan�.
� The�+e is no visable way for me to deterinine my lot bovndary
line.
SY
1
�
�
�
�
� I am physically unable to deteimine whether my lot boundaries
are cnrnect
g Qther C
� Name:
Fhooe:
5��� tr� cp
Space #
Date:
�- t�s����s
�<�.>D �p -T'o ��E
�uE�t �oNS � ���
�{=�P� �� � L.L- � �t]
t� ��- �---��T.
1��� �°�
This fcyrm► has been provided by the Homeowners Association far the
convenience of the responding resid�nts.
Pnt a �heck where applica�e and r�turn to Pat Bell, President, #171,
773-3771, AS SOON AS POSSIBI..�.
-- --- - - -.,
LAW OFFiCES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFESSIOI�AL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
7299 OCEAN AVENUE, SIJITE 900
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90407-'I000
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 (3 � O) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (370) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclossQgrlawya�s.com
N
0
0
r
O
r*t
c"�
�
�
-o
s
�"
ao
�
'O �
D �
r
7"i7
��.
r �*:
r�n�'"':
trt
�'`- t
�N
-�ov
�
c� -n
�n
�
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 heazd 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 pazk. Only where a city council or boaxd 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 � RLiTTER
PROFE66IONAL CORPORATION
i
a
_� 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.l In In re Matter of Ninomo Communitv 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 Boazd'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 Boazd
may only properly prohibit subsurface dischazge 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 OFFICE3
GILCHRIST � RU'PrER
� PROFE6SIONALCORPORATION
i 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 Pazk 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 SvrinQs, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Sprin�s, 96 Ca1.App.4�' 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 ca11.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST � TER
Prof Corpor ion
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
RHC:aap/ 110644_1 /120304
34I6.006
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 FineRy, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
�• � . �.. —
����
�,
�
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFE.SSIONAL CORPORATIO`
WILSHIRE PALISA�ES BUILDING
'1299 OCEAN AVENIJE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9040'1-'1000
December 6, 2004
V�a 1�nEx
TELEPHONE (370) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: relos�grlawyars.eom
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
Pa1m Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
PlanninQ Commission Hearin�: Tuesdav, December 7, 2004
N
O
O
r
O
r*�
c'�
�
�
a
Z
�
cn
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 Pazk ("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 Anproval No. 3.
�
� ...�
D�
r �
3 rn„ �
o�n
rn7p�
���
�Nm
'�ob
��
D �=y
�
Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Govemment Code
section 66427.5(�(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
L?jW OFFICES
�GILCHRIST 8i RLTTTER
PROFF.SSIO�AL CORPORATIOI�
Chairman Sabby Jonatl�an
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 2
jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined b� the Court of Appeal in El Dorado
Palm Svrin�s, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Sprin�s, 96 Cal.App.4` 1153, 1178 (4�' Dist. 2002)
conversion occurs, and local rent control terminates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no
circumstances ... is it left to local governments to legislate when state law takes effect." (Id. at
p.1179.) Accordingly, the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deleted
entirely.
Condition of Annroval 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 tlieir 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."
I.AW OFFICES
uILCIiRIST � RUTTER
PROFESSIO�AL CORPORATI0�7
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 oration
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TWC:twd 110716 1 /120604
3416.006
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
COPY T� �1
, j r
oATE ���--�w-n�.�.'
lAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFESSIOI�AL CORPORATIO:�
WILSHIRE PALISA�ES BUIL�ING
'1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9040'1-'1000
TELEPHONE (3'IO) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 3944700
E-MAIL: relosaC6�grlswyers.com
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
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Pazcel Map No. 31862
Plannin� Commission Hearin�: Tuesdav, December 29, 2004
N
O
O
r
v
f'rt
n
N
�.J
a
_
0
�
a+
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice-Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
�
��
��
� i i":
o r*� �j
r*t 70 �
v+ x --
s*+ t
�pN�
-�oo
��
D n
�
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.
LAW OFFICES
f ILCI�RIST cCL RU'I�ER
PROFESSIONALCORPORATION
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 sidewallc, nor is
there any sidewalk in front of the apartrnent 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 in&astructure 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
GILCIiRIST � RUTTER
PROFE93IOI�AL CORPORATIOti
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 SnrinQs, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Snrin�s, 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.
��.W OFFICES
�ILCHRIST &- RUTTER
PROF66610�ALCORPORATION
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 Corporation
Richard H. Ciose
Of the Firm
T WC:twd I 11262 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 CORPORATIO:V
WILSHIRE PALISA�ES BUILDING
1 299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90407-�000
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 Hearin�: Thursdav, February 10, 2005
TELEPHONE (3�0) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (3'10) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclosa�grlewyars.com
N
�
�
cr�
�
r*'1
�
1
�
�
_
�
..
ut
v
c�
v�
a�
r �
.s. n �_.,
^ rn �-�
rnti��
����
� �,
^' "' m
�op
�
c� �,
D n
m
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, 20�5
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 Heazing
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 Ievels 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. t
If (and only i�, 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
Communitv 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.)
Z 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,
GILC ST & RUTTER
Pro ssi C oration
%
�'
:%
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TWC:twc/ 112718 I . DOG020405
34 ] 6.0�6
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}