HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Res 05-18 PM 31862 Indian Springs Mobile Home Park - 49305 Hwy 111 APN 652-120-007REQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission
approving a parcel map to establish a one -lot subdivision with a
condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home
Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007).
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
Indian Springs, Ltd.
A California Limited Liability Company
c/o James and Associates, Inc.
255 N. El Cielo Road, Suite 286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
CASE NO: PM 31862
DATE: February 10, 2005
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Executive Summary
Project Description
City Attorney Response to Appeal
Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal
Planning Commission Staff Reports dated December 7 and December 29, 2004
Planning Commission Minutes of December 7 and December 29, 2004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319
Exhibits submitted by Applicant/Appellant
Letters and Exhibits from Residents
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-18 ' denying the appeal,
affirming the decision of the Planning Commission approving PM 31862,
Staff Report
Case No. PM 31862
Page 2
February 10, 2005
subject to conditions, and amending Condition No. 5 as described in the City
Attorney's response.
Executive Summary:
The applicant requests approval of this one -lot parcel map with a
condominium overlay to change the ownership structure from rental
mobile home park to single family manufactured housing condominium
units.
The proposed map will not alter the existing 191-unit density or impact
the physical appearance of the park.
Residents will be able to purchase their condominium unit as described
in the legal description of their space "from below grade level of 18
inches to above grade level of 40 feet, along with a 1 /191 st interest in
the common areas and facilities, and a membership in the homeowners
association."
There will be no displacement of residents. Residents will be able to
choose to 1) buy their condominium unit; or 2) continue to rent their
space.
The appellant basically challenges the City's legal basis to impose the
condition requiring that the Park be connected to the sewer system on
the parcel map and claims that the system is in good working order.
The City Attorney in his response to the appeal concludes that state law
allows the City to impose the condition requiring "connection to the
regional sewer system, if the City finds that sewering is necessary to
mitigate an existing health and safety condition."
Testimony on the Planning Commission record supports inclusion of the
condition because of the age of the system and the nature of the system
is such that even when it operates perfectly, it does not remove salts or
nitrates which are a threat to groundwater resources.
Staff Report
Case No. PM 31862
Page 3
February 10, 2005
Background:
At the Planning Commission hearings no one objected to the conversion of the
park. The issue before Planning Commission was whether to impose a condition
requiring connection to the sewer system. Planning Commission, following
hearings held December 7 and December 29, 2004, adopted on a 5-0 vote its
Resolution No. 2319 approving the parcel map, subject to conditions.
January 10, 2005 this timely appeal was filed relating specifically and only to
the inclusion of Condition No. 5 of the Planning Commission Resolution which
states:
"That the subdivider, prior to the sale of each unit, shall connect said
unit to the public sewer system and provide evidence of same to the
purchaser."
The City Attorney has provided a response to the appeal, a copy of which is
attached.
Summary of Testimony Presented to Planning Commission:
Over the course of two hearings, the Planning Commission heard approximately
three and a half hours of testimony from 20 individuals. Speaking for the
applicant were two attorneys (Loftin and Close) and Larry Owens, an engineer
who maintains the septic system at Indian Springs Mobile Home Park.
Mr. Jose Angel, Acting Assistant Executive Office for the Water Quality Control
Board, discussed at length the issues relating to septic systems.
Fifteen residents of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park also spoke.
Mr. Angel said that there are several areas of concern. First, the system is old.
It is at least 30 years old. The average life of a septic system is 25 years.
The system is dense in that there are 44 systems serving 191 units on a 34.7-
acre property.
Staff Report
Case No. PM 31862
Page 4
February 10, 2005
Next the septic system does not have leach fields. It has seepage pits which are
essentially a hole in the ground conveying the effluent downward. They
wouldn't see a failure unless there is a back up inside a house. Even when these
systems work perfectly, they do not remove salts or nitrates.
The park does not have a water monitoring system in place, so they do not have
the actual physical evidence, but based on his 15 years of experience in the
field it was his opinion that the system represented a substantial threat to water
quality based on the age of the system, the density of the system, and the
nature of the systems. Mr. Angel's testimony is found in the December 29,
2004 minutes at pages 4 thru 16 and pages 35 and 36.
Ms. Loftin advised Commission that the park owner has spent $300,000
upgrading the 1970 septic system. To connect to the sewer will be expensive,
approximately $4 million or $21,000 per unit because the sewer would need to
be extended from Highway 74 into the park and all of the connections were in
the backs of the units.
Ms. Loftin's comments were reported in the December 7 minutes at pages 36
thru 39, and in the December 29 minutes at pages 16 thru 29 and pages 47
and 48.
Mr. Owens said that he had provided a verbal cost estimate to install the sewer
system (page 22 of the December 29, 2004 minutes). December 7, 2004 (page
39) Mr. Owens reported that his firm had upgraded the septic system, that it
is in good working order and that it should last indefinitely.
Mr. Close in his December 7, 2004 comments (pages 40 and 41) said that the
City, by State Law, was limited in the conditions which can be imposed on a
conversion. These limitations were upheld by the appellate court in recent
litigation with the City of Palm Springs.
December 29, 2004 Mr. Close at pages 46 and 47 of the minutes reminded
Commission that septic systems are not technically complex. When they fail,
they are easily fixed for a very reasonable cost.
Staff Report
Case No. PM 31862
Page 5
February 10, 2005
The comments of the 15 park residents are found at pages 42 thru 46 of the
December 7, 2004 minutes and pages 29-46 of the December 29, 2004
minutes.
• One gentleman said he had contacted CVWD and they indicated that cost
to connect to the sewer would be $6,000 to $10,000 per unit, not
$21,000 per unit.
• Several residents supported requiring the sewer connection as a condition
of this approval.
•
Several residents said that the occupants of these units are only one or
two person households who use very little water (i.e., they only use the
washing machine/dish washers once per week). They requested that the
sewer connection requirement be waived.
• Several residents indicated that they had experienced septic system
malfunctions. They noted that the management had been responsive to
performing pumping when needed, performing repairs and installing a
new tank. One gentleman explained that he had odor issues for many
years and that sewage ran under his unit.
Prior to Commission acting on the application, City Attorney Hargreaves
responded to Commission questions and clarified that the City Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.60) which requires properties to connect to the
sewer prior to sale, applies to this property, but it did not necessarily apply to
this proceeding. This proceeding is approval of a parcel map and it has by state
statute a very limited window for making conditions. The fact that the City has
an ordinance one way or another would not be a sufficient basis to apply that
condition to this parcel map. If Commission intends to impose Condition No. 5,
Mr. Hargreaves advised that there needed to be a specific finding by the
Planning Commission that Condition No. 5 is necessary to address an existing
health and safety condition based on the evidence presented regarding the
nature of the system, the history of the system, the density of the system, and
the age of the system.
Accordingly, the Commission on a motion by Finerty, second by Lopez,
determined that there is an existing health and safety condition due to the age
Staff Report
Case No. PM 31862
Page 6
February 10, 2005
of the septic system which they know to be at least 30 years old, the density
of the Indian Springs Park, the very nature of a septic tank which contaminates
the ground water, mainly due to nitrates, the testimony received from Mr.
Angel, the letter from CVWD, and the letter from the California Water Quality
Board, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319 approving PM
31862, subject to conditions as amended. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
Submitted by:
Planning Manager
Approval:
>AA,
Hohier Croy
ACM for Development Services
Itm
Department Head:
LIXJ�
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Orte
City Manage
(Wpdocs\tm\sr\pm31862.cc4)
MEMORANDUM_
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
City of Palm Desert
FROM: Robert W. Hargreaves, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: February 2, 2005
RE: Appeal by Indian Springs Ltd; PM31862
Appellant Indian Springs, Ltd., has appealed the Planning Commission's
imposition of Condition No. 5 on Parcel Map 31862. The approval of the parcel map is a
precondition to appellant's conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park to resident
ownership. Condition No. 5 provides that all homes within the park be connected to the sewer
prior to sale. The Planning Commission imposed the sewer condition pursuant to Government
Code section 66482.1(d), which provides that a local agency may condition a parcel map for
mobile home conversion only with "offsite design or improvement requirements ... necessary to
mitigate an existing health or safety condition."
In its appeal, appellant challenges the city's legal authority to impose Condition
No. 5. First, appellant argues that Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 (Sewer Connection
Requirements Prior to Property Sale or Transfer of Ownership) applies only to properties listed
in "Exhibit A" of the Chapter, which does not include Indian Springs.
As a preliminary matter, the Commission imposed Condition No. 5 pursuant to
Government Code section 66428.1, not Chapter 8.60. Chapter 8.60 will apply to the sale of
homes within the Indian Springs Mobile Home park regardless of whether that requirement is
imposed as a condition of the parcel map pursuant to Section 66428.1.
Furthermore, Chapter 8.60 clearly establishes the City's long-term policy that
septic tanks be eliminated upon change of ownership of property. Staff and the city attorney
both interpret Chapter 8.60 to apply regardless of whether the particular property is listed on
Exhibit A. Ultimately, the City Council would be the final arbiter of it's intent in adopting the
ordinance. But that is an argument for another day. Condition No. 5 is imposed pursuant to
Government Code section 66428.1(d), not pursuant to chapter 8.60.
Next appellant claims that the City does not have jurisdiction to impose the sewer
condition because the California Department of Housing and Community Development has
exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobile home park. To the contrary, Section
66428.1(d) provides explicit authority to impose that type of condition in the context of a mobile
home park conversion.
Section 66428.1(d) requires that a condition be (1) an offsite improvement; and
(2) necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. The statute does not explicitly
define "offsite improvement requirements" or "existing health or safety conditions". The sewer
requirement has both offsite and onsite characteristics. We have found some indirect guidance
of legislative intent in the legislative history of Section 66428.1. The section was intended to
C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT Memorandum re Indain Springs.doc
facilitate mobile home conversions by limiting the procedural and substantive requirements for
such conversions. The legislature was concerned that local agencies not capriciously impose
conditions that would make conversions unnecessarily expensive. In one version of the bill, the
proposed legislation distinguished between concerns under which parcel maps would be required
(adequate fire flow and water facilities to service the park, sanitary disposal facilities adequate to
service the park, and flood water drainage control designed to accommodate 100-year floods)
from relatively less significant concerns for which parcel maps would not be required (interior
street widths and size, interior street lights and trees, set -back requirements, individual sewer,
water, electric, gas, telephone, and television services, interior paving design, interior parking
requirements, etc.") It appears that the Legislature ultimately generalized the first set of
conditions as being "offsite improvements necessary to mitigate existing health and safety
concerns".
The sewering of the whole park would be consistent with the first set of concerns,
in that "sanitary disposal facilities adequate to service the park" are specifically mentioned. The
sewer infrastructure would be a park -wide facility, necessary to address health and safety
concerns both within the park, and the region generally. Numerous residents have commented
on continuing problems with the park's current septic system. Additionally, both the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and CVWD have expressed concerns that the high density
discharge from the park's sewer system constitutes a current threat to the quality of the ground
water, upon which the Coachella Valley depends for its drinking water. Under these conditions,
we believe that the requirements of Section 66428.1(d) are satisfied.
Appellant further argues that the Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot
"require abandonment of the septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system
will cause water quality damage." Representatives of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
have indicated that the Board would likely require abandonment of the Indian Springs septic
system in the future, if the city ultimately decides not to impose the sewering condition. But the
fact that Regional Water Quality Control Board has not yet acted does not limit the City's ability
to do so, given that Section 66428.1(d) provides explicit authority to do so.
Consequently, it is our opinion that the City is within its jurisdiction to condition
Parcel Map 31862 on connection to the regional sewer system, if the City finds that sewering is
necessary "to mitigate an existing health or safety condition."
We do recommend that Condition No. 5 be modified to reflect additional
restrictions of Section 66428.1(e). That subsection provides that, if the city does impose
conditions on the parcel map, the city must enter into an unsecured improvement agreement that
allows the applicant one year to install any required improvements. Condition No. 5, as
currently worded, requires that each unit be connected to the sewer prior to sale, which may
occur prior to the expiration of the first year. Consequently, we recommend that the condition be
modified to provide:
"Prior to the recording of the parcel map, subdivider shall enter into an improvement agreement
committing subdivider to install park -wide sewer infrastructure to connect to the public sewer system
within one year. Each unit sold during the first year of the improvement agreement shall be connected to
the sewer system within the first year of the agreement. After the first anniversary of the agreement, each
unit shall be connected to the sewer prior to sale of that unit."
-2
C:\Documents and Settings\Robert.Hargreaves\My Documents\PALM DESERT Memorandum re [ndain Springs.doc
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
January 31, 2005
VIA FEDEX
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert.
City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Wilma Michelson
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
City Council Hearing: Thursday, February 10, 2005
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclosa®9rlawyers.com
rn
coo
Dear Mayor Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson and Councilmembers Benson, Kelly and Spiegel:
Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Appeal by Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
("Indian Springs") of Condition No. 5 imposed by the Planning Commission on its parcel map
application to convert the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park to resident condominium
ownership. The City Council is scheduled to hear the Appeal on February 10, 2005.
Condition No. 5, which is the only issue raised on appeal by Indian Springs, purports to
require the costly removal of the Park's septic system and the construction of a private sewer line
within the Park and connection to the City's sewer line. Our engineer and construction company
has estimated that the cost of the project will be approximately $4,270,000. We have also
received a second proposal for $4,800,000.
It is unfair to require Indian Springs and its residents to pay for sewer system
infrastructure that is normally provided by the City. Despite the disruption and collateral costs to
Indian Springs inherent in a sewer connection, however, we would cooperate in such a project if
the costs and expenses of constructing the sewer line were borne by the City and/or other public
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
City Council
January 31, 2005
Page 2
agencies. Such a compromise would be fairer to the Park and its residents and would enable the
conversion to proceed without delay and without litigation.
However, any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a
requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and will be vigorously
challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the
Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage and harm to its
residents.
As set forth in detail in the attached Appeal, the City does not have the legal authority to
impose Condition No. 5 to its approval of PM 31862. City Municipal Code Section 8.60 (the
"Ordinance") is not applicable to Indian Springs as it is not one of the properties identified in the
Ordinance or its attachment. Furthermore, even if the Ordinance did purport to compel Indian
Springs to connect to the City's sewer system, such a requirement would be illegal and
unenforceable for several reasons.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive
jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the
necessary legislation pursuant to Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, to
assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park.
In addition, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a
local agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements upon an
application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Government Code
section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from
interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to
extract improvements, such as sewer systems, or other exactions from the parks.
Accordingly, City Municipal Code Section 8.60 is void on its face (for the reasons
explained above and in the Appeal), and any attempt to enforce it against Indian Springs will
force a challenge to the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60 is void will
likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to comply with its
terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. In addition, its enforcement against the
Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions for which
compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full compliance with all applicable
regulations.
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
City Council
January 31, 2005
Page 3
As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on
the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club ("El Dorado") was struck down by
the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4th 1153 (2002).
The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least
$6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those
damages.
If Condition No. 5 is not removed it will necessarily result in litigation, which will delay
the conversion of the Park and the residents' ability to purchase their lots. Given the current
trends in real estate prices and interest rates, a delay of two years will cause the lot prices to
increase further to the harm of the residents, as occurred in El Dorado. In addition, mortgage
interest rates could be substantially higher.
Although Indian Springs has been told the City is interested in exploring a solution to
everyone's benefit wherein public funds may be made available to finance the sewer system
construction, we have yet to hear anything further.
We look forward to working with you to avoid litigation, satisfy the desire of the
residents and to benefit the City of Palm Desert.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
Profess enaY rporation
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
COPY TO Opt^ "ft
TWC:twc/112473_1.DOC/122104
3416.006
Enclosure
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express — w/encl.)
Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express — w/encl.)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express — w/encl.)
DATE a—�. �s
llDec-07-04 12:39pm From -PALM DESE CITY CLERK
T603400574 • T-703 P.01/01 F-62B
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
APPLICATION TO APPEAL
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. PM. 31862 Date of Decision:
Name of Appellant
Indian Springs, Ltd. Phone (310) 393-4000
Richard H. Close, Esq., Gilchrist & Rutter
Address, 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 900 Santa Monica CA 90401
Description of PM 31862 to convert rental mobilehome park to condominii
Application or Matter Considered:
park.
12/29/04
4,1
vz--,
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets If necessary):
Please see attached sheets 1-3
Oink
See Attached
(Signature of Appellant)
FOR OFFICIAL. USE ONLY ao
Date Appeal Fled: �— I - Ci 5Fee Received: , ! ��
Treasurer's Receipt No. O SP Received by: c' -i ate _
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official:
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelie D. Klassen, City Clerk
HArkleoefeWPastieNPDOCSAFORMSNeppi aacee►.wca
CO Y
Rev sneraz
• •
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION TO APPEAL
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER: PM 31862
Reason for Appeal:
Applicant and Appellant is Indian Springs, Ltd., owner of the Indian Springs Mobile
Home Park in Palm Desert ("Indian Springs" or the "Park"). Applicant hereby appeals the
approval by the Planning Commission of PM 31862 on December 29, 2004 only as to Condition
of Approval Number 5 ("Condition No. 5"). Condition No. 5 states:
"That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 and
Municipal Code Chapter 8.60, the subdivider prior to the sale of each unit, shall
connect said unit to the public sewer and provide evidence of same to the
purchaser."
Despite the fact that the septic system currently operating at the Park functions properly,
is not in violation of water discharge requirements and does not represent a health hazard,
Condition No. 5 would require the costly removal of the septic system and the construction of a
private sewer line within the Park and connection to the City's sewer line. Our consultants have
estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would cost in excess of $4,000,000.
Indian Springs recognizes the general policy of the City and the Coachella Valley Water
District ("CVWD") to encourage connection to the sewer system, and we are amenable to
working with the City and others toward that goal. However, the cost to it of connecting to the
sewer system is not merely that of a single connection from a building to the City's sewer main
as with most other developments, but rather would require expensive construction and
maintenance of a private sewer line within the Park, connection of each of the 191 Park homes to
that sewer line, and connection of the private sewer line to the City's main sewer line, in addition
to the expensive procedures required to remove the septic system.
In fairness to Indian Springs and its residents, they should not be required to pay for
sewer system infrastructure that is normally provided by the City. Despite the disruption and
collateral costs to Indian Springs inherent in a sewer connection, however, we would agree to
cooperate in such a project if the costs and expenses of constructing the sewer line were borne by
the City and/or other public agencies. Such a compromise would be fairer to the Park and its
residents and would enable the conversion to proceed without delay and without litigation.
Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel map approval a
requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system is illegal and will be vigorously
challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the
Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage.
[TWC:twc/111575_1.DOC/010305/3416.006]
1
• •
The City does not have the legal authority to impose Condition No. 5 to its approval of
PM 31862. The application of Section 8.60 (the "Ordinance") is limited to those properties
listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the properties
identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment. In addition, the Comprehensive General Plan/Water
Resources Element Policy No. 4 ("Policy No. 4") does not require new or existing developments
to be connected to the CVWD sewage treatment system.
Furthermore, even if the Ordinance or Policy No. 4 did purport to compel Indian Springs
to connect to the City's sewer system, such a requirement would be illegal and unenforeceable
for several reasons.
First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer
system. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive
jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of
supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the
requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality
or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has
not enacted the necessary legislation.
Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local
agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other
things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership.
Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a
conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements
unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other
dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact,
Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent
municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership
with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks.
In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a
septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality
damage.' In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board
Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board
overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to
the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section
13360. The State Water Board stated:
"Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate.
If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of
waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger
connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference
for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section
13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board
Water Code §§ 13280-13284.
[T WC:twc/ 111575_1.DOC/010305/3416.006]
2
1
may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of
Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied."
Testimony by Mr. Jose Angel of the Regional Water Quality Control Board at the
December 29, 2004 hearing regarding PM 38612 made clear that Indian Springs' septic system is
functioning properly, is not in violation of water discharge requirements and does not represent a
health hazard. He further stated that the Board had no authority to require the Park to connect to
the sewer system.
Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian
Springs will force a challenge to the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60
is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to
comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60
is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms
exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its
enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal
constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full
compliance with all applicable regulations.
As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on
the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El
Dorado Palm Snrinas,_Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4a' 1153 (2002). The delay
caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in
damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Applicant appeals as to the imposition of
Condition of Approval Number 5.
[TWC:twc/111575_1.DOG010305/3416.006)
INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a California limited partnership
By: Goldstein Properties, Inc., a California corporation
Its: General Partner
: James . Goldstein
ts: President
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARCEL MAP
CREATING A ONE -LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A CONDOMINIUM
OVERLAY AT THE 191-SPACE INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME
PARK LOCATED AT 49-305 HIGHWAY 74 (APN 652-120-007).
CASE NO. PM 31862
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on
the 7th and 29th days of December, 2004, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider
-the-request-rf-IN-DIAN SPRINGS TD:, a California--Limited-Liability-Company, for
approval of PM 31862; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has preliminarily
determined that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said parcel map and
conditions imposed thereon:
1. The project as it exists and as it will continue to exist with 191 units complies
with the medium density provisions of the General Plan.
2. The project as conditioned complies with the General Plan and with the
provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5.
3. The Indian Springs septic system represents an existing health and safety
condition that needs to be mitigated by a requirement of connection to the
sewer system because:
• It is a high density system, serving 191 units on a 34.7-acre site.
• Septic systems, by their nature, threaten groundwater resources,
because of pass through of nitrates and certain organic compounds.
The septic system is 35 years old, where the average useful life is 25
years.
• The septic system has had a history of problems and poor
maintenance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319
•
The Acting Assistant Executive Officer for the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board testified that the system poses a threat
to groundwater resources.
• Correspondence from both the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the Coachella Valley Water District documents the
threat that septic systems pose to groundwater resources and
Teicommend-that-septic-systems-be discontinued.
• Testimony of the residents regarding a history of problems with the
system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the project is a
Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA.
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve PM 31862, subject to
the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 29th day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ SCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
STEP EN . SMITH, ActingS- -
Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
SABBY J • NA N, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PM 31862
Department of Community Development:
The-application-d€scribed-herein-shatl-be-subject--to the -restrictions -and -limitations
set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and
federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
2. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), the subdivision shall offer
each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or
subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident
ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. Subdivider to provide the City with
a certified statement as to the date of delivery of said offer.
3. That pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all non purchasing
residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or
charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the
preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal
annual increases over a four-year period.
4. That pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all non purchasing
residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges
for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent
by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years
immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent
be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase
in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period.
5. That the subdivider, prior to the sale of each unit, shall connect said unit to the
public sewer system and provide evidence of same to the purchaser.
6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert
as well as its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or
annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission, any City Board, or
the City _Council-conceming this subdivision, which action is brought -within the time
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2319
period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. This section shall not
apply to any action brought by the applicant to challenge the City's actions in this
matter. The City shall promptly notify Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or
proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is
imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b). This section shall not
apply to any action brought by applicant to challenge the City's actions in this
matter.
Department of Public Works:
1. Application approval by City is subject to complete parcel map being submitted to
the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a
field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and
City Ordinances.
//
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 29, 2004
CASE NO: PM 31862
REQUEST: Approval of a parcel map to establish a one -lot subdivision with a
condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile
Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007).
APPLICANT: Indian Springs, Ltd.
A California Limited Liability Company
c/o James and Associates, Inc.
255 N. El Cielo Road, Suite 286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
BACKGROUND:
This case was originally before Planning Commission at its December 7, 2004
meeting at which time, at the request of the City Attorney, the matter was
continued to January 18, 2005. The reason for the continuance was to permit
staff and the City Attorney to review in depth concerns which the applicant had
raised with respect to certain conditions of approval staff had imposed in the
draft resolution.
Following the December 7, 2004 meeting, the City Attorney determined that
due to unforeseen circumstances related to the permit streamlining act, the
project needed to be acted upon earlier than January 18, 2005. Consequently,
staff renoticed the case for hearing December 29, 2004. All tenants in the park
were notified, as well as property owners within 300 feet.
II. DISCUSSION:
In correspondence received December 6, 2004 and in testimony presented at
the December 7, 2004 hearing, the applicant's legal representative raised
concerns with respect to several of the conditions of approval.
A. CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 3
3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all
non purchasing residents who are not lower income households,
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 29, 2004
as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the
monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of
any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion
rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal
standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. Said
amount to be determined through the City rent review process.
The applicant's representatives challenge the inclusion of the last
sentence. "Said amount to be determined through the City rent review
process." Their reasons are delineated in their letter dated December 6,
2004 (copy attached).
The City Attorney has reviewed this issue and concludes that jurisdiction
of the City's rent review process terminates upon sale of the first unit
and that the last sentence of the condition should be deleted.
B. CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 5
5. That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element Policy No.
4 and Municipal Code Chapter 8.60, the subdivider prior to the
sale of each unit, shall connect said unit to the public sewer and
provide evidence of same to the purchaser.
The applicant challenges this condition on a variety of grounds (see
December 6, 2004 letter).
The mobilehome conversion law authorizes the City to impose offsite
design or improvement requirements if "necessary to mitigate an existing
health and safety condition." The City will be presenting testimony
supporting the necessity of connecting the park to the sewer system.
This testimony is contained in written correspondence attached hereto
from the Coachella Valley Water District and the California Water Quality
Board.
C. CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 6
6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
of Palm Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 29, 2004
any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any
approval of the City, the City Planning Commission, any City
Board, or the City Council concerning this subdivision, which
action is brought within the time period provided for in
Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall promptly
notify Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or proceeding and
the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is
imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b).
The applicant requests that the scope of said condition be limited by
adding to the end of the first sentence the words, "except as to any
claim, action, or proceeding brought by the applicant or any of its
residents to set aside, void, or annul any of the Conditions of Approval."
The City Attorney advises that, in all fairness, the applicant should not
be required to fund the City's defense of an action brought by the
applicant to challenge the City's actions, unless ordered to do so by a
court. The City Attorney recommends that the condition be modified to
add: "...this section shall not apply to any action brought by applicant to
challenge the City's actions in this matter."
D. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
1. Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel
map being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and
approval. The parcel map shall be based on a field survey in
conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act
and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not
be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot/parcel corners
to the approval of the City Surveyor.
And Condition No. 2, which was requested by Public Works to be added
at the December 7, 2004 meeting.
2. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and
26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in
accordance with applicable City standards.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 29, 2004
• Deceleration lane required on Highway 74.
• 8' sidewalk required on Highway 74.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above
referenced improvements shall be dedicated to Caltrans prior to
the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
The applicant questioned whether these conditions were addressing
"existing health and safety conditions".
The Public Works Department has prepared a response supporting the
conditions of approval (see memo attached).
III. CONCLUSION:
The City Attorney advises that while the City is limited as to the conditions
which may be imposed, conditions may be imposed if they are addressing
issues of an existing health and safety condition or matters permitted directly
by government code.
Commission should weigh the testimony/reports supporting the inclusion of the
conditions against the applicant's concerns.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
A. Adoption of the findings.
B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No , approving PM
31862, subject to conditions.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Public Works memo dated December 6, 2004
D. Applicant's correspondence of December 3 and December 6, 2004
E. Letter from James & Associates, Inc., dated December 2, 2004
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 29, 2004
F. Letter from Larry Owens, Tri-Star, dated December 3, 2004
G. Notice to Indian Springs Residents of Tentative Map Hearing for
December 29, 2004, signed by Sue Loftin
H. Report from CVWD
I. Report from California. Water Quality Board
J. Report from Public Works
K. Staff Report from April 14, 1994 regarding Sewer Ordinance
L. December 7, 2004 Staff Report
Prepared by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Review a Concu
k
omer Croy
ACM for De
/t m
pment Services
5
Reviewed and Approved by:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARCEL MAP
CREATING A ONE -LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A CONDOMINIUM
OVERLAY AT THE 191-SPACE INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME
PARK LOCATED AT 49-305 HIGHWAY 74 (APN 652-120-007).
CASE NO. PM 31862
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 29th day of December, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request of INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability Company, for approval of PM
31862; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has
preliminarily determined that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the
purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said
parcel map:
1. The project as it exists and as it will continue to exist with 191 units
complies with the medium density provisions of the General Plan.
2. The project as conditioned complies with the General Plan and with the
provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of'the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the project is
a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA.
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve PM 31862, subject
to conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 29th day of December, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PM 31862
Department of Community Development:
1. The application described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations
set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and
federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
2. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), the subdivision shall
offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium
or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to
resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. Subdivider to provide
the City with a certified statement as to the date of delivery of said offer.
3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all non
purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any
applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase
from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal
conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal
standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period.
4. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all non
purchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section
50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any
applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase
from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly
increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except
that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than
the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the
most recently reported period.
5. That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 and
Municipal Code Chapter 8.60, the subdivider prior to the sale of each unit, shall
connect said unit to the public sewer and provide evidence of same to the
purchaser.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm
Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission,
any City Board, or the City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is
brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section
66499.37. This section shall not apply to any action brought by the applicant
to challenge the City's actions in this matter. The City shall promptly notify
Indian Springs of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is imposed pursuant to
Government Code Section § 66474.9(b). This section shall not apply to any
action brought by applicant to challenge the City's actions in this matter.
Department of Public Works:
1. Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being
submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall
be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include,
but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot/parcel corners to the
approval of the City Surveyor.
2. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards.
Deceleration lane required on Highway 74.
8' sidewalk required on Highway 74.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
//
MY Of PRIM IJESERT
73-51C . _0 WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-061 I
FAX' 76D 341-7098
InfoInfo0 p,lm-deserr o,g
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PM 31862
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability
Company, for approval of a parcel map to establish a one (1) lot subdivision with a
condominium overlay to change the ownership structure from rental mobile home park to
single family manufactured housing condominium units at the 191-space Indian Springs
Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007).
The initial hearing on December 7, 2004, was continued to January 18, 2005; however,
due to unforeseen circumstances, the hearing will now be held on Wednesday, December
29, 2004, at 6:00 p.m.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
tr
sr 71'l
475
111111 /t j ,
/111111
SLUE 10GE
IIII
tr
0
OM
ED1YE , 'l
E*i
1
SAID public hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 29, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
December 17, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
SCALE: 1" = 200'
z
y
,W%I T �
M.OL410I0 A[
£r06,,
R
•
E
T75.
9
2
z
7
£o
rs
6f
•
(1)
ieeordcd Itan,:..
I S
T
N
cs
00
it
a
ft
as
a
86'LZ£t 300,05000 S
i//
1-3 .
/ I a g Q-
-P
/ 5�344
/ ts1 Oh 4
/ E tom- ..
1 > i p. '0
-.
A 7 - , nl
/ tee A
1 u ` 1.00.11000 S
,LL'91£1 M..00.11.00N
4
Z`I
.Z9'£ZZ
s Instrument # 1 1 108
(12) Coachella Vallee Water District Easement Reworded June 6. 1981
N 89°15'30"W 1227.84'
F
°z
• ^Nr+. er 4),O
VD00r
O N Ose n
ON 0)
��a
g ^NM
ono
C
Order# 42010273 - K04 Plotted
SHEET 1 OF 1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
DATE: December 6, 2004
L
2004
:014tfr'.\iTV DEVELCPME\T DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above referenced project:
(1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted
to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a
field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City
Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal
street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor.
(2) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards.
Deceleration lane required on Highway 74.
8' sidewalk required on Highway 74.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be
dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
Mark Green ood, P.E.
G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval \PMAPS\TPM 31862 revised.wpd
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM IVE
REVISION #3
DEC 2 9 2004
"OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning CITY OF PALM DESERT
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
DATE: December 29, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above referenced
project:
(1) Application approval by City is subject to complete parcel map being submitted to
the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a
field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and
City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall be in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances.
fszMark Greenwood, P.E.
G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval\PMAPS\TPM 31862 3rd revision .wpd
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTR
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS:
JOHN W. McFADDEN, PRESIDENT
PETER NELSON, VICE PRESIDENT
TELLIS CODEKAS
RUSSELL KITAHARA
PATRICIA A. LARSON
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
December 21, 2004
RECEIVED
JAN 2005
Dear Mr. Ortega: CO MIJNrTy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY OR PALM DESERT CITY MANAGER
Subject: Parcel Man No 31862 Indian Strings Mobile Home Park
It is our understanding that the referenced parcel map is for the purpose of creating a
condominium project from an existing mobile home park. The City of Palm Desert is
recommending that the conversion include the connection to the local sewer.
On -site sewage disposal systems (OSDS), including septic tanks, are well know sources of
groundwater contamination. The most studied contaminate is nitrate, which is a byproduct
of wastewater treatment in OSDSs. Nitrate leaving OSDS mixes with groundwater and can
contaminate nearby drinking water wells. When nitrate levels exceed drinking water
standards, the contaminated wells are either treated to remove the nitrate, which can be cost
prohibitive, or replaced by new wells drilled in uncontaminated areas of the groundwater
basin.
There are many factors that influence the impact OSDSs have on the quality of groundwater,
including density, population served, water levels, wastewater volume, maintenance
frequency and soil conditions. Often, the OSDS density the number of OSDSs per unit
of land area) is a driving factor that is used by regulatory agencies to control adverse water
quality impacts from OSDSs. One such control to protect groundwater in the Desert Hot
Springs area is prohibiting more than one OSDS per one-half acre of land area, which
translates town OSDS density of 2 per acre.
We understand Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has 191 equivalent dwelling units
served by OSDS, within a land area of about 35 acres. This equals an OSDS density of
approximately 5.5 per acre. Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has a high density of OSDSs,
which represents an increased risk of groundwater contamination. It is for this reason that
the connection to the community sewer is recommended.
OFFICERS:
STEVEN B. ROBBINS,
GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
MARK BEUHLER,
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
JULIA FERNANDEZ, SECRETARY
DAN PARKS, ASST. TO GENERAL MANAGER
REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 0721.1
TRUE CONSERVATION �y
USE WATER WISELY DATE%V'd C/ P
RECEIVED
DEC 2 7 2004
GIVEN TO. ! ___
Carlos Ortega, City Manager -2-
December 21, 2004
Sewer service may be provided from existing sewers located on the north and east
boundaries of the existing parcel. The District's Engineering Department is available to
provide the necessary technical information required to connect the park to the existing
sewer system.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact either
Bruce Clark, Principal Sanitation Engineer, at extension 2266, or Steve Bigley, Water
Quality Specialist, at extension 2286.
BC:mdlenglsan\declortega
Yours very truly,
134(496,--(
r Steve Robbins
General Manager -Chief Engineering
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUT'1'LR
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
December 3, 2004
VIA FEDEX
David J. Erwin, Esq.
Best, Best & Krieger LLP
74-760 Highway 111
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Dear Mr. Erwin:
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: roloss@grlawyers.com
RECEIVED
A: 0 7 2€004
COIvMMUNITY DEVELCPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
On November 29, 2004, Sue Loftin and I met with Philip Drell and Stephen R. Smith of
the City of Palm Desert (the "City") Planning Department regarding Indian Springs' Parcel Map
Application Number 31862 (the "Application") to be heard by the Palm Desert Planning
Commission (the "Commission") on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. They stated that staff would
recommend to the Commission that it condition approval of the Application on Indian Springs'
abandonment of its septic system and construction of a sewer system within Indian Springs
Mobile Home Park ("the Park") that would connect to the City sewer system. They contended
that Palm Desert Municipal Code section 8.60 ("Section 8.60" or the "Ordinance") requires the
sewer condition.
To the contrary, by its very terms, the application of Section 8.60 is limited to those
properties listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the
properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment.
Furthermore, if the City were to contend that its Ordinance compelled Indian Springs to
connect to the City's sewer system, such an ordinance would be illegal and unenforeceable for
several reasons.
First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer
system. ` The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive
jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of
supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the
requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RtJPTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David J. Erwin, Esq.
December 3, 2004
Page 2
or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has
not enacted the necessary legislation.
Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local
agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other
things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership.
Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a
conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements
unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other
dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact,
Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent
municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership
with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks.
In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a
septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality
damage.' In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board
Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board
overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to
the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section
13360. The State Water Board stated:
"Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate.
If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of
waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger
connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference
for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section
13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board
may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of
Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied."
Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian
Springs will force us to challenge the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60
is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to
comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60
is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms
exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its
enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal
constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full
compliance with all applicable regulations.
Water Code §§ 13280-13284.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David J. Erwin, Esq.
December 3, 2004
Page 3
Our consultant's have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would
cost in excess of $4,000,000. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel
map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system will be vigorously
challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the
Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage.
As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on
the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El
Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 (2002). The delay
caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in
damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages.
Accordingly, we expect that you will advise the Planning Commission at its Hearing on
December 7, 2004 that it must not impose a sewer connection as a condition of approval of
parcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST : • ' TER
Prof sue" Corpor. ion
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
RHC:aap/110644 1 /120304
3416.006
cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
Sabby Jonathan, Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Sonia Campbell, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Jim Lopez, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
December 6, 2004
VIA FEDEx
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: relose@grlawyars. corn
RECEIVED
EEC J 7 2004
0M,MUN?TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 7, 2004
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community Development Staff Report regarding
Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian
Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staffs proposed
Resolution to approve the Application with the attached Conditions of Approval. Following are
our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence
and argument at the Hearing on the Application on Tuesday, December 7, 2004.
Condition of Approval No. 3.
Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code
section 66427.5(f)(1), rent for non -purchasing residents may increase upon conversion to market
levels over four years. However, the last sentence of Condition No. 3 as drafted states, "Said
amount to be determined through the City rent review process." In fact, upon conversion, state
law governs the four-year increase to market rents, and the City's rent control rules and
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 2
jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado
Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4` 1153, 1178 (4th Dist. 2002)
conversion occurs, and local rent control terminates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no
circumstances ... is it left to local governments to legislate when state law takes effect." (Id. at
p.1179.) Accordingly, the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deleted
entirely.
Condition of Approval No. 5.
For the reasons stated in our letter to the City Attorney dated December 3, 2004, a copy
of which each Planning Commissioner received, proposed Condition of Approval No. 5, which
purports to require Indian Springs to abandon its septic system and connect to the City's sewer
system is illegal and improper, and must be removed as a condition of approval.
Condition of Approval No. 6.
Draft Condition of Approval No. 6 would require Indian Springs to defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and its agents from any claim, action or proceeding against the City
to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the Application by the City or the Commission.
The Staff Report recognizes that the City's action with respect to the Application has the
potential to result in litigation. However, given the illegal Conditions of Approval discussed
above (as well as Condition of Approval No. 6 itself as currently drafted), litigation against the
City regarding its approval of the Application very possibly would be initiated by Indian Springs
itself or by residents of the Park who object to the conditions which will interfere with and delay
the Park's conversion and their ability to purchase lots in a timely manner.
Although it may generally be appropriate to require, as a condition of approval of a parcel
map, that an applicant agree to defend the City against attacks from others regarding its approval,
the City certainly may not require an applicant such as Indian Springs to agree to defend the City
against challenges to Conditions of Approval which the applicant objects to and regarding which
the applicant itself initiates an action to void or annul. Accordingly, Indian Springs requests that
the Commission amend Condition No. 6 as currently drafted to include the following language at
the end of the first sentence therein: "... except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by
the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void or annul any of the Conditions of
Approval."
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 3
For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the
Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from
draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft
Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft
Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIS & RUTTER
Pro oration
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
T W C: t we / 110716_ 1/ 120604
3416.006
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
December 2, 2004
City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Re: Indian Springs Mobilehome Park Conversion, Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66425.1, PM 31862
Public Hearing: December 7, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Requested Action: Request Approval of Parcel Map, Without Sewer Condition
Dear Mayor, and Honorable City Counsel Persons:
The purpose of this correspondence is to request you approve the Parcel Map
("PM") 31862, without the imposition of a condition to connect to sewers.
I am President ofJames and Associates, Inc., and have been involved with the
management and maintenance of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park located at 49-305
Highway 74 for the last eighteen (18) years, including without limitation, the Septic
System.
We became aware 10 years ago through the Southern California Water Quality
Control Board and the Coachella Valley Water District of the seriousness of ground
water contamination in the Coachella Valley. We agreed to a program to raise all lids
and risers on the septic tanks to above ground levels, making the maintenance and
testing easier, and the tanks more accessible to pumping. The project cost was
approximately $300,000 and was completed in 2003.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Water Quality Control Board, all tanks were
to be pumped at the end of this project and will continue to be pumped on a scheduled
three year cycle.
We had discontinued the use of chemicals because of possible ground water
contamination, using pumping as an alternative to break up scum layers. This resulted
in the rotation program referred to above.
255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588
E-mail: jamesk.assoe@verizon.net
JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With the completion oit1;e' p-r-o-gra—m—,ihe—Coachella alley 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, with no citations for contamination.
Letters are sent periodically to the Residents to remind them of how to maintain
and protect the septic system, and the ground water table from contamination. A binder
with Map Locations, Septic Schedules and Annual Inspections is available upon
request.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
( Anne James
President
Cc: James Goldstein
Richard Close, Esq.
L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
GADocuments\Properties\Indian Springs 452 \Septics\Letter re Maintenance 12-2-04.doc
255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588
E-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net
Contracting, Excavation, Grading
"We dig the Coachella Valley"
Friday, December 03, 2004
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Pcak
Palm Desert, California
To whom it may concern,
In 2003 Tri-Star Contracting completed an extensive program to locate, inspect
and install manholes and risers on all 46 .systems within the park This project
having been completed along with any repairs necessary to the leaching areas
makes this an up to date and good working system.
Any repairs that have been made to the leaching system are relatively simple
since there is sufficient room for further seepage area expansion. Furthermore
these repairs are made with the most current materials and up graded standards
with in the industry. As an example, seepage pits have been installed and are
buried straight down into the ground leading to a prolonged seepage area out of
reach of landscape problems.
In my opinion the septic systems are in good working condition and with the
parks stringent maintenance and pumping program along With On occasional
repair these systems should last indefinitely.
Sincerely,
Larry J. Owens
Bus (760) 251-5454 15-501 Little Morongo Road, Desert Hot Springs,& 92240 Fax (760) 251-5458
e-onaikinfo@Tri-Star.info
NOTICE TO INDIAN SPRINGS RESIDENTS
OF TENTATIVE MAP HEARING
Continued upon City Attorney and Staff Recommendation
and Approved by the Planning Commission
C 1 7 ?004
DEVELCPMENT
T.:Y OE PALM DESERT
TO: TEE OCCUPANTS OF INDIAN SPRINGS MO13ILE110IVIE PARK
Located at: 49-305 Highway 74, Palm Desert, California, 92260
APN No. 652420-007-3
HEARING: Planning Commission Hearing
Condnued from December 7, 2004
DATE: December 29, 2004
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
THAT the owner of this mobilehome park, located at the address
indicated above, in the City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of
California will be appealing before the Planning Commission for the City of
Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, on December 29, 2004, at 6:00 P.M.,
(December 7, 2004 Hearing Continued) TO REQUEST THE TENTATIVE
MAP BE APPROVED BY SAID BODY, to convert this mobilehome park to
condominium form of ownership. The 180 days notice to convert has been
previously served on all residents. Furthermore, if you still reside on your
unit at the issuance of the Final Public Report, you win be given an exclusive
right to purchase your unit.
Dated: December 15, 2004
C/:1sVis/Notices/11-22-4
By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
THE LOFTIN FIRM
Attorneys for Applicant
L SUE LOFTIN
JOSEPHINE E. LEWIS
ARIEL R. BEDELL
AVNEET SIDHU
WEB ADDRESS:
www lawyers.torgloikintinum
THE LOFTIN FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5760 Fleet Street, Suite 110
Carlsbad, California 92008
TELEPHONE (760)431-2111
FACSIMII,E (760)431.2003
WHAT AND WHEN OF LOT LINES
At the Planning Commission Hearing on the application to convert
the Park from a rental park to a resident owned park, one resident
indicated that approximately 64 households were objecting to their Lot
Lines.
• Lot Lines have NOT been set at this time. Lot Lines will be set by the
creation of the Condominium Plan.
• The Condominium Plan is NOT before the City of Palm Desert. The
One Lot Subdivision Man is before the City of Palm Desert.
• As part of the preparation of the Otle Lot Sutocl_pivi ion Man, the City
requires that a Site Pike be prepared and submitted. A "Site Plan"
may look like a Condominium Pliin to some people, but it is not. A
Condominium Plan does NOT depict the structures on the Lot.
• The Condomjnium Plan must establish. the Lot Lines in conformance
with the original plan submitted to the State of California,
Department of Housing and Community Development.
• Overtime, the original plan generally is different than the actual use
on the ground. How is that dealt with? Encroachment easements are
granted for actual use.
• If a new home is installed to replace an old home, then the Lot Lines
would apply.
• Installation, including without limitation, of a new home or an
addition will be governed by California Administrative Code, Title 25
(just the same as now) and the Rule and Regulations (just the same as
now).
• After the Condominium Plan is prepared and posted for your review
and BEFORE the Condominium Plan is recorded, you will have an
opportunity to meet with the Engineer who prepared the
Condominium Plan to explain your issues and concerns.
• The Condominium Plan will NOT be started until sometime after the
- first of the year 2005. Therefore, you have NOT missed your
opportunity to comment on the Lot Lines.
Dec-22-04 08:52am From -WATER DISTT/COACHELLA VALLEY
+7602983711
T-706 P.02/03 F-509
DIRECTORS:
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELL,A VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (780) 398-2661 • FAX (780) 398-3711
JOHN W. McFADIDEN, PRESIDENT
PETER NELSON. VICE PRESiDENT
TELLIS CODEKAS
RUSSELL RITAHARA
PATRICIA A, LARSON
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Ortega:
December 21, 2004
OFFICERS:
STEVEN H. ROBBINS,
GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
MAR( BEUHLER,
ASST. GENERAL MANAGEFI
JULIA FERNANDEZ. SECRETARY
DAN PARKS. ASST. TO GENERAL MANACER
REDwim AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 0721.1
Subject: Parcel Map No. 31862. Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
It is our understanding that the referenced parcel map is for the purpose of creating a
condominium project from an existing mobile home park. The City of Palm Desert is
recommending that the conversion include the connection to the local sewer.
On -site sewage disposal systems (OSDS), including septic tanks, are well know sources of
groundwater contamination. The most studied contaminate is nitrate, which is a byproduct
of wastewater treatment in OSDSs. Nitrate leaving OSDS mixes with groundwater and can
contaminate nearby drinking water wells. When nitrate levels exceed drinking water
standards, thc contaminated wells are either treated to remove the nitrate, which can be cost
prohibitive, or replaced by new wells drilled in uncontaininated areas of the groundwater
basin.
There are many factors that influence the impact OSDSs have on the quality of groundwater,
including density, population served, water levels, wastewater volume, maintenance
frequency and soil conditions. Often, the OSDS density (i.e., the number of OSDSs per unit
of land area) is a driving factor that is used by regulatory agencies to control adverse water
quality impacts from OSDSs. One such control to protect groundwater in the Desert Hot
Springs area is prohibiting morc than one OSDS per one-half acre of land area, which
translates to an OSDS density of 2 per acre.
We understand Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has 191 equivalent dwelling units
served by OSDS, within a land area of about 35 acres. This equals an OSDS density of
approximately 5.5 per acre. Indian Springs Mobile Home Park has a high density of OSDSs,
which represents an increased risk of groundwater contamination. It is for this reason that
the connection to the community sewer is recommended.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Received Dec-22-2004 09:01 From-+7603983711 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002
Dec-22-04 08:52am From -WATER DISTT/COACHELLA VALLEY
+7603883711
T-706 P.03/03 F-509
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
-2- December 21, 2004
Sewer service may be provided from existing sewers located on the north and east
boundaries of the existing parcel. The District's Engineering Department is available to
provide the necessary technical information required to connect the park to the existing
sewer systcm.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact cither
Bruce Clark, Principal Sanitation Engineer, at extension 2266, or Steve Bigley, Water
Quality Specialist, at extension 2286.
11C:EncllanesguAdec‘orsega
Yours very truly,
r. Steve Robbins
General Manager-Chicf Engineering
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Received Dec-22-200A 09:01 From-+7603983711 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003
California R gional Water Quality ontrol Board
Colorado River Basin Region
Terry Tamminen
Secretaryfor
Environmental
Protection
73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, California 92260
(760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341-6820
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7
Arnold Schwarzeneggei
Governor
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.
For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, visit our website.
December 21, 2004
Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: WASTE DISCHARGES FROM SEPTIC SYSTEM LEACH FIELDS
Dear Mr. Drell,
Thank you for your interest in ground water quality and concerns regarding waste discharges from
septic tank leach -field systems. This letter briefly discusses current septic system regulation and
potential water quality impacts posed/caused by discharges of wastes from septic tank-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 'Basin Plan", is the
Regional Board's master document that guides our regulatory efforts for water quality
protection throughout the region. The Basin Plan specifies, in part, surface and water
quality protection standards for all waters of the region, the beneficial uses to be protected,
and the Board's implementation strategy to do so. The Basin Plan is available on our
we bsite at http://www. waterboards.ca .gov/coloradoriver/downloads .html.
• As indicated in our Basin Plan, local governments, generally the County, regulate septic
system waste discharges for volumes under 5,000 gallons per day. The Regional Board
regulates volumes equal to or greater than 5,000 gallons per day via General Waste
Discharge Requirements (Board Order No. 95-500).
• Federal and state law require Regional Boards to periodically review basin plans to evaluate
adequacy of water quality standards for protecting beneficial uses, and emerging water
quality threats/issues. State law requires these reviews every three years (i.e., triennially).
We initiated a Basin Plan Triennial Review in November 2004. Waste discharges from septic
tank leach fields are on the 2004 Triennial Review list of water quality issues vtie are
recommending the Regional Board address, because of their threat to water quality (see
attached copy of the Public Notice).
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Mr. Phil Drell - 2
Director of Community Development
• The California Water Code (CWC) prohibits the Regional Board from specifying the method
of compliance (e.g., design, location, or type of treatment and disposal system) for
discharges of domestic wastewater from residential developments (CWC Sec. 13360).
Also, the CWC provides that, before the Regional Board establishes a prohibition against
discharges of wastes from septic system in any particular area, it must provide substantial
evidence for the record to show that such discharge will result in a violation of water quality
objectives, will impair present or future beneficial uses of water, will cause pollution,
nuisance, or contamination, or will unreasonably degrade the quality of any waters of the
state (CWC See. 13280).
With the exception of leaking underground storage tanks, septic systems are the leading cause of
ground water pollution nationwide. Waste discharges from 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
migrate in the subsurface due to the permeable unconsolidated soils characteristic of the area; (2)
the Coachella Valley aquifer is used for drinking purposes; and (3) certain parts of the Valley have
high densities of septic tank-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 and
enhance water quality in the Coachella Valley. In the meantime, we suggest you submit your
Triennial Review comrnents for the record so that we can elevate your concerns directly to our
Board. If you have further concerns or questions, please contact me at (760) 776-8982.
Sincerely, ;
• -. ,......„4:- „rit.....:.:...---,-?E(i ".
i ..,
c.---
,
JOAN STORMO
Senior Engineering Geologist
HS/js
Attachment: as stated above
File: Basin Planning General Correspondence
California Environmental Protection Agency
0 Recycled Paper
California It gional Water Quality ,Iontrol Board
Colorado River Basin Region
Terry Tamminen Internet Address: http://vAvw.swrcb.ca.gov/—rwqcb7 Arnold Schwarzenegger
Secretary for 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, California 92260 Governor
Environmental Phone (760) 346-7491 • FAX (760) 341-6820
Protection
Date: November 17, 2004 Public Notice No. 07-04-33
To: Interested Persons
PUBLIC NOTICE
2004 TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE BASIN PLAN
The Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region
(Regional Board) is reviewing the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) pursuant to
Section 13240 of the California Water Code, and Section 303(c)(1) of the Federal
Clean Water Act. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for ground and surface
waters in the Colorado River Basin Region, and establishes water quality objectives and
implementation plans to protect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan is reviewed for
adequacy approximately every three years, hence the term "Triennial Review". The
objective of the Review is to reaffirm water quality standards and parts of the Basin
Plan that effectively protect water quality, and to identify potential water quality
problems that may result in Basin Plan amendments.
Regional Board staff has prepared a draft list of potential water quality problems for the
2004 Triennial Review (see attachment). Staff is soliciting public input, an integral part
of the Triennial Review process, for recommendations or revisions to the draft 2004
Triennial Review list. The comment period for the Review will extend from November
17, 2004 to January 3, 2005.
A Final Draft Triennial Review List and staff report will be prepared at the conclusion of
the public comment period (approximately mid -January 2005), and provided to the
Regional Board for consideration for adoption at a public hearing conducted during a
regularly scheduled Regional Board meeting in early 2005. The time and day of the
hearing will be indicated in a "Notice of Public Hearing" as soon as practicable.
Calffornia Environmental Protection Agency
ia," Recycled Paper
2004 Triennial Review
November 17, 2004
page 2
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
To obtain the most current information on the Triennial Review process, please contact
us by:
U.S. mail: Ms. Ivory Reyburn
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado -River. Basin
Region
73720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100
Palm Desert, California 92260
Telephone: Ms. Ivory Reyburn at (760) 776-8933
e-mail: irevburnawaterboards.ca.00v
Triennial Review documents also may be reviewed by appointment at the Regional
Board office at the above address.
J n Stormo
Senior Engineering Geologist
Attachment: Draft Triennial Review List
File: BP 2004 Triennial Review
California Environmental Protection Agency
%.5 Recycled Paper
California Regional Water Quality ontrol Board
%11111 Colorado River Basin Region
Terry Tarominen 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Pahn Desert, California 92260
Secretary for (760) 346-7491 • Fax (760) 341-6820
Environmental http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7
Protection
Draft 2004 Triennial Review List
November 17, 2004
Arnold Schwarzenegge
Governor
Attachment
Issues under consideration for Basin Plan review/update:
• Beneficial Use Designation of Surface Waters — Staff proposes to update results
from the" 1999 Surface Water Survey: Salton Sea Watershed, Imperial Valley
Waterbodies" and incorporate the updated information into the Basin Plan. This
document is part of the reaffirmation requirements for current water quality
standards.
• Beneficial Use Designation of Aquifers — Staff proposes to review available
groundwater data to identify beneficial uses of individual aquifers within
hydrologic units. (Beneficial uses of groundwater in the Colorado River Basin
Region are based on hydrologic units.)
• Guidelines for Sewage Disposal from Land Developments - Staff proposes to
evaluate and revise as necessary the guidelines and Basin Plan to account for
population increases, distance to underground utilities, potential receptor, high
density housing developments, sewer versus septic waste disposal systems, and
the need to limit or prohibit septic tanks if reasonable/feasible alternatives are
available. The current 1979 guidelines for sewage disposal do not consider
these factors.
• Water Quality Objectives for Nitrates and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) — Staff
proposes to review water quality objectives for nitrates and TDS in groundwater
to determine their adequacy for protecting water quality and beneficial uses,
particularly in areas (Pinyon Pines, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, and
others) with recent, significant increases in these parameters.
• Removal of Fecal Coliform — Staff proposes to remove the fecal coliform
monitoring requirement from the Basin Plan for discharges of wastewater
treatment plant effluent, and instead focus monitoring on better pathogen -
indicator organisms. Studies show that indicator organisms that correlate best
California Environmental Protection Agency
rs. Recycled Paper
Draft 2004 Triennial Review List
with illness and disease are enterococci and E coli for fresh waters, and
enterococci for marine waters.
• Re-evaluation of All Portions of the Basin Ran Pertinent to the Salton Sea —
Staff proposes to assess Basin Plan policy, plans, and guidelines designed to
benefit water quality associated with the Salton Sea. This includes: beneficial
use designation, water quality objectives, monitoring and water quality
assessment, and implementation.
• Saltwater Discharges — Staff proposes to develop policy to address saltwater
discharges from swimming pools and other sources, to ground and surface
waters.
• New River Pollution from Mexico — Staff proposes to review current policy to
address pollution in the New River at the International Boundary, and, as
necessary, develop new strategies for Board consideration to expedite cleanup.
California Environmental Protection Agency
rs Recycled Paper
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
REVISION #2
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
DATE: December 22, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above referenced
project:
(1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted
to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on
a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and
City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the
internal street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City
Surveyor.
if
klIVA/L/
Mark GreenWood, P.E.
CAWINDOWS\TEMPOR-110LK4352\TPM318-1.WPD
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 7, 2004
CASE NO: PM 31862
REQUEST: Approval of a parcel map to establish a one -lot subdivision with a
condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile
Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007).
APPLICANT: Indian Springs, Ltd.
A California Limited Liability Company
c/o James and Associates, Inc.
255 N. El Cielo Road, Suite 286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
I. BACKGROUND:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The 34.7-acre property is occupied by a 191-rental space mobile home
park which was established in 1970. The park common areas include a
clubhouse with kitchen, billiard room, office, jacuzzi, exercise room,
auditorium and pool. All utilities are underground. The project is not
connected to public sewers.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: Sommerset / PR-8
South: Silver Spur Mobile Home Park / R1M
East: Residential / PR-7
West: Residential / County
C. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN:
The site is zoned R1M (single family/mobile home residential and is
designated Medium Density Residential (4-10 upa) in the General Plan.
The 191-space park on 34.7 acres has a density of 5.5 units per acre.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests approval of this one -lot parcel map with a condominium
overlay to change the ownership structure from rental mobile home park to
single family manufactured housing condominium units.
The proposed map will not alter the existing 191-unit density or impact the
physical appearance of the park.
Residents will be able to purchase their condominium unit as described in the
legal description of their space "from below grade level of 18 inches to above
grade level of 40 feet, along with a 1/191st interest in the common areas and
facilities, and a membership in the homeowners association."
There will be no displacement of residents. Residents will be able to choose to
1) buy their condominium unit; or 2) continue to rent their space.
III. DISCUSSION:
Government Code Section 66427.5 (copy attached) prescribes the criteria to be
considered in reviewing the application as follows:
(a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either
purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be
created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to
continue residency as a tenant.
(b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon
residents of the mobile home park to be converted to resident owned
subdivided interest.
(c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident
of the mobile home park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map
by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the
legislative body.
(d) (1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the
mobile home park for the proposed conversion.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
(2) The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an
agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners'
association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobile
home park owner.
(3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot.
(4) The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobile home
space has one vote.
(5) The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency
upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be considered as
part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e).
(e) The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or
advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing
shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section.
(f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of
all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following:
(1) As to the nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income
households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or
charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from
the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal
conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional
appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year
period.
(2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households,
as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the
monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of
any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion
rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent
in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except
that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the
Consumer Price Index for the most recently report period.
RESPONSES:
(a) Condition No. 1 requires the subdivider to offer each existing tenant an
option to either purchase his unit or continue residency as a tenant. The
subdivider's representative advises that this has already been done.
(b) The subdivider has filed a report on the impact of the conversion upon
residents. This report has been reviewed and accepted as to form by the
City Attorney's office (copy enclosed).
(c) The subdivider has distributed by first class mail at least 15 days prior to
this hearing a copy of the report on the impact of the conversion upon
residents to each resident of the mobile home park. (See letter certifying
above enclosed).
(d) (1) Subdivider has conducted a survey of support of residents in the
park (see survey attached).
(d) (2) The survey of support was conducted pursuant to an agreement
between the subdivider and the homeowners' association.
(d) (3) The survey was conducted by written ballot.
(d) (4) The survey was conducted so that each occupied mobile home
space has one vote.
(d) (5) The results of the survey are included in the attached Tenant
Impact Report. Basically, the survey was circulated to residents
occupying 189 spaces (2 were unoccupied). The results were as
follows:
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
# of
Responses
Support
Yes
Support
No
Decline to
State Support
Primary
Residences
Low
Income
Other
Loan on
Home
84
26
14
37
63
54
30
10
31%
16.7%
44%
75%
64.3%
35.7%
11.9%
Note: The totals in the various categories do not add up to the same number because not
everyone answered every question.
(e) The scope of this hearing is limited to the issue of compliance with this
section.
(f) (1) Condition No. 2 provides, "That pursuant to Government Code
Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all nonpurchasing residents who are
not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any
applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,
may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as
defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally
recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual
increases over a four-year period. Said amount to be determined
through the City rent review process."
(f) (2) Condition No. 3 provides, "That pursuant to Government Code
Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all nonpurchasing residents who are
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable
fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may
increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the
average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately
preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the
monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average
monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the
most recently reported period."
The General Plan Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 and the Municipal Code
Chapter 8.60 require that all properties not presently connected to a public
sewer system be converted to the public sewer system prior to sale of the
5
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
project or 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 § 66474.9(b).
The City Attorney concurs with the inclusion of all conditions.
IV. ANALYSIS:
The City is limited by the applicable government code as to issues it may
consider as part of its review of the proposed map as delineated above. These
limitations were strictly construed in a recent court case (El Dorado Palm
Springs, Ltd. v City of Palm Springs).
The City Attorney advises that in addition to the items identified in the
Government Code, the Commission must affirm that the request is consistent
with the General Plan. As noted earlier, the park is developed at a density of 5.5
units per acre, which is consistent with the medium density residential (4-10
upa) land use designation.
This parcel map will not alter the density or in any way impact the physical
appearance of the park. It will allow the tenants to choose whether to become
owners or whether to remain rent paying tenants.
Those rent paying tenants who fall into the "low income" range are protected
to a greater extent under the "Map Act Rents" than under the City Rent Control
Ordinance.
6
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PM 31862
DECEMBER 7, 2004
Those rent paying tenants who are not "low income" are protected to a lesser
extent under the "Map Act Rents" than under the City Rent Control Ordinance.
The state legislature in its wisdom has determined for us that the subdivider will
avoid economic displacement for "nonpurchasing residents who are not lower
income households..." through imposition of Government Code Section
666427.5 (f) (1). Accordingly, we have included Condition No. 2 in the draft
resolution.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
A. Adoption of the findings.
B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving PM
31862, subject to conditions.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Government Code Section 66427.5
D. Municipal Code Chapter 8.60
E. Tenant Impact Report
F. Letter Certifying Resident Notification of Tenant Impact Report
G. Resident Survey
Prepared by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Revie nd Con
INFA'aip
• "P"Illr
Homer Cr
ACM for De Opment Services
/tm
Reviewed and Approved by:
Phil
Director of Community Development
PLANNINGCOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARCEL MAP
CREATING A ONE -LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A CONDOMINIUM
OVERLAY AT THE 191-SPACE INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME
PARK LOCATED AT 49-305 HIGHWAY 74 (APN 652-120-007).
CASE NO. PM 31862
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7th day of December, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request of INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability Company, for approval of PM
31862; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has
determined that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of
CEQA and no further review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said
parcel map:
1. The project as it exists and as it will continue to exist with 191 units
complies with the medium density provisions of the General Plan.
2. The project as conditioned complies with the General Plan and with the
provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve PM 31862, subject
to conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PM 31862
Department of Community Development:
1. The application described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations
set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and
federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
2. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), the subdivision shall
offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium
or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to
resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. Subdivider to provide
the City with a certified statement as to the date of delivery of said offer.
3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (1), for all non
purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any
applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase
from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal
conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal
standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. Said amount to be
determined through the City rent review process.
4. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) (2), for all non
purchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section
50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any
applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase
from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly
increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except
that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than
the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the
most recently reported period.
5. That pursuant to General Plan Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 and
Municipal Code Chapter 8.60, the subdivider prior to the sale of each unit, shall
connect said unit to the public sewer and provide evidence of same to the
purchaser.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
6. Indian Springs shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm
Desert as well as its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City, the City Planning Commission,
any City Board, or the City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is
brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section
66499.37. The City shall promptly notify Indian Springs of any such claim,
action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. This
condition is imposed pursuant to Government Code Section § 66474.9(b).
Department of Public Works:
1 . Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being
submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall
be based on a field survey in conformance with the requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include,
but not be limited to, the internal street centerlines and lot/parcel corners to the
approval of the City Surveyor.
/I
4
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
DATE: November 30, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval forthe above referenced project:
(1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted
to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a
field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City
Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal
street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor.
Mark Greenwood, P.E.
G:\PubWorks1Conditions of Approval I PMAPS VTPM 31862 Indian Sbrings Mobile Horne Oark.wpd
8.60.010
Chapter 8.60
SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS
PRIOR TO PROPERTY SALE OR TRANSFER
OF OWNERSHIP
Sections:
8.60.010
Purpose, authority and
implementation.
8.60.020 Definitions.
8.60.030 Recording of certificate of
requirement.
8.60.035 Property owner's responsibility.
8.60.040 Recording of certificate of
compliance.
8.60.050 Procedures and fees for
obtaining a certificate of
compliance.
8.60.060 Administrative variance and
certificate of temporary
exceptions.
8.60.070 Recording of certificate of
temporary exception.
8.60.080 Appeals procedures.
8.60.090 Violations —Penalties.
8.60.010 Purpose, authority and
implementation.
The purpose of this chapter is to help assure continued
protection and high quality of the water resources available
in the city by requiring all properties, buildings and struc-
tures to abandon all existing septic tanks, seepage pits and/
cesspools and connect to the available public sewer prior
to time of sale or transfer of ownership of said properties,
buildings or structures.
This chapter shall apply to any property, building or
structure which enters into escrow after the effective date
of the ordinance. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.020 Definitions.
Whenever in this chapter the following terms are used
they shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them
in this section:
"Available public sewer" means the public sewer under
the control of the Coachella Valley water district located
within the prescribed sewer right-of-way.
"Building official" means the director of building and
safety as appointed by the city manager or the director's
deputy(s).
"Certificate of compliance" means the document that
is recorded on said property which releases the certificate
' (Palm Desert 8-44)
of requirement, and stipulates that the said property has
been lawfully connected to the public sewer.
"Certificate of temporary exception" means the document
that is recorded on said property which temporarily releases
the certificate of requirement and stipulates that the said
property has been excepted or given an administrative
variance pursuant to Section 8.60.060 of this chapter.
"Certificate of requirement" means the document that
is recorded on said property indicating that prior to sale
or transfer of ownership, the said property shall be lawfully
connected to the public sewer. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.030 Recording of certificate of
requirement.
Pursuant to this chapter, the city council shall direct
the building official to prepare and record with the Riverside
County recorder's office, on each parcel listed on Exhibit
A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and
found on file in the office of the city clerk, a certificate
of requirement stating the following information:
166-4
"CERTIFICATE OF REQUIREMENT"
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Street Address:
Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section
8.60.010, prior to sale or transfer of ownership of the
above stated property, a "Certificate of Compliance"
showing that the above property is legally connected
to the public sewer and shall be recorded on said proper-
ty.
BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE
State of California )
County of Riverside)
On , before me, , a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared
known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
8.60.030
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.035 Property owner's responsibility.
The properties listed in Exhibit A attached to the ordi-
nance codified in this chapter and found on file in the office
of the city clerk, or the recorded certificate of requirement,
or the lack of any of the above notwithstanding, it shall
be the property owner's responsibility to comply with the
full intent of this chapter which is to assure any new
property owner or buyer that prior to sale or transfer of
ownership to that new property or buyer, all structures on
that property are lawfully connected to the public sewer
and all subsurface septic tanks, cesspools and seepage pits
are lawfully abandoned. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.040 Recording of certificate of
compliance.
Once the property owner or owner's authorized agent
presents the necessnry documentation acceptable to the
building official demonstrating that the said property is
legally connected to the public sewer, the building official
shall record with Riverside County Recorder's Office, a
certificate of compliance which shall contain the following:
"CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE"
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Street Address:
Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section
8.60.010, the above stated property has been determined
to be lawfully connected to the public sewer, and in
compliance with Palm Desert Ordinance No.
. The "Certificate of Requirement" as recorded
by Instrument Number is hereby satisfied and
discharged.
BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE
State of California )
County of Riverside)
On before me, , a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared
known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.050
Procedures and fees for obtaining a
certificate of compliance.
A. The property owner or owner's authorized agent,
at their option, may personally review official microfiche
files located in the department of building and safety and
obtain a microfiche copy of the sewer connection permit
if issued on said property. Such sewer connection permit
shall have a final inspection signoff by a duly authorized
city building inspector and shall not be a revoked or expired
permit. The building official shall review and approve the
sewer connection permit and authorize a notice of compli-
ance be filed.
The owner or owner's authorized agent shall pay a
twenty-five dollar fee to cover the administrative costs for
the preparation of the certificate of compliance.
B. If the property owner or owner's authorized agent
does not wish to personally research the official microfiche
file located in the department of building and safety upon
the completion of the appropriate application forrn and
payment to the city of a thirty-five dollar nonrefundable
regenrch fee, the city staff shall research, locate and copy
any such sewer connection permit, if issued or available
on microfiche records. The building official shall review
the copy of the sewer connection permit as the above
paragraph stipulates and if acceptable, shall authorize a
notice of compliance be filed. The twenty-five dollar notice
of compliance fee shall be paid to the city at that time.
C. If the property is not connected to the public sewer
or connected without the required permits and inspections
required elsewhere in this code, the owner or owner's
authorized contractor, licensed as required by this code,
shall pay the necessary Coachella Valley water district
assessment fees and obtain a sewer connection permit from
the department of building and safety and schedule all
required inspections accordingly.
Upon acceptance of fmal inspection, the building official
shall authorize a certificate of compliance be filed. The
owner or owner's authorized agent shall pay to the city
166-5
(Palm Desert 8-94)
8.60.050
a twenty-five dollar fee for the preparation and recording
of the certificate of compliance.
D. If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the build-
ing official that the property is legally connected to the
public sewer and a certificate of requirement has been
recorded in error on the property, the building official is
hereby authorized to record a certificate of compliance
on the property at no charge to the property owner or
authorized agent. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.060 Administrative 'variance and
certificate of temporary exceptions.
A. Where deemed unfeasible to connect to the public
sewer, the building official may grant an administrative
variance and authorize filing of a certificate of temporary
exception with the Riverside County recorder's office. If
granted, such certificate of temporary exception shall have
an expiration date of not to exceed three years from date
of issuance.
Some, but not all, of the conditions which may warrant
an exception to this chapter are as follows:
1. Building, stnicture or property located beyond two
hundred feet of the public sewer;
2. Condominiums which share a common septic system;
3. Buildings or structures in which the flow line of
the building drain or the building sewer is below the flow
fine of the public sewer, adjacent to, or within two hundred
feet of the property, building or structure;
4. When, in the opinion of the building official, the
cost of construction of the sewer connection is excessive
and the existing septic system is less than twenty years
of age. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.070 Recording of certificate of
temporary exception.
Upon determination of the building official, or the
authorization of the building board of appeals and condem-
nation, or the city council, that connection to the public
sewer is unfeasible, the building official shall record a
certificate of temporary exception with the Riveiside County
recorder's office. The certificate of temporary exception
shall contain the following:
"CERTIFICATE OF TEMPORARY EXCEPTION"
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Street Address:
Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section
8.60.060, the above stated property has been temporarily
exempted from connection to the public sewer at time
of property sale or transfer of ownership due to
(Palm Desert 8-94)
166-6
unfeasibility, and has been determined to be in compli-
ance with Ordinance No. . The "Certificate
of Requirement" as recorded by Instrument No.
is hereby temporarily satisfied.
This exception to the mandatory sewer connection
of the Ordinance No. of the City of Palm Desert
is temporary only. All property sales or transfers of
ownership after the expiration date listed below will
require a new "Certificate of Temporary Exception"
be issued or if warrants, sewer connection will be
required and a "Certificate of Compliance" be issued
for this property.
The existing septic system may remain in operation
until such time that the existing septic system fails and
needs to be replaced. No new septic tank or seepage
pit may be added to this property. Mandatory public
sewer connection will be required at that time.
BUILDING OFFICIAL
DATE
CERTIFICATE EXPIRATION DATE
State of California )
County of Riverside)
On before me, , a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared
known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.080 Appeals procedures.
Upon the appellant filing the necessary application and
payment of the required application fee, required elsewhere
in this code, the building board of appeals and condemna-
tion, pursuant to Chapter 15.24 of this code, shall hear,
review and render decisions on appeals from the building
official's interpretation as to the use of or filing of a
•
8.60.080
certificate of temporary exception or administrative variance
as described in the above sections.
Decisions of the board shall be final unless appealed
to the city council within five working days of official
notification. All findings of the board shall be transmitted
to the city council through the city staff for informational
purposes. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
8.60.090 Violations —Penalties.
It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision
or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this
chapter. Any person violating any provision of this chapter
or failing to comply with any of the requirements is deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor in accordance with Chapter 1.12
of this code. (Ord. 743 (part), 1994)
166-7
(Palm Desert 8-96)
City of Palm Desert/Adopted 3.15.04
Comprehensive General Plan/Water Resources Element
Program 3.A
Coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water District regarding the continued use and future
expansion of tertiary treated wastewater treatment and distribution facilities to serve existing and
new development projects in the City.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department, CVWD
Schedule: Continuous
Policy 4
Encourage or require that all existing and new development be connected to the sewage
treatment system of the Coachella Valley Water District.
Program 4.A
Consult and coordinate with CVWD regarding the expansion and funding of sewer service to
unconnected areas, and consider approaches and mechanisms that facilitate financing and
construction of these facilities.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, CVWD
Schedule: Continuous
Policy 5
The City shall provide direction and guidelines for the development of on -site storm water
retention facilities consistent with local and regional drainage plans and community design
standards.
Program 5.A
Establish and enforce regulations and guidelines for the development and maintenance of
project -specific on -site retention/detention basins, which implement the NPDES program,
enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and address
applicable community design policies.
Responsible Agency: Public Works Department, Community Development Department
Schedule: Continuous
Policy 6
Coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water District, the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board and other appropriate agencies to share information on potential groundwater
contaminating sources and management of same.
Program 6.A
Develop and maintain a system to share records and technical information with CVWD,
CRWQCB and other appropriate agencies regarding all sites that have the potential to
contaminate groundwater resources serving the City. Cooperate and encourage the development
of effective mitigation strategies to address potential contamination issues
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Department,
CVWD, California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Schedule: Continuous
Water Resources Element
IV-50
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION
ATTACHMENT "A" REQUEST
This Application is submitted pursuant to California Government Code sections
66428.1 and 66427.5 (copies of these code sections are included herewith).
The purpose of this Application is to change the method of ownership of Indian Springs
Mobilehome Park, located at 49-305 Highway 74, Palm Desert, California 92260, otherwise
known as APN No. 652-120-007-3. The current ownership structure is a one -lot, investor owner
rental mobilehome park comprised of 191 rental spaces on which mobilehomes are located. This
Application proposes changing the ownership structure to a resident owned mobilehome park by
converting the use to single-family manufactured housing condominium units.
This change of ownership structure does not result in any new construction related to the
Application. Submitted herewith is the required tentative parcel map showing the one -lot
subdivision with a condominium overlay. The residents would be able to purchase their
condominium unit comprised of the legal description of their space from below grade level of 18
inches to above grade level of 40 feet, along with a 1/191st interest in the common areas and
facilities and a membership in the homeowners' association. Submitted herewith is the draft
Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") which more fully describe
the ownership interest. Government Code section 66428.1 controls the requirements of all
parties to this Application with regard to the approval process of the maps, and conditions
thereto.
There will be no displacement of resident households. The resident households will be
able to choose what is best for them: (1) to buy their condominium unit (space) or to continue
renting their condominium unit (space). The options for the resident households are more fully
discussed in the Draft Tenant Impact Report submitted herewith for your approval under
Government Code section 66427.5.
C/:ls1/IS/530/7-14-4
SUPPLEMENT TO
TENANT IMPACT REPORT
PNDIAN SPRINGS, LTD.
October 29, 2004
This document is a Supplement to the Tenant Impact Report for Indian Springs
Mobilehome Park and does not replace any information contained therein.
Section 1. Purpose of Supplement to Tenant Impact Report. The City of Palm
Desert (the "City") requested the Applicant clarify demographic information relating to income
levels of the Resident Households at Indian Springs Mobilehome Park (the "Park"). The purpose
of the specific information requested by the City was: (1) to breakdown income levels that
included two categories for persons who did not indicate a specific income level; and, (2) to
update the qualifying income amount for each income category. Therefore, a second survey was
prepared adding the income category of "Other", meaning an income level over and above the
"very low" and "low income" categories and updating the qualifying income amount for each
income category. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the Supplemental Survey that was
distributed to all Resident Households in the Park.
Section 2. Procedure. The Survey was distributed to each Resident Household in
the Park on or about October 4, 2004. A General Meeting was held at the Park Clubhouse on
October 10, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the Application, including without limitation, the
Tenant Impact Report, submitted to the City and the Supplemental Survey to be submitted to the
City. Resident Households could deliver the Supplemental Survey to the Park office in a sealed
envelope for delivery to The Loftin Firm, mail it directly to The Loftin Firm, or personally
submit it to Sue Loftin at the October 10, 2004 meeting at the Park.
Section 2. Results of the Supplemental Survey. There was a total Resident
Household response of fifty-four (54):
(a) Very Low Income Households:
(b) Low Income Households:
(c) Households with Income Above Low
(d) Decline to State
20
17
11 ("Other")
6
Copies of the Supplemental Surveys have been sent to the City Attorney for review and
verification of the information submitted. The Surveys are being submitted as confidential
financial information relating to specific households and their potential financing requirements,
and are not being submitted as part of the public record in this matter so as to protect the privacy
of the Resident Households who voluntarily participated in this Supplemental Survey.
SUPPLEMENTAL TO
TENANT IMPACT REPORT
EXHIBIT "A"
Supplemental Survey
SECOND SURVEY FOR INDIAN SPRINGS MHP
OCTOBER 2004
Demographic Information
The initial qualifying income levels for Very Low and Low Income
Households has increased since the prior Survey. Additionally, the prior survey
did not distinguish between persons who earned over the Low Income Household
qualifying amount and those persons who simply choose not to answer this
question. Therefore, to provide the City of Palm Desert with additional
demographic information, please answer the following question:
In which category does your household's total income, before taxes, fall?
[Check one box below]
HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELSHOUSEHOLD SIZE
AND INCOME LEVELS
Check
ONE
Income Levels
1 Person
2 Persons
3 persons
4 persons
Very Low
$ 19,000 or less
$ 21,700 or less
$ 24,450 or less
S 27,150 or less
Low
More than
$19,001 but less
than $ 30,400
More than
$ 21,701 but less
than $ 34,750
More than
$ 24,451 but less
than $ 39,100
More than
527,151 but less
than $ 43.450
Other
More Than
$30,401
More Than
$34.751
More than
$39,101
More than
S43,451
I Decline to
State Any
Income Level
1/we, the undersigned, have completed this form:
SPACE NO:
DATE:
DATE:
NAME:
[Please Print]
SIGNATURE:
NAME:
[Please Print]
SIGNATURE:
TENANT IMPACT REPORT
INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD.
As Amended — October 5, 2004
Section 1. Purpose of Tenant Impact Report ("TrR"):
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 Householdsl will be afforded the opportunity to
either (i) buy the space on which their mobilehome is situated or (ii) continue to rent the
space on which their mobilehome is situated. Further, if a Resident elects to continue to
rent the space on which their mobilehome is situated, then the rent increases will be set in
accordance with the provisions of 66427.5.
1.1 Description of Change of Use: Whenever a mobilehome park is converted to
another use, the Subdivision Map Act, found in the California Government Code section
66427.5, requires the entity, which is converting the park to file a report on the impact
that the conversion to another use will have on the Residents and occupants of the park.
(a) Change of Use Resulting in Resident Removal from the Property:
Historically, and in some instances today, the impact is that the conversion
to another use means closure of the park in connection with preparing the
property for a use other than for mobilehomes. This necessitates the
vacation of property by the residents. This is NOT what is occurring at the
Park. The Park will remain a manufactured housing community, with the
existing Residents having the right to either buy their condominium unit2
or to remain and rent their condominium unit.
I
"Resident Household" or "Resident Households" mean any person(s), entity, or group of person(s) who own a
mobilehome in Indian Springs Mobilehome Park on the date of the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report issued by the
California Department of Real Estate. Please note that this definition does not mean the same as "Resident" or Residents" as
defined in Section 1.2 herein.
2
"Condominium Unit" means the airspace unit which is defined as 1 ' below grade and 40' above grade, with the
lateral and horizontal planes demarked by the lot lines established on the ground [in other words, the space the Resident is
106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04
1
SAMPLE
(b) Change of Ownership Rather Than Traditional Change of Use: While
conversion of a rental mobilehome park to a Resident -owned mobilehorne
park is identified as a change of use under California law, a more accurate
definition would be a change of method of ownership. The Park is not
being closed and the Residents are not vacating the property, but rather,
the Residents have available to them additional options that were not
available to them before the conversion occurs. After conversion, the
Residents will be able to either purchase their individual spaces and a
share in the common area and facilities from the Owner, and participate in
the operation of the Park through a Homeowners' Association, or continue
to rent their individual spaces. As detailed below, the conversion of the
Park will result in neither actual nor economic displacement of its
Residents.
(c) Applicable Code Section for 1.1(b), California Government Code
Section 66427.5: The State of California recognizes the substantial
difference between the change of use which results in the closure of a
mobilehome park from the change of use which results in the change of
the method of ownership by the implementation of different State statutes
applicable to each type of change of use. For all purposes hereunder,
Government Code section 66427.5 controls for purposes of determining
what rights the non -purchasing Residents will have after the conversion is
completed.
1.2 Definition of Resident(s):
(a) Categories of Resident Households within the Park: California
Government Code section 66427.5 divides the Residents of a Park into
two (2) income categories for the resident households: (1) non -low income
and (2) low income households. Low Income households are defined in
California Health & Safety Code § 50079.5 as "those persons and families
whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for low income
families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937." The greatest protections are
given to the low-income households. The income limits are based on the
county median income and the household size as prepared and distributed
currently occupying], plus 1 /191st fee simple ownership of the common area and facilities and 1 membership in the
Homeowners' Association to be formed as part of the entitlement process. For those who select to remain renters, this means that
those households will continue to rent the same space they were renting prior to the conversion of the Park.
106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04
2
SAMPLE
under the United States Housing Act. To qualify as a low-income
household, the following income limits were established for calendar year
2004:3
Household Size # of Persons
1
2
3
4
Income Must be at or Below:
$30,400
$34,750
$39,100
$43,450
The Survey discussed in Section 1.2(b) used the 2003 Income Levels due
to the unavailability of the 2004 Income Levels at the time of the Survey
was prepared. The Income Level Chart on the Survey was as follows:
HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELS
Check
ONE
Income
Levels
1 Person
2 Persons
3 Persons
4 Persons
Very Low
$17,850 or less
$20,400 or
less
$22,950 or
less
$25,500 or
less
Low
More than
$17,851 but less
than $ 28,550
More than
$20,401 but
less than
$32,650
More than
$ 22,951 but
less than
$36,700
More than
$25,501 but
less than
$40,800
(b) Resident Survey (Demographics): Pursuant to subsection (d)(1) of
California Government Code § 66427.5, the subdivider has obtained a
survey of support of the residents in the Park. A copy of the Survey is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Survey was first provided to the
Board for the Resident Association. On April 1, 2004 the Survey was
discussed with the Board and a general meeting was held at the Park to
discuss the Survey with the Park. The Residents' Association has existed
for many years and the Board of Directors for that Association is elected
from the members of the Association. The Association is independent of
the subdivider/mobilehome park owner. The Survey was mailed to all
Park Residents at their address in the Park and at their second address, if
applicable. Each occupied mobilehome space had one vote. At the time
of the vote, there were 189 occupied mobilehome spaces (1 space for the
3 Typically, the income limits are not distributed by the Federal Housing S.: Urban Development Department until
March of each year. The 2005 income limits will apply to this project, but are not available at this time.
106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04
3
SAMPLE
manager and 2 spaces with homes for sale and not occupied). The results
of the Survey were calculated on May 25, 2004.
Responses
76
Support
Yes
27
Support
No
13
Decline
to
State
Support
36
Primary
Residences
62
Low
Income
53
Other
23
Loan
on
Home
10
Note that the totals in the various categories do not add up to the same
number because not everyone answered every question.
The surveys contain names and addresses, along with very private
information regarding the resident households. For that reason, the
spreadsheet indicating how each household responded and the actual
surveys will not be attached to this TIR, but rather a copy of the
spreadsheet and the actual 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 without
limitation this Tenant Impact Report, is first heard by the City of Palm
Desert Planning Commission. A Resident(s) of the Park is a person, or
persons, who (i) has his or her name on the Title to the mobilehome; (ii)
lives in the home as his or her permanent residence; and (iii) has been
approved as a tenant under the Mobilehome Residency Law and all other
applicable City, County and State laws, ordinances, regulations, or
guidelines.
1.3 Description of the Property: The Park was constructed in approximately 1970
and is a one hundred ninety one (191)-space "Senior" Park (age restriction
applies), situated on approximately (34.7) acres. The fenced Park has wide
asphalt streets with gutters, green belts for open space, and all utilities are
underground. The common area contains a Clubhouse with a Kitchen, Billiard
Room, Office, Jacuzzi, Exercise Room, Auditorium, and Swimming Pool. All of
the homes are at least doublewides.
106268 — FINAL — 10/06/04
4
SAMPLE
Section 2. Residents' Current Position/Rights:
2.1 Current Occupancy: Currently, a small number of the Residents reside in the
Park on leases ("Leases"). In excess of ninety-five percent (95%) of the Resident
occupants reside in the Park on a month -to -month written rental agreement
("Rental Agreement").
2.2 Residents' Rights: In addition to the terms of the Leases and Rental Agreements,
the tenancy rights of Residents residing in the Park are governed by California
Civil Code section 798 et seq. ("Mobilehome Residency Law"), other applicable
California statutory and case law, and the Palm Desert Rent Control ordinances.
Section 3. Park Owner's Rights Upon Conversion:
3.1 Right to Change Use: The Park owner, pursuant to the Government Code and
Mobilehome Residency Law, has the right to terminate all existing tenancies and
require the Residents to vacate the property and go out of business or change the
use of the property, providing all applicable laws are followed. The Park Owner,
however, through this TIR, agrees to waive the right to terminate any tenancies
and existing Leases or require that the Residents vacate the property. Under this
scenario, non -purchasing Residents will NOT be required to vacate their
space and, as described in more detail in section 4 below, will have occupancy
rights subject to any Lease or Written Rental Agreement, Mobilehome
Residency Law, and California law, as applicable. Therefore, there will be
no actual eviction or displacement due to the conversion and Resident -
purchase of the Park.
Section 4. No Actual nor Economic Displacement:
4.1 Impact of Conversion: Under California Government Code and the
Mobilehome Residency Law, the converter is required, as a condition of
conversion, to prepare a TIR to set forth the impact of the conversion on those
who elect not to purchase the space on which their mobilehome is situated.
Further, the rental increase amount, which may be charged by the owner of the
space subsequent to the conversion, is specified in California Government Code
section 66427.5. As a result of the conversion, there will be no physical change
of use. The property before and after conversion will be operated as a
mobilehome park. The difference is that instead of an investor/operator owner, a
Homeowners' Association will operate the property.
106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04
5
SAMPLE
4.2 Rental Rate Increases: No Economic Displacement: The economic
displacement of non -purchasing Residents shall be mitigated by allowing the
Residents who select not to purchase the space on which their home is situated to
continue their tenancy in the Park under the Subdivision Map Act rental increases
restrictions. See, California Govt. Code section 66427.5, ("Map Act Rents'). The
Map Act Rents are based upon two (2) formulas: one formula for non -low income
permanent Residents and one formula for low income permanent Residents, as
defined in section 50079.5 of the Health & Safety Code.
(a) Non -Low Income Resident: For the non -low income Residents, the base
rent may be increased over a four (4)-year period to market rent. Base
rent is defined as that rent which is in effect prior to the Conversion Date.
Market Rent is established by an appraisal "conducted in accordance with
nationally recognized appraisal standards." The reason the rents are raised
to market over a four (4)-year period is to allow the adjustment of rents,
which under rent control have remained artificially low to occur gradually.
This protection for the otherwise financially advantaged Resident also
provides time for those households to plan for the rental adjustment to
market.
(b) Low Income Resident: The State has emphasized its goal of
protecting housing for the low-income population of California in this
code section. The low income Residents receive a guarantee of reduced
rental increases beyond that which any local jurisdiction can enact under
the current rent control cases and laws of California. Low Income is
defined in 66427.5 by referencing California Health and Safety Code
50079.5, which in turn defines low income persons as persons and
families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower
income families as established and amended from tine to time pursuant to
Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The other qualifying
requirements, including without limitation, asset limitations, shall be as
defined in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended from time
to time. Low income Residents are protected for the entire term of their
tenancy.
106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04
(i) Rent Increase Formula. The base rental increase is the
average increase for the previous four (4) years but shall
not exceed the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") average
monthly percentage increase for the most recently reported
period.
6
SAMPLE
(c)
106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04
(ii) Application Process: The Resident must provide the same
information and confirmation of the Resident's income and
permanent status at the Park as though that Resident were
applying for a State of California, Mobilehome Park
Ownership Program ("MPROP") loan each year. In the
event that program is no longer in existence, the last
application documents will become the permanent
documents, and the qualifying income levels will be those
established by either the State of California Housing and
Community Development Department or the United States
Housing and Community Development Department
[California HCD or Federal HUD], at the election of the
owner of the space.
(iii) Comparison: Based on these State Rent Control
provisions, the low income households enjoy greater
protection than under City of Palm Desert Rent Control in
that the annual rent increase is seventy-five percent (75%)
of the CPI and the Owner may, upon proper showing and
approval, institute a hardship rent increase. Attached
hereto and hereby incorporated as though fully set forth is a
chart of the low-income rent increase maximums, assuming
the project was converted as of August 1, 2004.
Effective Date of Map Act Rents: The effective date of the Map Act Rents
for Residents shall be as of the Conversion Date as defined in section 4.3
herein.
As part of the distribution of the Final Public Report, the Leases and
qualifying information shall be simultaneously distributed. The Residents
shall have ninety (90) days within which to make their election to
purchase or to execute the new Leases. If the Resident does not want to
execute a Lease but does want to continue renting his/her space, then the
Resident may do so under a month -to -month or one (1)-year written rental
agreement. Without regard to the type of rental document, if any,
executed by a qualified household, the MAP ACT Rents shall be in place
for that household.
7
SAMPLE
4.3 "Conversion Date": Conversion Date is defined as the date of the first sale of a
unit.
4.4 No Actual Displacement: The Resident occupant will be given the choice to buy
the space on which their mobilehome is situated or to continue their tenancy in the
Park under this Tenant Impact Report. To receive the protections provided herein
and under the California Subdivision Map Act, the Resident must have been a
Resident, as defined in section 1.2(c). Further, the Owner has specifically waived
its right to terminate tenancies. (See section 3.) Therefore, there will be no actual
eviction of any Resident or relocation of their home by reason of the Park
conversion to Resident ownership.
4.5 Conclusion: No Actual Nor Economic Evictions: The legislative intent behind
relocation mitigation assistance as contained in Government Code section
66427.4 was to ensure that Residents who were being actually evicted due to the
conversion of a park to another use were protected, and that a plan was submitted
and approved to ensure that protection. The purpose for the more typical impact
report is to explain how and when the Residents have to vacate the property; and,
what financial assistance the Residents would be receiving to assist in the costs of
removing the home and other personal effects. However, under the present
conversion, which will not result in another use and vacation of the property, the
purpose of this Tenant Impact Report is to explain the options of the Residents
regarding their choice to purchase or to rent their space. The Park Owner has
agreed, by this TIR, to waive its right to terminate existing tenancies and Leases
upon the conversion (see section 3 above), and any Resident who chooses not to
purchase a "Condominium Interest" (defined below) may reside in the Park as set
forth in section 3 and section 4.2 above. Thus, there will be no economic
displacement based on the Map Act Rents nor actual eviction of any Resident
because of the conversion, and therefore, no relocation mitigation is
required.
Section 5. Benefits of Conversion:
The purpose of the conversion of a park from a rental park to a Resident -owned
park is to provide the Residents with a choice. The Residents may either choose
to purchase an ownership interest in the Park, which would take the form of a
PUD/Condominium Interest, or continue to rent a space in the Park, thereby
allowing the Residents to control their economic future. The conversion provides
the Resident occupants the opportunity to operate and control the Park. Since the
new owners of the Park will not be motivated to make a profit, but rather are
106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04
8
SAMPLE
motivated to ensure the best possible living conditions at the most affordable
rates, payable through the Homeowners' Association Dues, directly or through
rent, both buyers and renters benefit from the conversion.
Section 6. PUD/Condominium Interest: Ninety (90) Dav Right of First Refusal:
6.1 PUD/Condominium Interest: The conversion provides the Residents with the
opportunity to acquire an ownership interest in the Park, which certainly would
not otherwise occur. As stated above, the form of ownership will be a
PUD/Condominium Interest. The PUD/Condominium Interest is treated as any
other type of real property, with ownership transferred by a grant deed that will be
insured by a policy of title insurance. The front and back lot line boundaries of
each PUD/Condominium Interest will be properly marked by a certified Civil
Engineer, and specific legal descriptions shall be set forth on a "Condominium
Plan" which will be a matter of public record when filed and recorded. Each
PUD/Condominium Interest comprises the airspace directly over the current
rental spaces, a one -one hundred ninety one (1/191) interest in the Park's common
areas, and 1/191 interest in the common area lot, as tenants in common. All
PUD/Condominium Interests are held pursuant to the description of general rights
and associated factors as set forth in the Articles, Bylaws of the Homeowners'
Association, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, and California law
pertaining to such ownership.
6.2 Right of First Refusal: As required by California Government Code Section
66462, each Resident Household shall be informed that they have a ninety (90)-
day right of first refusal period. The right of first refusal period commences upon
the issuance by the California Department of Real Estate and delivery of the
"Final Public Report." During the ninety (90) day period each Resident
Household shall have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to purchase a
PUD/Condominium Interest or continue to rent his or her space.
Section 7. Legal Notices:
The Residents have received the Notice of Intent to File a Map with the City of
Palm Desert and will receive the following notices: Notice of Intent to Convert;
Notice of Change of Use; 90-Day Right of First Refusal; Intention to File
Application for Public Report; and will also receive all additional required legal
notices in the manner and within the time frame required by the state and local
laws and ordinances. All prospective tenants have and will receive the Notice to
Prospective Tenant(s).
SAMPLE
106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04
Section 8. Conclusion:
8.1 The above described purchase rights, Lease programs, and protections will be
offered only if the Park is converted to a Resident -owned mobilehome park. Such
programs become effective on the Map Act Rent Date or the Offering Date, which
is the date of issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report from the California
Department of Real Estate, whichever is the later occurrence.
8.2 Upon conversion of the Park to Resident ownership, the current owner of the
Park, as well as subsequent owners of PUD/Condominium Interests in the Park,
shall abide by all terms and conditions set forth in this TIR. This TIR is a
covenant that encumbers each individual Unit.
8.3 The conversion of the Park from a rental park to a Resident -owned park provides
the Residents with an opportunity of choice. Park Residents may choose to
purchase a Condominium Interest or continue to rent. The conversion also
provides the potential for Residents to enjoy the security of living in a Resident -
owned, controlled, and managed Park, whose motivation is not profit, but rather,
achieving the best living environment at the most affordable rate.
8.4 All Residents choosing to continue to rent will have occupancy rights exactly as
they have now, and all existing Leases and/or Rental Agreements will be honored,
subject to California Government Code section 66427.5, Mobilehome Residency
Law, and other California law, as applicable. The protections and programs
offered to the Residents are greater than those required by law and are better than
the Residents currently have as rent -paying tenants in the Park.
106268 - FINAL - 10/06/04
10
SAMPLE
TENANT IMPACT REPORT
INDIAN SPRINGS
EXHIBIT "A"
Resident Survey
X.HIBIT "A' to TENANT IMPACT REP(
SPACE NO.
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILEHOME PARK
Gov't Code § 66427.5(d)(1) SURVEY OF RESIDENTS
Attached to this Survey of Residents is the Draft Tenant Impact Report ("TIR"). The TIR provides for the
avoidance of the economic displacement of ALL non —purchasing residents in accordance with the following provisions of
Government Code § 66427.5( fi ("Gov't Code'):
(1) As to non -purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any
preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an
appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal
annual increases over a four-year period.
(2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any
preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average
monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event
shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase
in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period
This Survey requests information in TWO categories: (1) Support for the Change of Ownership [Use] AND (2)
demographics of your households. Each household may fill out one (1) Survey and mail the completed Survey to THE
LOFTIN FIRM, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330, San Diego, California 92122 in the enclosed self-addressed and
stamped envelope. If there are sections of the Survey for which you do not have information or do not wish to answer,
simply skip those questions. No one in the Park will see the individual Surveys; however, the City of Palm Desert will
receive copies of the Surveys. The only information that will be provided to resident households or the management is a
summary of data gathered.
SECTION I.
Survey
The effect of a change of ownership format to a resident owned condominium park as proposed by the
subdivider provides a choice to the resident households. The resident households may purchase their
condominium interest or may continue to rent the condominium unit/lot [space] on which their
mobilehome is located. You can support the change of ownership to a resident owned condominium
park without a personal desire to purchase your condominium interest. Pursuant to Gov't Code section
66427.5, the please answer the following questions:
I l
[
[
I support the change of ownership of the park to a resident owned condominium park.
I do not support the change of ownership of the park to a resident owned condominium park.
I decline to state my position at this time.
This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a condominium unit or any other real estate interest in Indian
Springs MHP. An offer to sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along
with all statutorily required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the Purchase/Sale
Agreement, the HOA Articles & Bylaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs).
BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE IF, AND WHEN, INDIAN
SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED
Page 1 of 2
thIsITIS/TIR.MWCSurvey4-26-4
XHIBIT "A' to TENANT IMPACT REP(
SPACE NO.
SECTION II.
Demographic Information
To provide the City of Palm Desert with demographic information, please answer the following questions:
1. Is your home in Indian Springs MHP your primary residence? [] YES / [ ] NO
2. How many people [of all ages] live in your home?
a. Number of Adults [55 and over]:
b. Number of Adults [45 to 54]:
c. Number of Adults [18-44] :
d. Number of Children [under 18]:
3. In which category does your household's total income, before taxes, fall? [Check one box below]
HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELSHOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELS
Check
ONE
Income Levels
1 Person
2 Persons
3 persons
4 persons
Very Low
$ 17,850 or less
$ 20,400 or less
$ 22,950 or less
$ 25,500 or less
Low
More than
$17,851 but less
than $ 28,550
More than
$ 20,401 but
less than $
32,650
More than
$ 22,951 but less than
$ 36,700
More than $25,501
but less than $
40,800
4. Information on Your Mobilehome:
a. Make of Mobilehome:
b. Model of Mobilehome:
c. Year of Manufacture:
d. Size of Mobilehome:
e. Number of Bedrooms:
f. Do you have a mortgage on your home?
i. If yes, what are the balance owed and monthly payment?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TO RESPOIVD TO THIS SURVEY!
Date: Date:
Signature: Signature:
Print Name: Print Name:
Day Tele: Day Tele:
This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a condominium unit or any other real estate interest in Indian
Springs MHP. An offer to sell can only be made after the issuance and deliVery of the Final Public Report along
with all statutorily required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the Purchase/Sale
Agreement, the HOA Articles & Bylaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs).
BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE IF, AND WHEN, INDIAN
SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED
ci:IsITIS/TIR.MVVCSurvey4-26-4
Page 2 of 2
:XHIBIT "A' to TENANT IMPACT REP I'
SPACE NO.
This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a condominium unit or any other real estate interest in Indian
Springs MHP. An offer to sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along
with all statutorily required documents, including without limitation, the HOA Budget, the Purchase/Sale
Agreement, the HOA Articles & Bylaws, and the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs).
BY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE IF, AND WHEN, INDIAN
SPRGINS MHP BECOMES RESIDENT OWNED
cils1/1S/TIR.114WCSurvey4-26-4
Page 3 of 2
EXHIBIT "B" to TENANT IMPACT REPORT
1. Four Year Average (Maximum Amount of Rent Increase for Low Income
Households)
2. History of Rent Increase for January 1, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Basis for
Calculations)
EXHIBIT "B, 1."
Four Year Average (Maximum Amount of Rent Increase for Low Income Households)
GADocuments\Properties\Indian Springs 452\Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year
No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average
39 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
40 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
41 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
42 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
43 0.00 14.50 10.59 9.05 8.54
44 12.14 12.65 9.24 7.90 10.48
45 10.25 10.68 7.80 6.67 8.85
46 13.17 13.72 10.02 8.56 11.37
47 0.00 20.44 11.11 9.50 10.26
48 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
49 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
50 10.19 10.62 7.76 6.63 8.80
51 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
52 12.03 12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38
53 11.01 11.47 8.38 7.16 9.51
54 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
55 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
56 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
57 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
58 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
59 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
60 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
61 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
62 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
63 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
64 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
65 11.35 11.82 8.63 7.38 9.80
66 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
67 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
68 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
69 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
70 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
71 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
72 14.04 14.64 10.69 9.13 12.13
73 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
74 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
75 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36
76 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
aTocuments\Properties\Indian Springs 452\Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
• Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year
No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average
77 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
78 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
79 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
80 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36
81 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
82 9.71 10.70 7.81 6.68 8.73
83 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
84 15.31 15.96 11.65 9.96 13.22
85 15.51 16.16 11.80 10.08 13.39
86 14.67 15.28 11.16 9.54 12.66
87 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
88 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36
89 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
90 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
91 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
92 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
93 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
94 9.26 9.65 7.05 6.03 8.00
95 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
96 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32
97 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
98 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
99 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
100 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
101 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
102 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
103 0.00 14.38 10.50 8.98 8.47
104 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
105 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
106 10.71 11.16 8.15 6.97 9.25
107 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
108 11.27 11.75 8.58 7.33 9.73
109 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
110 11.27 11.75 8.58 7.33 9.73
111 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
112 13.44 14.01 10.23 8.74 11.61
113 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
114 10.44 10.88 0.00 6.79 7.03
aTocuments\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year
No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average
115 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
116 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
117 0.00 18.75 19.75 9.15 11.91
118 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
119 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
120 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
121 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
122 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
123 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
124 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
125 14.49 15.10 11.03 9.43 12.51
126 10.84 11.29 8.25 7.05 9.36
127 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
128 10.66 11.10 8.11 6.93 9.20
129 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
130 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
131 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
132 10.00 10.42 7.61 6.51 8.64
133 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
134 11.67 12.16 8.88 7.59 10.08
135 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
136 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
137 13.49 14.06 10.27 8.77 11.65
138 8.54 8.90 6.50 5.56 7.38
139 13.57 14.14 10.33 8.83 11.72
140 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
141 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
142 0.00 20.88 13.26 11.38
143 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
144 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
145 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
146 11.01 11.47 8.38 7.16 9.51
147 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
148 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
149 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
150 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
151 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
152 12.14 12.65 9.24 7.89 10.48
GADocuments\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year
No. Jan 1. 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average
153 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
154 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
155 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
156 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
157 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
158 12.03 12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38
159 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
160 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
161 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
162 12.03 12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38
163 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
164 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
165 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
166 1203.12.53 9.15 7.82 10.38
167 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32
168 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
169 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
170 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
171 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
172 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
173 12.46 12.99 9.49 8.11 10.76
174 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
175 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
176 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
177 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
178 12.46 12.99 9.49 8.11 10.76
179 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
180 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
181 12.26 12.77 9.33 7.97 10.58
182 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
183 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
184 12.53 13.06 9.54 8.15 10.82
185 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
186 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
187 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
188 12.51 13.04 9.52 8.14 10.80
189 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
190 11.08 11.55 8.43 7.21 9.57
aTocuments\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year
No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average
191 12.12 12.63 9.22 7,88 10.46
Total 2,086.00 2,263.41 1,631.68 1,407.05 1,849.88
Average 10.92 11.85 8.54 7.37 9.69
EXHIBIT "B, 2."
History of Rent Increase for January 1, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Basis for Calculations
CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space Rent at CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect
No. 01/01/00 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1. 2003 Jan 1. 2003 Jan 1 2004 Jan 1, 2004
1 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98 7.02 443.00
2 455.02 12.10 467.12 12.61 479.73 9.21 488.94 7.87 496.81
3 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
4 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
5 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
6 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
7 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
8 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
9 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
10 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
11 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
12 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
13 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
14 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
15 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
16 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
17 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
18 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
19 456.26 12.14 468.40 12.65 481.05 9.24 490.29 7.89 498.18
20 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
21 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
22 410.41 10.92 421.33 11.38 432.71 8.31 441.02 7.10 448.12
23 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
24 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98 7.02 443.00
25 544.56 14.49 559.05 15.09 574.14 11.02 585.16 9.42 594.58
26 422.15 11.23 433.38 11.70 445.08 8.55 453.63 7.30 460.93
27 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
28 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
29 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
30 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
31 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
32 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
33 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
34 383.11 10.19 393.30 10.62. 403.92 7.76 411.68 6.63 418.31
35 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
36 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
37 465.00 12.37 477.37 12.89 490.26 9.41 499.67 8.04 507.71
38 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
39 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
40 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
41 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
42 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
43 537.20 0.00 537.20 14.50 551.70 10.59 562.29 9.05 571.34
44 456.44 12.14 468.58 12.65 481.23 9.24 490.47 7.90 498.37
45 385.30 10.25 395.55 10.68 406.23 7.80 414.03 6.67 420.70
46 494.93 13.17 508.10 13.72 521.82 10.02 531.84 8.56 540.40
47 558.39 0.00 558.39 20.44 578.83 11.11 589.94 9.50 599.44
48 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
49 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
50 383.11 10.19 393.30 10.62 403.92 7.76 411.68 6.63 418.31
51 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
52 452.20 12.03 464.23 12.53 476.76 9.15 485.91 7.82 493.73
53 413.92 11.01 424.93 11.47 436.40 8.38 444.78 7.16 451.94
54 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
55 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
56 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
57 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
58 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
59 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
60 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
61 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
62 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
63 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
64 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
65 426.51 11.35 437.86 11.82 449.68 8.63 458.31 7.38 465.69
CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space Rent at CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect
No. 01/01/00 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1 2001 Jan 1 2002 Jan 1 2002 Jan 1 2003 Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1. 2004 Jan 1 2004
66 453.90 1207.465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 785 495.59
67 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
68 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
69 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
70 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74 7.85 495.59
71 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
72 528.00 14.04 542.04 14.64 556.68 10.69 567.37 9.13 576.50
73 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
74 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
75 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89
76 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
77 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
78 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
79 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
80 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89
81 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
82 365.06 9.71 374.77 10.70 407.03 7.81 414.84 6.68 421.52
83 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
84 575.66 15.31 590.97 15.96 606.93 11.65 618.58 9.96 628.54
85 582.90 15.51 598.41 16.16 614.57 11.80 626.37 10.08 636.45
86 551.32 14.67 565.99 15.28 581.27 11.16 592.43 9.54 601.97
87 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
88 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89
89 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
90 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
91 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
92 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 42E1.50
93 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
94 348.28 9.26 357.54 9.65 367.19 7.05 374.24 6.03 380.27
95 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
96 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98 7.02 443.00
97 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
98 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
99 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
100 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 426.60
:..7769
101 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 428.50
102 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
103 532.65 0.00 532.65 14.38 547.03 10.50 557.53 8.98 566.51
104 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
105 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
106 402.69 10.71 413.40 11.16 424.56 8.15 432.71 6.97 439.68
107 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
108 423.85 11.27 435.12 11.75 446.87 8.58 455.45 7.33 462.78
109 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65 7.19 453.84
110 423.85 11.27 435.12 11.75 446.87 8.58 455.45 7.33 462.78
111 583.74 0.00 583.74 0.00 583.74 0.00 594.95 0.00 583.74
112 505.30 13.44 518.74 14.01 532.75 10.23 542.98 8.74 551.72
113 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84 6.76 426.60
114 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 0.00 413.77 6.79 428.50
115 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
116 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
117 529.80 0.00 529.80 18.75 548.55 19.75 568.30 9.15 577.45
118 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
119 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
120 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
121 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
122 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
123 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
124 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
125 544.88 14.49 559.37 15.10 574.47 11.03 585.50 9.43 594.93
126 407.46 10.84 418.30 11.29 429.59 8.25 437.84 7.05 444.89
127 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
128 400.63 10.66 411.29 11.10 422.39 8.11 430.50 6.93 437.43
129 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
130 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71 6.79 428.50
CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space Rent at CPI Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect cp.! Rent in Effect CPI Rent in Effect
No. 01/01/00 Jan 1 2001 Jan 1 2001 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1 2004 Jan 1, 2004
131 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
132 376.05 10.00 386.05 10.42 396.47 7.61 404:08
133 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
134 438.86 11.67 450.53 12.16 462.69 8.88 471.57
135 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
136 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
137 507.17 13.49 520.66 14.06 534.72 10.27 544.99
138 321.17 8.54 329.71 8.90 338.61 6.50 345.11
139 510.26 13.57 523.83 14.14 537.97 10.33 548.30
140 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
141 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
142 662.69 0.00 662.69 20.88 600.88 600.88
143 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
144 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
145 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65
146 413.92 11.01 424.93 11.47 436.40 8.38 444.78
147 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65
148 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
149 415.66 11.06 426.72 11.52 438.24 8.41 446.65
150 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487,74
151 392.45. 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
152 456.26 12.14 468.40 12.65 481.05 9.24 490.29
153 390.71 10.39 401.10 10.83 411.93 7.91 419.84
154 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
155 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
156 453.90 1207.465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
157 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
158 452.17 12.03 464.20 12.53 476.73 9.15 485.88
159 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
160 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
161 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
162 452.17 12.03 464.20 12.53 476.73 9.15 485.88
163 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
164 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
165 392.45 10.44 402.89 10.88 413.77 7.94 421.71
166 452.17 12.03 464.20 12.53 476.73 9.15 485.88
167 405.73 10.79 416.52 11.25 427.77 8.21 435.98
168 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
169 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
170 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
171 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
172 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
173 468.57 12.46 481.03 12.99 494.02 9.49 503.51
174 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
175 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
176 47030 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
177 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
178 468.57 12.46 481.03 12.99 494.02 9.49 503.51
179 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
180 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
181 460.80 12.26 473.06 12.77 485.83 9.33 495.16
182 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
183 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
184 471.08 12.53 483.61 13.06 496.67 9.54 506.21
185 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
186 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
187 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
188 470.30 12.51 482.81 13.04 495.85 9.52 505.37
189 453.90 12.07 465.97 12.58 478.55 9.19 487.74
190 416.65 11.08 427.73 11.55 439.28 8.43 447.71
191 455.66 12.12 467.78 12.63 480.41 9.22 489.63
Total 81,828.00 2,086.00 83,914.00 2,263.41 86,116.28 1,631.68 87,759.17
6.79
6.51
6.79
7.59
6.79
6.79
8.77
5.56
8.83
8.14
6.79
13.26
6.79
8.14
7.19
7.16
7.19
7.85
7.19
7.85
6.79
7.89
6.76
7.85
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.82
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.82
6.79
7.85
6.79
7.82
7.02
7.85
7.85
8.14
8.14
8.14
8.11
8.14
8.14
8.14
7.85
8.11
8.14
8.14
7.97
8.14
8.14
8.15
8.14
8.14
7.85
8.14
7.85
7.21
7.88
428.50
410.59
428.50
479.16
428.50
428.50
553.76
350.67
557.13
513.51
428.50
632.71
428.50
513.51
453.84
451.94
453.84
495.59
453.84
495.59
428.50
498.18
426.60
495.59
428.50
495.59
428.50
493.70
428.50
495.59
428.50
493.70
428.50
495.59
428.50
493.70
443.00
495.59
495.59
513.51
513.51
513.51
511.62
513.51
513.51
513.51
495.59
511.62
513.51
513.51
503.13
513.51
513.51
514.36
513.51
513.51
495.59
513.51
495.59
454.92
497.51
1,407.05
89,181.52
• GADocuments\Properties\Indian Springs 4521Spreadsheets\CPI Rent History 2001-2004
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Space CPI CPI CPI CPI 4-Year
No. Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 2002Jan 1, 2003 Jan 1, 2004 Average
1 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32
2 12.10 12.61 9.21 7.87 10.45
3 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
4 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
5 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
6 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
7 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
8 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
9 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
10 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
11 10.44 10.88 •7.94 6.79 9.01
12 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
13 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
14 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
15 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
16 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
17 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
18 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
19 12.14 12.65 9.24 7.89 10.48
20 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
21 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
22 10.92 11.38 8.31 7.10 9.43
23 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
24 10.79 11.25 8.21 7.02 9.32
25 14.49 15.09 11.02 9.42 12.51
26 11.23 11.70 8.55 7.30 9.70
27 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
28 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
29 10.39 10.83 7.91 6.76 8.97
30 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
31 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
32 11.06 11.52 8.41 7.19 9.55
33 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
34 10.19 10.62 7.76 6.63 8.80
35 10.44 10.88 7.94 6.79 9.01
36 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
37 12.37 12.89 9.41 8.04 10.68
38 12.07 12.58 9.19 7.85 10.42
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action.
My business address is 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330, San Diego, California, 92122. On
November 22 , 2004, I caused the following listed documents to be served on the interested parties by
the following method:
DOCUMENTS SERVED:
1. Meeting Notice for 29'
2. Hearing Notice for Planning Commission Dec. 7
3. Tenant Impact Report
4. Supplemental Tenant Impact Report
METHOD:
X By placing The original X a true and correct copy with any and all exhibits thereof enclosed in
sealed envelopes addresses as stated below.
X BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. By following the ordinary business
practice, placing the documents listed above in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the
United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fiilly prepaid,
in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and delivery on
this date in accordance with standard Federal Express delivery procedures.
BY FAX: The fax machine I used complies with California Rules of Court, rule 2003, and no error
was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2006(d), I caused the machine
to print a transmission record of the transmission.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I cause such envelope to be delivered by hand to the above referenced
person(s).
PERSON(S) SERVED:
Resident of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park
Spaces 1-191
49305 Highway 74
Palm Desert, CA 92260
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct and that this declaration was executed on November 22 , 2004, at San Diego, California.
Christa A. Lane
c/ab/pos.2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action.
My business address is 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330, San Diego, California, 92122. On
November1:3_, 2004, I caused the following listed documents to be served on the interested parties by
the following method:
DOCUMENTS SERVED:
1. Meeting Notice for 29'
2. Hearing Notice for Planning Commission Dec. 7
3. Tenant Impact Report
4. Supplemental Tenant Impact Report
METHOD:
..L By placing ___ The original X a true and correct copy with any and all exhibits thereof enclosed in
sealed envelopes addresses as stated below.
BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. By following the ordinary business
practice, placing the documents listed above in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the
United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid,
in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and delivery on
this date in accordance with standard Federal Express delivery procedures.
BY FAX: The fax machine I used complies with California Rules of Court, rule 2003, and no error
was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2006(d), I caused the machine
to print a transmission record of the transmission.
X BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I cause such envelope to be delivered by hand to the above referenced
person(s).
PERSON(S) SERVED:
Resident of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park
Spaces 1-191
49305 Highway 74
Palm Desert, CA 92260
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct and that this declaration was executed on /0 , 2004, at Saft-Diegt5; California.
'ALAI
Aez-k-ti
te en e e 1
dab/pos.2004
NOV-2272004 NON 12:30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7R04161588
P. 02
Robert & Irene Borelli
49-305 Highway 74 41
Palm Desert CA 92260
Rosalee Calvert
Mary Perlin
49-305 Highway 74, #4
Palm Desert CA 92260
William & Louise Remelius
49-305 Highway 74
4007
Palm Desert CA 52260
John M'tch 1
49-305 g way 74 #10
Palm Dese t CA 92260
Adele Mescal
49-305 Highway 74
4013
Palm Desert CA 92260
Francis & Rose Pagliarini
49-305 Highway 74
4016
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jart Eank
49- Highway 74
#01
Pal ert CA 92260
Cheryl Paninder
49-305 Highway 74 #22
Palm Desert CA 92260
Cecile West
45-305 Highway 74
#025
Palm Desert CA 92260
Katherine Robbins
49-305 Highway 74 428
Palm Desert CA 92260
Gunn Trigere
49-305 Highway 74
4002
Palm Desert CA 92260
Irene Stewart
49-305 Highway 74
#005
Palm Desert CA 92260
Barbara Young
49-305 Highway 74 #8
Palm Desert CA 92260
Norris and Loretta Olson
49-305 Highway 74 4011
Palm Desert CA 92260
De a B issmer
49-3 Highway 74 #014
Palm ert CA 92260
Judy Matthews
49-305 Highway 74 417
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jack Mallory
49-305 Highway 74 420
Palm Desert CA 92260
James G. Stone
49-305 Highway 74 #23
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jerry & Carole Ciccimaro
49-305 Highway 74
4026
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jean Wa son
49-30 Highway 74
402
Pal' De'rt CA 92260
Lucille Bodine
49-305 Highway 74 43
Palm Desert CA 92260
Larry owen
49-305 Highway 74 06
Palm Desert CA 92260
Yavanka Trbuhovich
49-305 Highway 74 4009
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jac Sfl
49-3
Palm Asert CA 92260
Highway 74 412
Margarette Meinecke
49-305 Highway 74 415
Palm Desert CA 92260
Edith Gagnon
49-305 Highway 74
4018
Palm Desert CA 92260
Cookie Caffery
49-305 Highway 74
4021
Palm Desert CA 92260
William And Lee Fischer
49-305 Highway 74 4024
Palm Desert CA 92260
Joan Perkinson
49-305 Highway 74 #27
Palm Desert CA 92260
Addle Capovani
49-305 Highway 74 #30
Palm Desert CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES
FAX NO, 7604161588
P. 03
Lee & Pat Shrake
49-305 Highway 74
#031
Palm Desert CA 92260
Paul Slack
Joe McLaughlin
49-305 Highway 74 #34
Palm Desert CA 92260
Robert and Polly Duden
49-305 Highway 74 #037
Palm Desert CA 92260
George and Barbara Ruppert
49-305 Highway 74
#040
Palm Desert CA 92260
Mary Plumley
49-305 Highway 74
#043
Palm Desert CA 92260
A. Ri&aqi Brown, Sr.
49-305 ighway 74 #046
Palm D rt CA 92260
Nick Brandt
49-305 Highway 74
#049
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jean-Ja gue Sarfati
49-305 H ay 74 #052
Palm Dese t CA 92260
Tim & Helen Taylor
49-305 Highway 74
#055
Palm Desert CA 92260
vincent Giuliani
Evelyn Rails
49-305 Hwy 74, Space 58
PALM DESERT CA 92260
Diane M. Morin
49-305 Highway 74 #32
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ted and Betty Morrell
49-305 Highway 74 #35
Palm Desert CA 92260
Bob Schoelzel
49-305 Highway 74
#038
Palm Desert CA 92260
Virginia Ross
49-305 Highway 74 #41
Palm Desert CA 92260
Et?1ynJ Opel
49-35fHighway 74
#044
Palm De ert CA 92260
Ruth Malatesta
49-305 Highway 74 #47
Palm Desert CA 92260
Are Ftzgerald
49-305 ighway 74 #50
Palm D rt CA 92260
Harry and Sharon Hanna
49-305 Highway 74 #53
Palm Desert CA 92260
Pamala Hagemann
49-305 Highway 74 #56
Palm Desert CA 52260
Sh on arey
Donn K'ng
Judy d Ron Williams
49-30 ighway 74 #59
Palm es rt CA 92260
Annette Randazzo
49-305 Highway 74 i033
Palm Desert CA 92260
Hobart and Josephine Cravens
49-305 Highway 74 #36
Palm Desert CA 92260
Bea
49-3
Pal
Davis
Highway 74 #39
esert CA 92260
Annette Clyatt
49-305 Highway 74 #42
Palm Desert CA 92260
Charlotte Sharp
49-305 Highway 74
#045
Palm Desert CA 92260
Douglas and Bonita Grobe
49-305 Highway 74 #048
Palm Desert CA 92260
John & Bette Ackley
49-305 Highway 74
#051
Palm Desert CA 92260
Julie Ann Gillibrand
49-305 Highway 74
#054
Palm Desert CA 92260
Delores Murray
49-305 Highway 74
#057
Palm Desert CA 92260
Lenore Sparling
49-305 Highway 74
#060
Palm Desert CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES
FAX NO. 7604161588 P. 04
Elizabeth Nabie
49-305 Highway 74 #61
Palm Desert CA 92260
Arnd O. Fischler
Antje S. Reck
49-305 Highway 74 #64
Palm Desert CA 92260
Maryanne Harper
49-305 Highway 74 #67
Palm Desert CA 92260
Judith L. Rosenberg
49-305 Highway 74 #070
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jaie1i,rSe Doyle
49- Highway 74
#07
Pa1irjsrt CA 92260
John O'Donnell
49-305 Highway 74
#076
Palm Desert CA 92260
Margo Iverson
49-305 Highway 74 #79
Palm Desert CA 92260
Sharma Lady Smith
49-305 ghway 74 #82
Palm De rt CA 92260
Dorothy Muller
49-305 Highway 74
#085
Palm Desert CA 92260
Sharon Royal
49-305 Highway 74 #088
Palm Desert CA 92260
Clyde Mitchell
49-305 Highway 74 #62
Palm Desert CA 92260
Richard and Catherine Miller
49-305 Highway 74 #065
Palm Desert CA 92260
k‘,!larre and arcia Monroe
49-305 hway 74 #68
Palm De t CA 92260
(7150e11a Boehnlein
45-305 Highway 74
#071
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ronald and Donna Rolfe
49-305 Highway 74 474
Palm Desert CA 92260
Patricia A. Greco
49-305 Highway 74 477
Palm Desert CA 92260
JoAnn Cina
49-305 Highway 74 #080
Palm Desert CA 92260
Bar Ral
49-30 ighway 74 #83
Palm D ert CA 92260
Marie Schmidt
49-305 Highway 74 #086
Palm Desert CA 92260
Gary & Maria McIntyre
49-305 Highway 74
#089
Palm Desert CA 92260
William and Barbara Carr
49-305 Highway 74 #63
Palm Desert CA 92260
Rosemarie Schneider
49-305 Highway 74, 466
Palm Desert CA 92260
Donald & Laura Hill
49-305 Highway 74
#069
Palm Desert CA 92260
George A. Rex
49-305 Highway 74, 472
Palm Desert CA 92260
Dorothy Pampetti
49-305 Highway 74 #75
Palm Desert CA 92260
Lorraine Huhnke
49-305 Highway 74
#078
Palm Desert CA 92260
Mary Wiley
49-305 Highway 74 #81
Palm Desert CA 92260
Denny Evans
49-305 Highway 74
4084
Palm Desert CA 92260
James Adamo
49-305 Highway 74 #87
Palm Desert CA 92260
Betty Ann Toms
49-305 Highway 74
#090
Palm Desert CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 MON 12:30 PM TAMES & ASSOCIATES
FAX NO. 7R04161588
P, 05
Mara Romero Villalta
49-305 Highway 74
4091
Palm Desert CA 92260
Paul Chapas
49-305 Highway 74 #094 -
Palm Desert CA 92260
Morris & Adela Carson
49-305 Highway 74
#097
Palm Desert CA 92260
Richard Gibson
49-305 Highway 74 #100
Palm Desert CA 92260
Rita Alexander
49-305 Highway 74 4103
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jack L. Bernier
49-305 Highway 74 #106
Palm Desert CA 92260
Chester E. Hill
49-305 Highway 74 0109
Palm Desert CA 92260
Stanley Glen Wiesner
49-305 Highway 74
4112
Palm Desert CA 92260
Pauline V. Eubanks
49-305 Highway 74 4115
Palm Desert CA 92260
marcella Knox
49-305 Highway 74
#118
Palm Desert CA 92260
Georgia Fish
49-305 Highway 74
#092
Palm Desert CA 92260
Sandy Symington
49-305 Highway 74 #095
Palm Desert CA 92260
Patsy Schellbach
49-305 Highway 74 #98
Palm Desert CA 92260
Joan Wilkinson
49-305 Highway 74
#101
Palm Desert CA 92260
Carol J. Byron
49-305 Highway 74 #104
Palm Desert CA 92260
Elizabeth Carmellini
49-305 Highway 74 #107
Palm Desert CA 92260
Cha urton
49-3 Highway 74 #110
Pa1zV5ert CA 92260
Elaine Evon Swedin
49-305 Highway 74 #113
Palm Desert CA 92260
JoAnn Cina
49-305 Highway 74
4116
Palm Desert CA 92260
Eleanor Noyes
49-305 Highway 74
#119
Palm Desert CA 92260
Mike Condreay
49-305 Highway 74 493
Paim Desert CA 92260
Robert and Juana Thompson
49-305 Highway 74 496
Palm Desert CA 92260
Frank and marlena Woodward
49-305 Highway 74 499
Palm Desert CA 92260
Michael and Barbara Doyle
49-305 Highway 74 4102
Palm Desert CA 52260
Raymond Borden
49-305 Highway 74 4105
Palm Desert CA 92260
Paul and Lorice Loft
49-305 Highway 74 4108
Palm Desert CA 92260
June Gleason
49-305 Highway 74 #111
Palm Desert CA 92260
Marion Phillips
49-305 Highway 74
#114
Palm Desert CA 92260
LaDonna Flammenio
49-305 Highway 74 4117
Palm Desert CA 92260
Fran & Terry Shanbrom
49-305 Highway 74
4120
Palm Desert CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 NON 12:30 PM TMES & ASSOCIATES
FAX NO, 7R04161588 P, 06
Ron anQ\M4inda Lerg
49-305 H ghway 74 #121
Pa7m t CA 92260
Hank Stroband
49-305 Highway 74 #124
Palm Desert CA 92260
Betty Crockett
49-305 Highway 74 #12/
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jerri ams
49-30 ighway 74 #130
Palm ert CA 92260
William & Marlene Kays
49-305 Highway 74 #133
Palm Desert CA 92260
George and Sally Brooks
49-305 Highway 74 #136
Palm Desert CA 92260
Marilyn J. Godfrey
45-305 Highway 74
#139
Palm Desert CA 92260
Bill Price
49-305 Highway 74
4142
Palm Desert CA 92260
Frank Reister
49-305 Highway 74 #I45
Palm Desert CA 92260
Kantaben Engineer
49-305 Highway 74 #148
Palm Desert CA 92260
Paul avid Lawson
49-30 ghway 74 #122
Palm D ert CA 92260
John &
49-305
Palm De
sy Leffler
ghway 74 4125
t CA 92260
Connie Zonka
49-305 Highway 74 #128
Palm Desert CA 92260
Louise Kempf
49-305 Highway 74
4131
Palm Desert CA 92260
Esth
49-30
Palm
nn
ighway 74 #134
ert CA 92260
Roger Dundas
49-305 Highway 74 4137
Palm Desert CA 92260
Batt Jan Kellogg
49-30 H ghway 74 4140
Palm D ert CA 92260
James & Eulene Massey
49-305 Highway 74
#143
Palm Desert CA 92260
Bob Miller
49-305 Highway 74 4146
Palm Desert CA 92260
John and Ann Duggan
49-305 Highway 74 4149
Palm Desert CA 92260
Florence M. Marks
49-305 Highway 74 4123
Palm Desert CA 92260
Kathleen Dale
49-305 Highway 74 4126
Palm Desert CA 92260
Yavanka Trbuhovich
49-30$ Highway 74 #129
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ed Difani
49-305 Highway 74
4132
Palm Desert CA 92260
Lola M. Chanter
49-305 Highway 74 #I35
Palm Desert CA 92260
Managers
49-305 Highway 74
#138
Palm Desert CA 92260
Max & Ursula Savadt
49-305 Highway 74
4141
Palm Desert CA 92260
Trudy C. Hallway
49-30$ Highway 74 4144
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jan Sa man
49-3 Highway 74
4147
Pal ert CA 92260
Bar
49-30
Palm
axwell
ighway 74 4150
rt CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 NON 12:31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588
P. 07
Chary
49-30
Palm
ffey
5 ighway 74 #151
rt CA 92260
Patricia Taylor
49-305 Highway 74 #154
Palm Desert CA 92260
Joanne P. Savona
49-305 Highway 74 #157
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jim Kirwan
49-305 Highway 74 #160
Palm Desert CA 92260
Glenn and Jessena Hafen
49-308 Highway 74 #163
Palm Desert CA 92260
Norm
49-305
Palm D
ika StacK
ghway 74 #166
rt CA 92260
Sherry Johnson
49-305 Highway 111 #169
Palm Desert CA 92260
John and Lynn Tessman
49-305 Highway 74 #172
Palm Desert CA 92260
Doris Phelan
49-305 Highway 74
#175
Palm Desert CA 92260
Harvey an M rgret Dickau
49-305 Hig ay 74 #178
Palm Deser CA 92260
Pearl Marsh
A9-305 Highway 74 #152
Palm Desert CA 92260
Catherine Morris
49-305 Highway 74 #155
Palm Desert CA 92260
Don and Jo Fair
49-305 Highway 74 #156
Palm Desert CA 92260
Rosemary Legeay
49-305 Highway 74
#161
Palm Desert CA 92260
Terence and Christine Ryan
49-305 Highway 74 #164
Palm Desert CA 92260
J. C•
49-30
Palm
ith
Highway 74 #167
sert CA 92260
Georgia & Armen Abrahamian
49-305 Highway 74
. #170
Palm Desert CA 92260
Dee Jay
49-305 Highway 74
#173
Palm Desert CA 92260
Mary Jane Smith
49-305 Highway 74
#176
Palm Desert CA 92260
Jean Benson
49-305 Highway 74
#179
Palm Desert CA 92260
Kathy Shahayda
49-305 Highway 74 #153
Palm Desert CA 92260
Bet bster
49-3 Highway 74
#156
Pal sart CA 92260
Robe t J Evans
49-30 ighway 74 #159
Palm e ert CA 92260
Richard & Geraldine Crofoot
49-305 Highway 74
#162
Palm Desert CA 92260
Michael and Barbara McGehee
49-305 Highway 74 #165
Palm Desert CA 92260
Norma R. Wickliff
49-305 Highway 74
#168
Palm Desert CA 92260
Pat Bell
49-305 Highway 74
#171
Palm Desert CA 92260
Robe ta & Philip Carlile
49-30 ghway 74
#174
Palm ert CA 92260
Rafa . Rosado
49-30 Highway 74 #177
Palm ert CA 92260
Anne Gookin
49-305 Highway 74 #180
Palm Desert CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 MON 12:31 PM JAMES St ASSOCIATES
FAX NO. 7604161588
P. 08
William an Juanita Wilson
Cindy Torres
49-305 Highway 74 #181
Palm Desert CA 92260
Geral ar Nancy Burks
49-305 ighway 74 #184
Palm D ert CA 92260
Ray and Lorie Cohcon
49-305 Highway 74 #187
Palm Desert CA 92260
Christine Chehovin
49-305 Highway 74 #190
Palm Desert CA. 92260
Hazel G. Maloney
49-305 Highway 74 #182
Palm Desert CA 92260
Steven N. Levine
49-305 Highway 74 #185
Palm Desert CA 92260
Donald Cameron
49-305 Highway 74 #188
Palm Desert CA 92260
Kenneth & Helen Fish
49-305 Highway 74
#191
Palm Desert CA 92260
Judi h
49-30
#183
Palm
ldman
ighway 74
ert CA 92260
Jame & dith Langford
49-30 riighway 74
#186
Pa7m esert CA 92260
Chuc d Vicky Trenkle
49-30 highway 74 #189
Palm esert CA 92260
NOV-22-2004 NON 12:31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588
P. 10
Harvey Dickau #178
14-1301 Joluiston Street
Vancouver BC V61-13R9
Canada
Edith Langford
14636 Carnell
Whittier, CA 90603
#186
Judith Goldman #183
c/o Kathy Edwards
130 Ashdale Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Charles Trenkle
695 Vista Lago
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Gerald Burks
2859 Teal St.
La Vern, CA 91750
#184
#189 Sherman and Lady Smith #82
P. O. Box 1955
Palm Desert, CA 92261
NOV-22-2004 MON 12:31 PM JAMES & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 7604161588
P. 09
John Mitchell
19614 Oakland Avenue
Rialto, CA 92377
Janet Frank
P. O. Box 1031
Palm Desert, CA 92261
410 Jack Small
P. O. Box 1564
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
419 Jean Watson
P. O. Box 3932
Palm Desert, CA 92261
Ethelyn Opel #44
1950 Silverleaf Circle #304
Carlsbad, CA 92209
#12 Deana Blissmer
P. O. Box 10516
Palm Desert, CA 92255
#79
Richard Brown, Sr. #46
4350 Richard Crest Drive
Taylorsville, UT 84119
Jean Jacque and Pam Sarfati #52 Sharon Carey
426 Marigold Ave. 3099 Rancho del Canon
Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Carlsbad, CA 92549
Jackie Doyle #73
Bart Rallo
c/o Abel Krieger
73-350 El Paseo #201
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ron & Melinda Lerg
527 Cienega Road
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Jeri Mirams
7 Rue Morsille
Newport Beach, CA 92660
P. O. Box 1962
Palm Desert, CA 92261
Bea Davis
121 San Fernando Ave.
Silverstrand Beach, CA 93035
Alfred Fitzgerald
P. O. Box 50654
Pasadena, CA 91115-0657
#59 Warren Monroe #68
P. O. Box 3322
Idyllwild, CA 92549
483 Charles Burton #110
73-427 Cabazon Peak Circle
Palm Desert, CA 92260
#121 Paul Lawson
P. O. Box 727
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
#130
Jane Santma.n #147
1929 Sylvan SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Betty Webster
1957 Temple Ave #204
Signal Hill, CA 90755
Esther Mann
901 Henman Ave, Apt 4D
Evanston, IL 60202
Tom Rebentisch
Barbara Maxwell
49-080 Buttonwood Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
#156 Robert Evans
72956 Tamarisk St,
Palm Desert, CA 92260
J. C. Smith #167
74-478 Hwy 111 PMS 266
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phil and Etobbi Carlile
514 N. Hanover St,
Anaheim, CA 92801
#122
John & Betsy Leffler
64690 E. Drifter Drive
Tucson, AZ 85739
#14
439
#125
#134 Betty Jane Kellogg #140
P. O. Box 1195
Palm Desert, CA 92261
#150
Cheryl Coffey
P. O. Box 187
Cedar Glen, CA 92321
#151
#159 Norm Stack #166
37200 S E Liewood Apt 15
Boring, OR 97009
#174 Rafael Rosado #177
27 W. 370 Geneva Rd #87
W. Chicago, IL 60185
CITY Of NU DEVRT
7 3 -5 To FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-061 T
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@p21m-deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PM 31862
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a CA Limited Liability
Company, for approval of a parcel map to establish a one (1) lot subdivision with a
condominium overlay to change the ownership structure from rental mobile home park to
single family manufactured housing condominium units at the 191-space Indian Springs
Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007).
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
me
ifuEN";lli bri,/ oik,
mop •di
E -
itumi4st
es
11
441,
I" ARRU
OESERTOFER Ri
X 0 Aar wo -1▪ . -4
5 RUSTIC.; 4 .4-
4, SPUR fx o
46
4.9 4'e
,c MEM 40 (, i
E i
g= . . u'rit14,1' Z
-,
tft, I .4. a ....4.6v
2- g ,st
yu °co
cCA Lk .11L o us,
marreamy
L
A
-0
E
Ce
• E UN
e 001 1-1-
sAq 1
..LOWE
,25k
tigg
in*
44
10.46.
044,13\
z:A• 3: ° (-
INDIAN HILLS,WAY
d\ 'Weer
SCP\
Air mit
>
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
November 25, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case No. PM 31862 - INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., Applicant
(Continued from December 7, 2004)
Request for approval of a parcel map to establish a one -lot
subdivision with a condominium overlay at the 191-space
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305
Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007).
Mr. Smith noted that this matter was originally before the Planning
Commission at the meeting of December 7, 2004. At that time the
matter was continued to allow staff and the City Attorney to review in
depth the concerns which the applicant had raised with respect to certain
conditions of approval that had been included in the draft resolution at
that time. Following the December 7 meeting, the City Attorney
determined that due to unforseen circumstances related to the Permit
Streamlining Act, the project needed to be acted upon earlier than
January 18, 2005. Consequently, the matter was renoticed for the
hearing on December 29. All tenants in the park were notified, as well as
property owners within 300 feet.
He stated that there had been changes made to the draft resolution and
there would be another one made for Public Works. With respect to
Community Development Condition of Approval No. 3, the City Attorney
reviewed the issue and concluded that the jurisdiction of the City's rent
review process terminates upon the sale of the first unit and the last
sentence of the condition should be deleted. That had been done.
2
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Community Development Condition No. 5 related to the requirement for
the connection of the park to the sewer system. That condition remained
in the recommendation. With the staff report were letters from the
Coachella Valley Water District and the California Water Quality Board,
and he understood the Water Quality Board might be offering testimony
tonight.
Relative to Community Development Condition No. 6 for the
indemnification of the City, the City Attorney agreed that it should be
modified to have the words added, "This section shall not apply to any
action brought by the applicant to challenge the City's actions in this
matter." Mr. Smith stated that change had been made.
With respect to the Public Works conditions, the draft resolution included
two conditions. Those should be eliminated and replaced with a single
condition, a copy of which was distributed to the applicant this evening,
to read: "Application approval by City is subject to complete parcel map
being submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The
parcel map shall be based on a field survey in conformance with the
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City Ordinances. Survey
monumentation shall be in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and
City Ordinances."
In conclusion, Mr. Smith stated that the City Attorney advised that while
the City is limited as to the conditions which may be imposed, conditions
may be imposed if they are addressing issues of an existing health and
safety condition or matters directly permitted by the government code.
Commission should weigh the testimony and reports supporting the
inclusion of the conditions against the applicant's concerns.
Mr. Smith recommended approval of the map, subject to the conditions
as noted and as included with the staff report packet with the exception
of the changes to the Public Works condition. He asked for any
questions.
City Attorney Bob Hargreaves stated that he would like to clarify the
issue with respect to the meeting tonight. Subsequent to the last
meeting, the Permit Streamlining Act was reviewed and there was a
certain amount of ambiguity with respect to when the time limits start to
3
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
run. They believed that the best interpretation was that it didn't start to
run until after the Planning Commission has made a CEQA determination,
which it hasn't done, so they more than likely would have been all right
if they had waited until the January meeting. But because of the
contentiousness of this meeting and in an abundance of caution, they
scheduled the meeting tonight. They asked the applicant to waive the
issue, the applicant declined, and that was why they were meeting. It
was the City Attorney's belief and opinion that they could have waited
until January, but in an abundance of caution decided to go forward
tonight. He apologized for the inconvenience.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Hargreaves for his comments and Mr.
Smith for his report and asked if there were any questions for Mr. Smith.
There were none. Regarding the conditions of approval, Chairperson
Jonathan reiterated that the new Public Works conditions deleted the
requirement for the deceleration lane and the sidewalk. Mr. Smith said
that was correct. They reviewed the matter further and determined that
they could be eliminated.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that also as part of the staff report they
would have discussion by Mr. Jose Angel from the Water Quality Control
Board. He asked him to address the Commission and state his name and
address for the record.
MR. JOSE ANGEL, Acting Assistant Executive Officer for the
Board, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Board's
primary jurisdiction is water quality control for the region. It does
so basically by regulating discharges of waste. Within the context
of the item before the Commission, they provided City staff with
general concerns about discharges from septic systems. In
particular, discharges of waste where there is a high density of
units per acre, such as in this case. It was their recommendation
that this report, his staff recommendation, would bring the matter
to the Board's attention in any event pursuant to the federal
requirements that they review regulations every three years.
He said that the problem with discharges from this type of
development and units is that they were basically concentrating
about 50,000 gallons per day of waste water in a very small area.
4
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Some of this waste water contains certain constituents such as
nitrates and other constituents which could impair water quality.
What they were trying to do when percolating waste water is
diffuse it. But make no mistake about it, the impact was there. It
might take 10 or 15 years, but it would reach ground water. The
problem is that these systems are impacting municipal supplies.
So it was a significant concern for them. To the degree that the
sewer system is readily available and if it was their
recommendation to approve conditions, he supported that the
system should be hooked up to the city's collection system.
Otherwise, they would have to come to the Board in any event for
a revised permit.
Under current regulations Indian Springs would probably not be
able to have the number of seepage pits that they have right now.
They would be required to install more. They would also
recommend to their Board that they adopt a ground water
monitoring network for this site. In his opinion, it was in the best
interests of the developer to hook up to the existing collection
system.
He informed Commission that he is a registered civil engineer and
had over 15 years experience in waste water. He asked for any
questions.
Commissioner Finerty reiterated that he said he would recommend that
they would need more septic pits.
Mr. Angel stated that they don't have sufficient area, but by city
standards, current standards, to percolate all the waste water, and
the current volume generated. So they would need either
additional seepage pits or leach fields, whatever they wanted to
call it; additional disposal area.
Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification on what the other thing was
he said regarding ground water.
5
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Mr. Angel said a ground water monitoring network. Installing
ground watering monitoring wells so they can assess. Currently
what they are required to do, and if he could suggest, keep in
mind that the system was installed in the 1970's, so that gave
them an idea of how long this thing has been in operation.
Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that this particular system
was installed in the 1970's.
Mr. Angel confirmed it was the 1970' .
Commissioner Finerty asked how long septic systems generally last.
Mr. Angel stated that in California, he believed the average failure
was 5% per year. He said that was with adequate operation and
maintenance. Out of 100 systems, five will fail no matter what.
That is to say, they would either see the discharge from the septic
tanks surface and they get a lot of odor complaints and that kind
of thing, or the leach field basically loses its percolating capacity
and they just basically have a direct path to the underground
water.
Commissioner Finerty asked in how many years that usually occurs.
Mr. Angel said five per year if there were 100.
Commissioner Finerty asked if that was five septic pits per year.
Mr. Angel replied five leach fields or septic pits. He explained that
the difference between a each field and a pit system is the leach
field is sort of a football field versus a seepage pit, which is just a
whole in the ground. So it is more concentrated. They typically
would not see the seepage pit fail because it won't surface. What
happens is the soil gets saturated and they lose their ability to
basically provide additional treatment to the discharge.
Commissioner Finerty said that meant that no matter how much they
treat it, it is just incapable.
6
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Mr. Angel said that was right. To give them an idea of what they
are dealing with, the discharge from the septic system, all things
being equal, had twice as much as the pollutants as a waste water
treatment plant would discharge. So they only consider them to
provide primary treatment, whereas the typical Coachella Valley
sanitary district waste water treatment plant provides a secondary
treatment. So they provide additional treatment; they produce
better treated waste water. But again, the main problem is the
density. So it wasn't necessarily that they have the seepage pits.
And second, they are impacting the municipal water supply.
If the Commission decided not to recommend approval, clearly
they felt the concern remained and they were willing to work with
the residents out there to procure funds like they had done in
Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs so they could phase them
out as funding became available and they could defer the cost of
hooking up to the municipality's collection system.
Commissioner Finerty reiterated they had done this before and asked if
where they phased out, say 50 septic pits, if they set up a program
whereby so many would be eliminated each year and those would be
hooked up to the sewer system.
Mr. Angel said it could be done that way or they could just give
them a •deadline that the system should be eliminated by a certain
date. For example, in Mission Springs Water District in Desert Hot
Springs, they gave them 12 years to eliminate all the existing
septic systems/leach field discharges that are within 200 feet of
a sewer collection system. Just a date. Or they could give them a
time schedule to phase out a particular number per year. The way
their Board does that is adopt a prohibition prohibiting the
discharge from the septic system and say something to the effect
that by this date, the discharge shall cease. Something to that
effect. In the meantime, they work with the communities to make
sure that they move along. There is funding available and grants.
Commissioner Finerty asked about grants being available.
7
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Mr. Angel confirmed that there are grants available. The voters of
California passed several propositions since 2000. Proposition 13,
Proposition 40 and Proposition 50 that provide for many
municipalities to apply for grants to address some of these water
quality problems. They are a concern; make no mistake about it.
And it was a matter of time before the impact shows. Their
experience with septic systems is that.
Commissioner Finerty reiterated that they knew eventually it was going
to be impacted, there was no question.
Mr. Angel said that was right, particularly if they were upgrading
the municipal water supply.
Commissioner Finerty said especially with the density.
Mr. Angel said the density was a significant concern for them.
Commissioner Finerty thanked him.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Angel's agency was the one who
would field any complaints or concerns about this particular development.
Mr. Angel said yes. He said he would go over the recent regulatory
history. They have had at least one odor complaint over the septic
tanks. They've had an ongoing series of noncompliance with their
requirements. Minor things, nothing serious, regarding submittal of
monitoring reports. In fairness to the owners of the site, they have
been responsive to their concerns, but it was an ongoing battle
and they were high maintenance, these things, and they require
monitoring and they require pumping.
Commissioner Tschopp said they've had at least one complaint.
Mr. Angel said one complaint and at least a dozen noncompliance
issues with the site.
Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Angel had any copies of the
noncompliance reports.
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Mr. Angel said they were public records and he could give them
some dates if that would help their deliberation. Going back to
May 7, 1993 - failure to submit a report; February 11, 1994 -
failure to submit a report; March 4, 1994 - failure to submit a
report; April 12, 1994 - failure to submit a report; February 8,
1996 - failure to submit a report; January 4, 1998 -
noncompliance because they didn't make a certain number of
things accessible for inspection; same thing on April 30, 1998,
December 2, 1998, December 29, 1998. Of particular concern
was one citation where they cited the owners because the
discharge had a volatile organic constituent in it.
Commissioner Finerty asked him to repeat that.
He said it was a volatile organic constituent; things they use to
basically clean the toilets essentially. They find organic
constituents in there called 1,4-Dichlorobenzene. Not to be too
descriptive, but the coins they find in the urinals basically to
dissipate the odors. That's where it comes from. They are
additives that they use to either make sure the system washes
out.
Going on with the noncompliance issues, January 10, 2002 and
February 27, 2003. He stated that the most recent compliance
inspection showed compliance. But they have a series of
problems, they were not major problems, but they were problems
for them. The discharger has been responsive and he didn't want
them to get the impression that they haven't been cooperative, but
they have problems over there, no question about it.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the Commission packets they were
given an inspection and maintenance report apparently done in November
of 2004. He asked if Mr. Angel had seen them because he didn't really
know how to read them or what sense they made.
Mr. Angel said he hadn't seen the most recent one, but basically
what they are required to report is how much waste water they
are discharging on the average on a daily basis; secondly, they
were supposed to tell them how many nitrates the discharge has;
9
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
how much total nitrogen, and they use those constituents as
indicators to the threat to water quality. In addition to that, they
let them know how many number of sites/septic tanks are
accessible for inspection. And they also sample for volatile organic
constituents.
Based on Mr. Angel's expertise, Commissioner Tschopp asked if this
appeared to have a potential to harm the groundwater supply at this time.
Mr. Angel said he would be more blunt about it. All of this
discharge, where they have a high density, poses a significant
threat to water quality. They are upstream of the drinking water
supply in any event and if the sewer is readily available, he could
see no reason why, particularly if the Commission decided that the
condos should be approved, then the new owners should bear the
responsibility. That made sense to him, was practical, and
common sense.
Commissioner Tschopp said that he knew that industrial corporations and
so forth bear the responsibility for clean up when there are spills that
affect groundwater and so forth. He assumed it wasn't the same in a
mobile home park or in septic tank situations.
Mr. Angel said the owners of the site would be responsible. The
James, they were considering them the responsible party. If there
is a water quality impact, the way their Board works they first go
directly to the dischargers, they call the responsible parties
dischargers. There would be a primary responsible party, but once
the pollution, if there is pollution that spreads, the Board has the
prerogative to ask additional entities to conduct investigations.
For example, if one of the city wells get impacted and they
suspect it is coming from there, the Board can ask the City to
conduct and pay for the investigation. Clearly the Board uses some
common sense and tries to find the most responsible party. It is
within their Board's prerogative to require any particular entity to
conduct an investigation when it comes down to water quality.
And they have some of those situations. For example, in Palm
Springs, Desert Water Agency has borne a significant cost with
10
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
one of their wells which was polluted by a dry cleaner, but they
ended up paying the bill.
For them, he would just add in trying to wrap up the perspective
of where they are coming from. Their current permit for this site
is a general permit. It covers many other sites. It's general and in
his opinion was very loose. They were also recommending to his
Board that the permit be revised so it provides additional safeties
for protection of water resources. So whether they act in a
particular way or not, this permit was going to be revised if the
Board went along with the recommendation. So the owners of the
site would have to face additional requirements.
Commissioner Tschopp asked what that might be.
Mr. Angel said they might address the density as one. And it went
back to what Commissioner Finerty said. They would work with
them on a time schedule and try to find resources to help the
citizens out there to defray the costs. They weren't trying to put
people out of business or give them a hard time, but there were
significant water quality concerns with these types of
developments.
Commissioner Tschopp said that in his capacity, he was saying that over
time the high density will result in a problem.
Mr. Angel said that was their experience.
Commissioner Lopez asked about the records they had for maintenance
and inspections. When they are conducted, he asked who paid for them.
Mr. Angel said in essence it was the discharger because they pay
an annual fee for their permit. They pay somewhat; they didn't
cover all the staff, of course, but it helped. They submit an annual
fee to the State Water Resource Control Board. The rest is borne
by the citizens of California to the General Fund.
Commissioner Finerty noted that Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that
they were not really too schooled at how to read these, but she was
11
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
noticing that for the various contaminants, it looked like two out the 191
spaces were checked.
Mr. Angel said right, but they don't necessarily check all of them;
the cost would be significant. But just to give them an idea of
what they were looking at, but if they were on page 1, on the fifth
item where he listed certain constituents there like total dissolved
solids, volatile organics, hydrogen and nitrates. The drinking water
standard for nitrates is 10 milligrams per liter. Some of the
discharge here is about 8 milligrams per liter. For total nitrogen is
45. So in some regards they are okay, but in other regards they
could look at this report and it is 46. It poses a significant threat
to water quality.
Going back to the middle of the page with the Toluene, Commissioner
Finerty said it was 74.7 and 22.5. She asked what they were expecting
to see for Toluene.
Mr. Angel said that the maximum contaminant level for drinking
water believed was five parts per billion. And what they were
looking at was almost 75.
Commissioner Finerty said that was at one of the spaces.
Mr. Angel said that it could come from gasoline or some other
solvent. People may dump some into the drain.
Commissioner Finerty indicated that Toluene wasn't something they
should be having in their water.
Mr. Angel said that none of these volatile organic constituents
should be in the drinking water or in the groundwater. They
weren't naturally occurring. They were synthetic -made compounds
like industrial solvents and that kind of a thing. That's what they
were looking at.
Commissioner Finerty reiterated that five parts per billion is what they
should be seeing.
12
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Mr. Angel concurred.
Going down to nitrates at the bottom for Space 96, Commissioner
Finerty noted that it is .58 and space 150 it is 1.76 and then they talk
about the total nitrogen. She asked if those were high as well.
Mr. Angel said they were relatively low. He explained that the
standard for nitrates in drinking water is 10; 10 milligrams per liter
or 45 for total nitrogen.
So the way they keep these contaminants out, Commissioner Finerty said
they continue to pump.
Mr. Angel said that was correct. Also, within the septic tank there
are some microorganisms that digest or convert some of these
constituents into less threatening constituents.
If they go a few pages back under Maintenance and Inspection regarding
space numbers 30 to 50, and on the inspection date of November 17,
Commissioner Finerty asked for information about the category that said
Thickness Inlet Scum Layer/(Inches) and they just had "pumped" and
then there was a Thickness Outlet Scum Layer/(Inches) and a date. She
asked if that meant that between October 6 and November 17, 2004
there was enough stuff in there that they needed to pump it out.
Mr. Angel said that was right. They at least try to pump out each
septic system at least once a year. Solids build up, or slush. They
build up within the septic tank and if they don't remove them, they
will have significant water quality problems, not to mention
nuisance conditions out there. Periodically they have to check how
much solids have accumulated within the septic systems and how
much they have been pumped up.
In fairness to the discharger, they have done a fairly decent job in
that regard. But having said that, it still poses a significant threat
to water quality from their perspective.
Commissioner Finerty indicated it wasn't a question of if, it was when it
will.
13
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Mr. Angel said that was correct, from their experience.
Regarding the schedule, Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a
pumping schedule and on Space 159 it seemed like, and she didn't now
what the tank was or how many people were involved in that tank, but
they had 12 pumpings from 10/27, 11/2, 11/19, 11/26 and asked why
that was.
Mr. Angel said that was a good observation. Some septic tanks
have more units connected to them, so there was a more rapid
build up of solids.
Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that meant they weren't
equally divided.
Mr. Angel concurred. He said they have a total of 44 pits out
there. On the average they were probably looking at a little less
than five units per pit. If there was any consolation in their
deliberations, he said they weren't alone facing this issue. It is
throughout California and certainly in the region it is a problem. So
their Board would take a broader look at the current regulations
and its current policies regarding septic systems. And they weren't
going to get more relaxed.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant claims that the Regional
Water Quality Control Board couldn't require abandonment of a septic
system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause
water quality damage.
Mr. Angel said that was correct. The law explicitly prevents the
Regional Board.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if the Regional Water Quality Control Board
had substantial evidence that the septic system in question will cause
water quality damage.
Mr. Angel said they didn't have groundwater data. The answer
was no. That's where they are going. When he said that the
permit was going to get revised and would get tighter, they will
14
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
recommend that the Board adopt a groundwater monitoring effort
for this site.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that he was in agreement
that the Board cannot require abandonment without substantial evidence
and he was saying they didn't have the physical evidence.
Mr. Angel said that was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if he would agree with the applicant's
position that the Board at this point cannot require abandonment of the
septic system.
Mr. Angel said that was correct. From his earlier remarks, either
way they would have to deal with them for a revised permit,
regardless of what the City did. If the Commission didn't approve
this, he didn't say they weren't going to permit the septic tanks,
but it would get tighter.
Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that Mr. Angel was recommending that
it be done, but he was also saying that the Board at this point wasn't in
a position to require it.
Mr. Angel said that was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Angel. He asked if there was anything
else from staff. There wasn't.
Chairperson Jonathan declared that the public hearing was open and
since there were so many people present who might not be familiar with
the procedure, he explained that in the public hearing section, they would
first give the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission. They
would then open it up to anyone present who wished to address the
Commission. They would start with the ones who submitted cards, first
those in favor and then those in opposition, and then those that didn't
indicate either way. The testimony given tonight was limited to five
minutes or less and asked that they keep that in mind, and they also ask
those present to limit their comments to those issues which the Planning
Commission have authority over. The other thing was for everyone to
1 5
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
remain polite and try not to be redundant. If they agree with the previous
speaker, just let them know that and move on rather than repeating what
has just been said. Other than that, everyone was free to address the
Commission. Once the other public testimony was given, the procedure
was to let the applicant have a final opportunity to address any of the
comments made and then the public hearing would be closed or
continued and then the Commission would have discussion.
Having declared the public hearing to be open, he asked the applicant to
address the Commission, requesting that they give their name and
address for the record and to speak clearly.
MS. SUE LOFTIN, 5760 Fleet Street, Suite 110, in Carlsbad,
California, 92008, addressed the Commission. She wished them
a good evening and happy holidays. The hearing tonight was one
they certainly appreciated everyone's work on and was certain
everyone had issues like they all do with houses full of company
or off on trips.
First of all, for purposes of this evening so that she didn't reiterate
anything that she stated last time, was to incorporate all testimony
from the December 7 hearing, all written material submitted at
that time to the Planning Commission, including without limitation
the two correspondence from Gilchrist & Rutter dated December
6 and December 22, 2004, the letter from Tri-Star dated
December 3, 2004, the letter from James & Associates dated
December 2, 2004 and she would like to incorporate the materials
they submitted this evening: the materials they took the
opportunity to talk to Mr. Angel about were actually submitted by
them to establish they have clearly conformed to the regulations
that the discharges are within the Water Quality Control limits. It
did get a little confusing when they were talking about comparing
drinking water with septic water, but it's clear that they have
complied with that.
She also submitted binders (two copies) that show since 1997
that the park has been in full compliance with all aspects of the
requirements and conditions. She was a little surprised to hear
about citations because they have no records of those and it was
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
clear that they have passed each and every year since that point
in time. The applicant, again, as evidenced by the testimony last
time, has spent $300,000 in upgrading the 1970 system so that
it will be the upgraded and current condition for purposes of
operation.
She stated that the applicant requests this evening approval of the
map as recommended by staff with the exception of Condition 5
that reads, "pursuant to the General Water Resources Policy No.
4 and Municipal Code Chapter 8.60, the subdivider prior to the
sale of each unit shall connect said unit to the public sewer and
provide evidence of the same to purchaser." First of all, she
wanted to review what they were talking about. They have a
private septic system that at least since 1977 they have provided
documentation that there is no current health and safety problem
to the residents onsite. There is no problem and the ground water
is tested. It is included in those reports, as well as the one they
were discussing earlier. There has been no contamination. All
numbers are within the range or at the low range of what is
required. Therefore, there is no existing health and safety problem
onsite for the existing residents.
The issue turns to, is there an existing health and safety problem
offsite? And the answer, again, was no, not from this specific
septic system. There are septic systems from the RV parks in
other areas of the desert that have created some significant
problems. They have not been maintained properly. In this property
it is pumped annually. The regulations require every three years.
Annually is what her client believed was appropriate, as evidenced
by the prior speaker.
What this section is requesting is that prior to sale, the private
septic system be replaced with a private sewer system. That
entails taking out all the streets. All of the connections for the
sewer hook ups to the homes are in the back of the homes,
requiring tearing up all the yards. It requires installation of the
sewer mains through the streets and then connecting from the
street to the home. It is their clear position that they do not have
the authority under either their ordinance nor, more importantly,
17
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
under state statute, to require that a private sewer system be
installed at the sole cost and expense of the parties involved.
According to the City's Ordinance 743 which enacted Chapter
8.60, it was not intended to be a blanket ordinance. It clearly
stated that the properties that were intended were those intended
by and encumbered by a Certificate of Requirement. This is
contained in their staff report, in their internal memorandum that
was dated as of October 6, 1993 in Item No. 1 on page 2.
Looking further at the City's minutes and interoffice
memorandums, on February 15, 1994, to address the concerns of
Council at that time that it was going to be a blanket
encumbrance, the staff recommendation gives under the
background comment, Exhibit A is the final property address list
which are the parcels that are then later attached to the ordinance.
She thought it was important to note that this property was not
listed and is not, and never had, a Certificate of Requirement.
Further in the City's submittal, they, as part of the application,
submitted the preliminary title report which only confirms that a
Certificate of Requirement was never recorded against the
property. The preamble to the ordinance does state that it is to
apply to all properties; however, property is later defined as those
properties on Exhibit A. So the City's ordinance on the face of it
does not apply to their particular property.
Assuming arguendo that it would, under 8.60.070 Certificate of
Temporary Exemption, the property meets three out of the four
exemption criteria. Beyond 200 feet, there is a sewer connection
along 74. Most of these properties are beyond 200 feet. So they
weren't requiring a connection, would be requiring the
construction of the sewer main lines throughout the property and
requiring that to be borne solely by the property owner and then
maintained later.
Condominiums which share a common septic system are another
basis of the ordinance not applicable and requiring the septic. The
fourth was financially feasible. This project costs approximately $4
18
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
million to create a private sewer system. That is $21,000
approximately per lot that upon the purchase residents obviously
would be paying for that. They have to pay a monthly fee of
$9.00 approximately for the sewer connection to the city. Then in
their homeowner's association dues they also have to pay for the
annual maintenance of those lines and for a reserve and
replacement which they were estimating would add about $90 to
their monthly HOA dues.
By comparison to a septic system that has been updated that is
operative for which it has been in full compliance, there is no
additional cost. The total per month cost for the operation and the
preventive maintenance is $8.45 a month. That is what they
would pay, plus the reserve in order to build up for all of the items
of approximately $9.00. That was a significant dollar amount in
cost asking private households to pay for a full public sewer
system that they were privately going to own.
Notwithstanding any of that, the state statute 66428.1 was
enacted for the specific purpose of requiring or limiting what cities
or other local jurisdictions can do on conversions. This was a
critical component. One of the things that it specifically disallowed
is that any units that cannot be eliminated, that they could only
address offsite improvements. They could not require interior
improvements. Those offsite improvements must be and create an
existing health and safety hazard. From this property they have no
existing health and safety hazard from either the existing
residences nor the surrounding properties. The improvement
request was for improvement totally onsite and, therefore, was
prohibited.
Lastly, the statute requires that it be an unsecured agreement that
cannot be a condition of a final map. In this case they wrote it as
a condition of the final map. In conclusion, on the face the
ordinance and the legislative history that the staff has provided, it
is clear that this property is not subject to the City's ordinance.
Even assuming that it did apply, three out of the four listed
exemptions apply to this property. The state statute 66428.1 D &
E preempt local ordinances in terms of what they can require. They
19
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
couldn't require onsite improvements for upgrades. They could
require offsite improvements only if they address an existing
significant health and safety issue. There is no evidence of such
in this matter.
The residents were rightfully concerned that they go through with
this conversion and then, in listening to Mr. Angel speak, she
could understand their concern that there is a possibility that this
could come hit them at a later point in time. And the 12 years,
the grants, and all of those kinds of things were irrelevant and was
not what was being proposed tonight. But as to those residents,
they were requesting a specific finding that the ordinance is not
applicable to them and a specific factual finding that there is no
evidence presented of an existing health and safety problem from
this sewer system.
As they heard from Mr. Angel, they do not have the facts nor the
authority to require hook up due to malfunction. The materials that
they submitted were very general in nature. As to this property, it
was if it was not maintained, and if this happened and that
happened, then they could have a problem. That was certainly true
of all systems, including a sewer system. If they didn't maintain
that, there would be problems.
In terms of those comments, they needed to keep in mind what
the balance was here. They have a system that works, they have
a system that's been upgraded, the trade off the way the
condition is drafted and what the intent is creates a considerable
ongoing financial issue for these residents and they need to make
sure that is protected, as well as make sure they are protected in
the future. That because this is a good system, does not create
the problems, that they not get penalized in the future either.
With that, she stated that she had with her Larry Owens, who
testified last time, he is the engineer who did the upgrades; Anne
James of James & Associates, the property manager in charge
since 1995 of maintaining the system and could answer any
questions they might have in that regard. She thanked them for
20
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
their patience and said she would be happy to answer any
questions.
Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Loftin talked about the difference
financially for the owners. For clarification, she asked if Ms. Loftin was
representing the owner of the mobile home park.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct. She represents the owner of the
mobile home park.
Commissioner Finerty asked if there was any representation for the
individual owners of the mobile homes.
Ms. Loftin said they don't have their attorney with them this
evening. They were going to be speaking.
Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Loftin alluded to the cost being $4
million to create a sewer system.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct.
Commissioner Finerty asked if that was based on competitive bids that
the owner had gone out and solicited.
Ms. Loftin said that had been numbers provided by engineers that
work in the area. They hadn't sent it out for a formal bid where
they had time to come in and look everything over. They are
familiar with the property. That does include the hook up fees
payable to the different agencies. But in terms if it was a reliable
number, she stated it was a very reliable estimate.
Commissioner Finerty said the point was that it had not gone out to bid
and there hadn't been someone out to really look at the property and
really scrutinize exactly what needs to be done. The owners made no
effort to do such. She asked if that was correct.
Ms. Loftin said that wasn't correct. To clarify her statement, the
bid numbers in the information were requested from engineers
who do this type of work and who have had an active participation
21
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
in this particular property so that they had information such as
where are the connections to the homes, where are the leach
fields, where are the tanks, what has to be put into the road, what
is the capacity, so it was not like nobody knew what was going
on. So there was a significant historical background of information
that went into these bids.
Commissioner Finerty noted that these bids were non existent, though.
She was led to believe that this was just a verbal number and asked if
she actually had bids in writing to confirm the $4 million figure.
Ms. Loftin said she needed to ask and turned to speak to someone
in the audience.
MR. LARRY OWENS, 77-545 Robin Road in Palm Desert,
addressed the Commission. He said they did an estimate based on
the lineal feet of the road that is there, the line that would have to
be put in, all the conversions, digging up the roads, putting them
all back, and estimating engineering costs to do the diagrams and
plans.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it was fair to say that Mr. Owens did a
verbal estimate. There was nothing that was provided in writing. She
asked if that was correct.
Mr. Owens said that was correct.
Commissioner Finerty didn't know if he could answer this, but to his
knowledge, she asked if there were any other companies that were asked
to look at this.
Mr. Owens didn't know.
Commissioner Finerty asked Ms. Loftin if she was aware of anyone other
than Mr. Owens having looked at the property and given some sort of a
bid.
22
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Ms. Loftin said she just clarified that with Ms. James, who
handles the bids. She did have a bid that was also verbal from
another company. It was prior to Mr. Owen's bid.
Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that there were no written
bids.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct.
Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Loftin also talked about a possible
increase of $90 in the residents' dues for sewer hook up, maintenance
of lines, and reserves.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct. She then clarified that it did not
include the sewer hook up.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it would go on their water bill.
Ms. Loftin said that wasn't how the utilities worked on the
property. The water bill would go to the homeowners association.
Then it was divided among each of the households so, because
the water meters are not sub -metered in this particular property.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it was just divided up among 191 units.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct.
Commissioner Finerty said that aside from that, they were estimating that
the maintenance of lines and the reserves would be an additional $90 per
unit per month. She asked if that was correct.
Ms. Loftin concurred.
Commissioner Finerty asked where she came up with those numbers.
Ms. Loftin said they were done by a CPA. She didn't do those
kinds of numbers and based on cost, repairs, building up reserves,
and so on.
23
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Commissioner Finerty asked if they didn't have a written bid for the
sewer system, how a CPA would then determine that it would be about
$90 to put aside for the maintenance for the lines.
Ms. Loftin said that the $90, again, there are three parts to, and
she would get to her question, there are three parts to a
homeowner's association budget that relate to any specific item.
There's the monthly fee, which in this case is around $9.00. There
is the annual divided by monthly operating cost to do the general
maintenance. Then there is a set aside based on a lifeline that is
established by the Department of Real Estate that then has to be
set aside. That is determined by estimating the number of miles of
pipe, the number of homes, the number of connections, and so on.
The number of miles is done by taking the number of miles of the
road, the pipe would go through the road, the laterals would come
off of the road and in this case the laterals are longer than usual
because all of the sewer connections into the homes are at the
back of the homes. So it is an estimate based on those kinds of
numbers.
Commissioner Finerty asked if the CPA based this $90 a month increase
on verbal bids, one from Mr. Owens and one the property manager had
solicited prior to Mr. Owens.
Ms. Loftin said no. Whether the bids were to build the system
from the ground up, when the DRE budget preparers prepare a
budget, they look first at past operatings to get the operating. In
this case there is no past operating for a sewer system, so they
would look at and use what is in there, she wasn't sure what to
call it, but they have averages for what it costs to maintain and
operate. That is based on linear feet of pipe, connections, number
of connections and so on. And based on each year, those are
revised because they assume when they are going to replace, if
they built a sewer system in one year, materials change over time
and they update it to do that. So the dollar amount of the bid was
not relevant to and was separate from the calculation to come up
with what it would cost from the DRE.
24
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Commissioner Finerty said she understood how reserve studies work, but
typically it has been based on what has actually been spent and then
they project how long the life will be and how much they need to set
aside given certain escalation in fees that they know are going to happen.
Ms. Loftin said that was right. In this type of area you have, for
example, all utilities have a shorter lifeline because, which if
Commissioner Finerty was familiar with budgets, because of the
soil here and the wide range in temperatures. So those things are
taken into consideration, she was correct. But in this instance that
wasn't how it was done because they don't have something that
has been built yet.
Commissioner Finerty understood that. She noted that Ms. Loftin was
also talking about an $8.45 per unit and asked if that was to maintain the
septic system now per unit.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct and she could give Commissioner
Finerty the exact numbers on that if she would like. The annual
cost of pumping over the last three-year average was $10,300;
the annual repair maintenance when there's a problem with the
leach line, those kinds of things happen.
Chairperson Jonathan interrupted and said they understand they don't
have a firm bid for the $4 million, they understand that they estimated
$90 a month for the HOA fees and he asked if they needed to get into
the detail of this or if they could move along. Commissioner Finerty
explained that she was just trying to understand how, she understood
the concern for the residents and it was because of the sewer system
controversy is why so many people were present and so many people
were concerned, and she was trying to understand how for a sewer
system they were talking about $90 per month, where to maintain and
put reserves aside for the septic it was only $17.45 per month. She
wasn't getting that connection. So if she had the $10,300 annual
pumping and whatever the repair and maintenance has been over the last
couple of years, she needed to try and understand how they could get by
at $17 per month versus the $90. Chairperson Jonathan suggested
addressing that question and asked if Ms. Loftin could account for the
difference.
25
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Ms. Loftin said sure. Going back to the "all other repairs," it was
$9,070 for an annual cost, and that was an average over seven
years. This did not include the $300,000 in upgrades that were
just completed.
Commissioner Finerty said that would have been from reserves.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct. So they have an $8.45 a month
that would go into the operating split into the two categories, and
then they would need a reserve to build up to redo the $300,000
over time and that was where they got the dollar amount.
Commissioner Finerty asked if that was the $9.00.
Ms. Loftin said yes. There is a significant difference between
when, in this instance the septic system goes down, it affects a
small number of homes, they go in and it's a small repair. On the
sewer systems, the repairs are not done in the same fashion and
when there is a problem, the problems tend to be more expensive
and looking at the lifeline of hard pipes as opposed to the leach
lines given the particular soil that you have, the expenses on that
type of construction over time is more expensive than you have on
the current septic system.
Changing the subject, Commissioner Finerty asked if Ms. Loftin could tell
them what the plan is to establish the lot lines.
Ms. Loftin said the plan is, in the staff report they received a copy
of a flier that she sent out to the residents. The lot lines are
established on and for the condominium plan. Once the City has
approved the one -lot subdivision so that they have the outer
monuments established, then there will be a three-part process for
establishing the lines for the condominium units.
The first step is to do an aerial fly over. Put the aerial fly over into
the computer and then there is a lot of vegetation, so they
couldn't do a condominium plan or site plan strictly from an aerial
photo. The engineer will come out with a survey crew. The
engineer would mark temporarily the front and the back lot lines.
26
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Then the residents would have the opportunity to comment on
those. It is typical that there would be some issues. They look at
an aerial and an engineer goes out and they say they think a tree
goes on this side and the resident says no, that is my tree. That
process usually takes 30 to 60 days to get through and resolve
with all the residents. Then the map is prepared. It is sent with the
DRE package. Between the time it is sent to the DRE and the time
they get ready to close escrows, the markers for the front and
back lot lines are placed.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it was their intent to have the lot lines
established before escrows are to close.
Ms. Loftin said absolutely. They had to.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that the process Ms. Loftin
just described was not part of the proceedings tonight.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan said they were here to establish the one -lot
subdivision and not get into the individual lots themselves.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if any other Commissioners had questions
and, if necessary, they would go back to Commissioner Finerty.
Chairperson Jonathan said he had a question having to do with process.
Condition No. 5 that Ms. Loftin referred to indicates that the subdivider,
prior to the sale of each unit, shall connect said unit to the public sewer,
and so forth. He asked if mechanically this was a cost that the applicant
would bear prior to any sale of any unit.
Ms. Loftin said that mechanically how it would have to work,
because most of the units are more than 200 feet away from
Highway 74, so if this stayed as drafted, the applicant would have
to go in, tear out the streets, put in the sewer lines, then each lot
27
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
would have to have a lateral put all the way down and back and
around the back.
Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but he was asking if the
work would be done by the applicant and paid for by the applicant prior
to the sale of any unit.
Ms. Loftin said that as the condition was drafted, she would
assume that is what it would contemplate.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was the expectation that the cost
would then be somehow transferred to the individual home buyer through
escrow.
Ms. Loftin said she wanted to make it clear for the record that
they don't agree with the condition, but assuming the condition
went through and it was done, the answer was yes.
Chairperson Jonathan said that what he was understanding, and who
paid for it was kind of secondary to what they were being asked to
consider, but he wanted to make sure he understood the dynamics.
Ultimately the individual buyer of a unit would be the one that will pay
their proportionate share of the cost of Condition No. 5 of creating an
internal sewer system and connecting to the public system.
Ms. Loftin said that was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for other questions.
With respect to the last remark about passing the cost through to the
buyer, Mr. Hargreaves said his understanding was that there was an
appraisal done which sets the value of the lots and that's what the
individual buyers are charged. He asked if that was correct. He also
asked if that process had within it the ability to pass through the cost
apart from the appraised value.
Ms. Loftin answered yes.
28
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
MR. RICHARD CLOSE, Attorney for the Applicant, 1299 Ocean
Boulevard in Santa Monica, California, addressed the Commission.
To answer that question, he said the prices are set pursuant to the
state law requirements. And they would include all additional
improvements, assuming that a court would find that Condition 5
was a valid condition.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked him and Ms. Loftin.
Commissioner Tschopp said he had a question for Mr. Close. He said it
has been his experience in appraisals, though, that they'll typically deduct
for being on a septic system as opposed to a sewer system and also will
deduct for cost of improvements down the road when they reach a value
on the property. He asked if that was something he could see happening
in this case.
Mr. Close said he wished he could comment, but he didn't have
the credentials to be able to adequately answer the question.
There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan
reiterated that he would ask for comments from the non -applicant public
and then following that, give the applicant an opportunity to readdress
the Commission. Referring to the blue Request to Speak Cards, he called
Mr. John Tessman to the podium. He noted that the meeting was
recorded for purposes of the minutes and asked Mr. Tessman to restate
his name and address for the record.
MR. JOHN TESSMAN, 49-305 State Highway 74, Space No. 172
in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He stated that the
reason he marked that he was for it was because he wanted to go
on record that he completely supports the owner in this
proposition that he is doing to convert these to condos. He was
sure it was a tough decision on the Commission's part as to
whether or not to enforce this ordinance or not in this situation. It
was a tough decision. This might not be a clear yes or no answer
today, hopefully it is, whether they were going to force them to
hook up to sewer or not or force them to hook up to sewer later.
He said it might be easier to push them as small guys later to
comply at that time when they get ready to sell.
29
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
He stated that this ordinance was meant to protect the health,
safety and welfare of our people in the greater Palm Desert area.
That was why he didn't mind when he sold his house and moved
into the mobile home park, which wasn't hooked onto sewer after
27 years, to hook up to the sewer because he knew it was a thing
to do. Even though he didn't financially gain from it and wished he
could have that money back in the bank.
But speaking of money, one of the meetings that they had with
the Loftin Firm at the clubhouse, and they just heard it today the
testimony on retaining the sewer and how it was going to save
them money versus hooking up to the public sewer system.
Incidentally, he said the public sewer system was not maintained
by the City and they knew that. It's maintained by Coachella
Valley Water District. He didn't think the City would ever want to
get into the sewer business. It seemed to him that the figures
they've thrown out in that meeting started at $23,000 to hook up
each unit. Then they ended up at $25,000 and said it would be
added to the cost of what they were going to pay. That wasn't
reiterated tonight. And part of that quote was $4,000 to pay
Coachella Valley to hook up.
He said he did a little checking on his own, he worked for a water
company, and the person at Coachella Valley Water said they
range generally $6,000 to $10,000 and $6,000 would be basically
to hook up to what they would consider a private system, which
is what he heard in testimony tonight. Six thousand dollars, not
$21,000. That meeting scared him and probably scared
everybody. Incidentally, the hook up fee was not $4,000, it is
$2,991 with Coachella Valley Water.
As far as a hook up, there was a hook up provided to both
Mountain Back, which was the condominium right below them,
and at that time that particular hook up was also made for their
park. The hook up to the sewer might require the park, because it
was down between Mountain Back and them, require the entry to
come between two units and this was probably no problem right
now because they didn't have lot lines to find.
30
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
He recommended that the committee at this time define on that
perimeter map where the hook up was located before they would
even consider approving this perimeter map. What they said in the
meeting was they would require the residents, after the lot lines
are drawn, an act of congress in order to do something like this.
So it came down to, is it time to enforce this ordinance now when
it's easy and doesn't cost very much money? Or da it later? He
thanked them.
MS. SANDY SYMINGTON, 49-345 Highway 74, Unit 95,
addressed the Commission. She said she has been a resident of
Indian Springs for about five years. She was pleased to be able to
speak to the Planning Commission while minds are open and
decisions have not been made. At the December 7 Planning
meeting, Attorney Sue Loftin requested that the City of Palm
Desert remove all rentaf control laws from Indian Springs. That
would be after the first sale of a subdivided lot. This park is for
anyone over 55 years of age. Many of the homeowners living in
Indian Springs were well into their 70's and 80's.
She respectfully requested that the rent controls stay intact for as
long as needed to protect the elderly who would be displaced and
unable to pay more than their fixed income would allow. She
asked that they not remove rent control from Indian Springs Park.
MS. PAT BELL, 49-305 Highway 74, Space No. 171, addressed
the Commission. (Copies of her letter and five photographs were
submitted to staff and circulated to Commission.) She stated that
she is currently the President of the Indian Springs Homeowners
Association. She said that tonight she was present representing all
of the residents in their park, not just the membership of the
homeowners association. But she first wanted to say a few words
to the seniors present.
Last night a last meeting was called by the park owner's
representatives. They were also present tonight. The purpose of
last night's meeting was to discuss this night's meeting. It is the
holiday season, the hour was late, people had family visiting and
31
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
it was pouring rain. Nevertheless, the room was full of concerned
residents.
Once again they were told of the magnificence of their current
septic system and how it will last and they used the word forever.
Once again they were given outrageous cost estimates to hook up
and maintain, by the way, which they had just been told was not
the case, a sewer system instead of the septic system they have.
Last night they had a new wrinkle to their request. What they said,
"And what would be the City's motive?" asked the park owner's
legal representative. This was a rhetorical question, actually,
because he answered his own question and he said money. They
want the money. She said she was paraphrasing their words, but
that's what they meant. To their credit, this group of people
remained polite and attentive anyway.
To the Palm Desert Planning Commissioners, she said seniors in
their park have absolutely run out of patience. They were getting
the same evasive answers regarding the sewer situation. Every
time they talk about sewer, they talk about septic and tell them it
is better than sliced bread. Yes, they were worried about the cost,
worried about the cost of the land that they would be required to
buy, and they didn't even know how much this land will cost until
the conversion is nearly completed. And they were worried about
an aging infrastructure, particularly the septic system that is part
of their proposal.
Given the prime location, it was hard to fathom how the park
owner could be allowed to let a 30-year old outmoded system be
left in. Yes, they worry about how they will pay for the sewer.
Many of them are on limited incomes. But maybe there are
options, but let's find out. Most of the park residents felt that
keeping the old septic system is not a viable option. That would be
the equivalent to keeping the old out house after septic tanks had
been invented. Let's move on to the future.
Both the City and state law say abandon the old septic system and
so do they. Shame of them that are spending big bucks to
convince these seniors that substandard is good enough for them.
32
MlNUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
She thanked the City of Palm Desert far having the courage of
their convictions. They insist that Ordinance 743 and the state
code be complied with. She asked that it be entered into the
permanent record and thanked them. (Said letters and photograph
are on file.►
Chairperson Jonathan noted that Ms. Bell heard testimony tonight that
it appears that ultimately the unit purchasers may very likely pay for the
sewer installation. Hs asked as President of the Homeowners Association
if it was her sense �that rnost owners would nevertheless still favor the
improvement, the installation of the sewer system in spite of the
possibility that they might have to ultimately pay for that.
Ms. Bell said it was a problem for a lot of people because a lot of
them are on limited incomes. It's by far, from speaking with
people, better to do this in advance as the City's ordinance
requires, because at this point they have no price on the land and
should the park owner be required to pay tor 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?
Chairpersan Jonathan asked if she meant through a mortgage or
something else.
Ms. Bell said yes.
Chairperson Jonathan reiterated thafi Ms. Bell's sense is that people
understand that and nevertheless were in favor of the sewer installation.
Ms. Bell concurred. Regarding what was said about the Section
8.60 in the City's Ordinance 743, the legal rep far 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 wondered how long it will
be in the future before they have major problems. Those were the
only comments he had because most of it had been addressed
already.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Angel was available to answer that.
Mr. Ryan thanked them.
34
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
MR. JOSE ANGEL with the Water Board readdressed the
Commission. He stated that the typicaf life expectancy is 25 years,
at least the piping system. Again, the decision they were facing,
from his perspective, was to pay now or later.
Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that the average life is 25 years for a
septic system and this is approximately 30 years old.
Mr. Angel said yes. He explained that what was unique about this
system is they didn't have leach fields. They have seepage pits.
And essentially that's just a hole in the ground conveying the
effluent downward. So they wouldn't see them failing. What they
would likely see first is the impact from the wate� 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 faifed already and that it may be
leaching contaminants into the ground water now.
Mr. Angel said it wasn't necessarily a question of failure as much
as how much can they remove; what kind of constituents they can
remove. This is a passive system. It does not provide removal of
some of the constituents they are monitoring. It is not designed for
that. These are synthetic constituents, volatile organic
constituents. He said he would grant that they can remove some
of the pathogens, bacteria. He would grant that they can remove
some of the other oxygen demanding constituents. They are not
removing salts. Make no mistake about it. They are not removing
the nitrates. And they are not removing the volatile organic
constituents.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if a properly operating septic system
removes those items.
Mr. Angel stated that none of the septic systems remove those
items that he mentioned. It is a passive system.
35
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the question he asked is if they had any
indication that the septic system is either operating properly or not
operating properly as they sit here tonight.
Mr. Angel said that the evidence that he cited is that the site does
not have a clean bill of health when it comes down to compliance
with their requirements. On behalf of the discharger he would say
that they have been responsive to the noncompliance issues. As
far as answering the ultimate question of whether they have any
evidence that they are polluting ground water, no they don't have
that evidence.
Chairperson Jonathan said the answer to the earlier question was that
the average life is 25 years and this one is around 30.
Mr. Angel said that was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked him.
MR. ED DIFANI, 49-305 Highway 74, Space No. 132, addressed
the Commission. He said he heard what Ms. Bell said tonight and
he was confused. He understood the City's ordinance and the
state of California's ordinance that when an owner sells property,
they have to hook up to sewer. He thought they were being
railroaded into trying to get them to go on the sewer line with this
condominium deal. He didn't like being railroaded. Eight or nine
years ago, and he had been on the property almost 10 years, and
the streets were all in disrepair and the clubhouse was in disrepair.
They spent a quarter of a million dollars, as he understood it, and
he tried putting it on them. It is his responsibility to fix it and he
lost that one and he was skeptical of the man and that was all he
had to say. He thanked them.
Referring to the next Request to Speak Card, Chairperson Jonathan called
for Ms. Mary Wiley. She said from the audience that she didn't wish to
speak, then came to the podium.
MS. MARY WILEY, 49-305 Highway 74, Space No. 81, addressed
the Commission. She said that what they were discussing is their
36
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
septic system. They are all seniors. They do not use a great deal
of water, flushing their stools for instance. Most of them might
run their dishwashers once a week and maybe do laundry once a
week. It wasn't like they have families of three or four that the
washer is going every day and the dishwasher is going every day.
She was a farmer and had a septic tank and in 23 years she only
had to have it pumped once. They were a family of four. She knew
that the soil in California is a lat different than the Midwest and
more goes out and goes down quickly and doesn't absorb, but she
still thought for a senior citizen park they do not use their septic
tanks like family members do. That was their discussion.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that her preference was not
to replace the septic system. �
Ms. Wiley stated that her concern was with the use they give their
septic tank that they wouldn't be in any major problem for years
to come.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her. Referring to the next Request to
Speak Card, he called for Ms. Mari Schmidt.
MS. MARI SCHMIDT addressed the Commission. She said she
lives in Indian Springs in Space No. 86, 49-305 Highway 74. She
had a prepared statement and said she was representing more
than herself, so she would appreciate a little indulgence with a few
minutes extra, not many. She had extra copies which were
distributed to the Commission. She said she also had an
observation that she thought was important based on what she
had heard this. evening.
When the conversion takes place, they have to remember that the
current park owner will retain ownership of a number of properties
because there are low and low low income renters who will remain
and there will be market value renters that will remain. That meant
the park owner will be an owner also, and depending on how
quickly those sales occur, he will, or the owner will, have to pay
his fair share of any sewer hook up. She said the other night at a
meeting that this was really about money and she meant that. The
37
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
bottom line is how much money and who is going to pay it. She
thought it was really important that they stay straight on it. With
that, she said she would read what she had into -the permanent
record of this public hearing. (See copy of her letter dated
December 29, 2004 attached hereto as Exhibit A).
As part of her prepared statement, she stated that, "Firstly, let me
say that I fully understand that the Planning and Zoning
Commission convened this evening for the purposes of this public
hearing is an advisory commission to the City Council and that
your purview is to study the proposed application for conversion
and made recommendations to the City Council and it is the City
Council's decision after due consideration to either accept or reject
the application submitted by the applicant. We also know you
want to pass this on as soon as possible to the Council. Please be
aware that this is very clear to us in the park and particularly those
who are here tonight."
Chairperson Jonathan interrupted her to make sure that they were all
clear. The Planning Commission's role tonight, as he understood it, was
not to make a recommendation to Council, but to approve or disapprove
a parcel map. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct. The Planning
Commission in this instance has full authority to approve or disapprove.
It would then go to City Council on appeal if someone decides to appeal.
Ms. Schmidt said she was glad he cleared that up. That had never,
ever been articulated to any of them.
Chairperson Jonathan indicated that it was in all the reports and public
notice and invited her to proceed.
Ms. Schmidt continued reading her prepared statement. When she
reached the middle of page 2 regarding the results of the
homeowners association form which 64 residents in the park filled
out, she asked if the Commission wanted her to read those
results.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that she was actually addressing the area
which the Commission indicated they were not here tonight to address.
38
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2Q04
Ms. Schmidt said perhaps.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if she wanted to continue talking about
it, he would give her a{ittle 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, sampie 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
Cornmission was there to address the approval of the parcef 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
canverting these units to saleable lots.
Ms. Schmidt asked if it was through with the City and if it then
went tti 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.
�
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan stated that they were approving the parcel map
which establishes a one -lot subdivision. It was all part of the staff report
package and invited her to acquire one if she hadn't already.
Ms. Schmidt said she had it.
Chairperson Jonathan further explained that there are conditions of
approval that staff has recommended and that was what the Planning
Commission was addressing tonight. Just that.
Ms. Schmidt said she was also a little bit confused. At the
beginning of the meeting there were some changes to that prior
packet and she wasn't sure everyone quite understood what those
changes represented. She asked if it would be appropriate to
understand better what they changed of the five conditions.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that primarily there was an elimination
of the deceleration lane and sidewalk requirement. But again, any of
those changes were public documents and would be available following
tonight's meeting.
Ms. Schmidt said that when people come to a public hearing, it
was her understanding that the public hearing is just that. It is for
the public to hear what is going on and she wondered if everyone
in this room really understands what is going on because she has
a long history of this kind of procedure and she did not understand
what they were doing.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if she had anything else.
Ms. Schmidt said she would like to understand, and would like the
people to understand, what was going on. She came here tonight
thinking, after reading everything she could find to read, that the
Commission was imposing conditions on certain things and that it
would go onto City Council for passage. Now she learned this
evening that was not the case. That they would make some
ultimate decision that is going to impact 190 homes. This is a big
ticket thing that's going on.
40
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan said they all understood that and he was trying to
heip. He asked if she had a specific question that they could answer. He
had given her leeway and wouid give her a little bit more because they
were all trying to be he(pfu( to everyone there. Beyond what she had
already addressed the Cammission on already, he asked if she had a
specific question or a specific comment.
Ms. Schmidt said yes, she had a specific comment. If this body is,
if you five people are going to decide their future in the park, she
wanted them to very very carefully consider it. And please don't
rush because there is some, and that was something else she
didn't understand, was the time frame. The way this hearing has
evolved; December 7, January 18, December 29. It did not sit well
with their constituency. It was just not proper.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her for her comments. There were no
other pertinent Request to Speak Cards and he asked if fihere was anyone
else who wished to address the Commission.
MR. CHARLES BURTON stated that he lives in Indian Springs in
Space No. 1 10. !t 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. AngeJ that they normally last 25 years. He
wanted tv give them an example of what happened to the roof on
his house. He moved into a hame in 1973 with a shake roof. In
1993 his shake roof leaked and failed and he had to have a new
roof. Two years iater his neighbor's roof failed. These were tract
homes and they a(I 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 unti( it fails. His
question was who pays for the clean up once it fails. And it should
be probably a massive clean up. Will the current owners pay flr the
will the new owners of the lots pay? He thanked them and said
that was all he had to say.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak.
MS. MARGO IVERSON, 49-305 State Highway 74, Space No. 79,
addressed the Commission. She was not on the side of
41
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
management and was just on her own side. First of all, Mr. Angel
talked about the land up there. He talked about density. They had
to remember, as someone else mentioned, the majority of people
are over 65. Probably 75% of them are. Just guessing, maybe
50% is one person in one unit. In the most there are two in the
other units. They don't have residents a portion of the year
because they have snowbirds who only come for the season. In
her looking at it, the septic tanks weren't a problem. At all. They
aren't used like a usual home situation. They have five units on 47
septic areas. Sometimes there may be only two people using
them. Mary mentioned that they are older people. They don't do
ten tons of wash a week because they have kids; they don't have
all that. But she did agree with Mary Schmidt that said if they
could do it now and the management that's there, the owner that
is there could pay for it, that's a good deal.
But someone mentioned adding $20,000, and she was just using
that as a figure and didn't know if that was correct or not, onto a
mortgage. That might not be possible because the mortgage
company may decide, and if they picked out $100,000 and adding
another $20,000 onto it. The mortgage company may say that's
really nice, but we're only going to give you the money for that
$100,000 and not the $20,000. Let's say they do, do they want
to pay 8% or 9% interest on that $20,000 for the next 30 years?
It made no sense. Financially it didn't.
She said she happened to be one of the low income people and
this would wipe her totally out. She didn't have the $20,000 to
put up front and she was sure there were other people in there
that feel the same way as her. Why have a bigger mortgage? That
meant bigger payments. So she wasn't siding with management,
she was just telling them her personal perspective and other
people she has talked to. The newer sewers, they don't use the
septic tanks like a normal community would. And Mr. Angel could
not tell them one thing that said they needed them. Or any of the
standards were being broken. He could tell them that there were
a couple of compliances that maybe a report wasn't in on time. It
wasn't, done by a specific date. But that's all he could tell them.
He couldn't tell them that they went there and the ground was
42
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
contaminated and they had to do this, that and whatever because
it's never happened and probably won't for another 20-30 years
and by that time they would ail be dead. That was it.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her. He asked if there was anyane else
wishing to speak.
MR. J.C. SMITH addressed the Commission. He said he lives in
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park in Space Na. 167. Recently he
had the pleasure of having his yard, driveway and front torn up
while they replaced his particular septic systern. 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. Ange! said, these
systems da fail and they could have a great deat 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 al! 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 lndian 5prings. 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 rness. It belies the fact that
these folks were trying to tell them that it is a wonderful system
and it is going to go on forever. She said that was such b.s. Sandy
Symington, who the Commission did not allow to speak a second
time, management's husband, Mark Steffey, visits Ms.
Symington's backyard every morning to check the septic. The
magnificent septic that's going to last forever. Why would he be
Ck?
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
checking it? They have replaced things in the greenbelt that have
to do with the magnificent septic that's going to last forever. She
said the Commission really had to pay attention to what's going
on here and asked them to please do that. She thanked them.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and asked if anyone else wished to
address the Planning Commission regarding this matter.
MR. ARMEN ABRAHAMIAN addressed the Commission. He said
he lives in Space 170 and has lived there for 28 years. It has been
a marvelous place to live thanks to rental control. They didn't
know what it was to walk out the back end of their house and get
this odor, this tremendous odor. Okay, he called the manager and
he had to say about the Indian Springs managers and that was
that they were wonderful and they never ignored him once.
But he went outside and all of the sewage was running under his
mobile home. He called Mark, he comes there, he pumps it out and
it wasn't very long and he had to come again to pump it out. Four
people are on his septic tank. When they finally found it after all
these years, they never pumped it for 10, 12, 15 years, they
finally found it. Broke the concrete, cleaned out the septic tank
and he hasn't had any problems. However, when they took and
cleaned it all out, they looked down and saw water running into
the septic tank, completely just running. That could be one toilet
where someone was gone and it was just leaking. Just running,
running, running.
No one has ever' told them about anyone who has had a problem
with it. He hasn't had a problem since, but those managers were
very good. They never put him off. Never, not once. If it was
Sunday, they came the following Monday morning. If they told him
something, they did it and he had to give them credit for that. But
it is not too nice to walk out, he could just detect that odor. No
one has told them about it, but he had to tell them of it because
it is very important and he would not like anyone else to go
through it.
44
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSlON
DECEMBER 29, 2004
However, for 28 years he has lived in this city, he has worked
here at the Oid Viilage Market and this is really paradise. And that
was the oniy complaint he had and he didn't have any complaints
any more because they did take care of it. But for 10, 12 years
they didn't know where it was until the engineering company
came, broke the concrete and found out where their septic tank
was. And it wasn't too bad, only that little bit of experience and
he didn't want any of these people to go through this, especiafly
when they were going to sell the place and move on somewhere.
They don't want that for the next man that comes in or even for
these people who have been there for just several years. He
thanked them.
MR. ERNEST LATANZIO, Unit 95, addressed the Commission. He
said he was here with Sandy tonight and she has a problem. The
septic tank is on her property. If it becomes private ownership and
the other three or four units dump their septic onto her property,
he asked if they were responsible for the clean up. Who shared in
the cost of replacement at some future date? Does she do it
alone? !s 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 Pfanning Commission.
MR. GLEN WIESNER at indian Springs Unit 112 addressed the
Commissian. 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 hirn. He asked if there was anyone else
present who had not previously addressed the Planning Commission that
wished to do so at this time.
45
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMI3ER 29, 2004
MS. ESTHER MANN, a resident of Indian Springs in Space No.
134, addressed the Commission. She was concerned about the
impact that the septic system has on the environment. Maybe not
now, maybe three, four or five years from now the City of Palm
Desert or whoever controls the rules about septic tanks will decide
enough is enough. They have grown so rapidly in such a short
time. She is a snowbird and has been for the last 23 years and she
has seen this area grow and she knew it had to make an impact on
the environment one way or another. And having all this garbage
seeping into the soil, she didn't know how that could help the
environment. There had to be some ruling down the line by the
City to consider the health and welfare of the people around and
also the plants that are growing and the animals that are out here.
And that was going to be half of the environment. She thanked
them.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and asked if there was anyone else.
There was no one else and he offered the applicant to once again address
the Commission.
MR. RICHARD CLOSE said he wanted to make a couple of
observations. Number one. Mr. Angel talked about the average life
of a septic system being 25 years. That meant that some would
fail in 10 years and some would fail in 40 years. That's an
average. But he thought what was important to recognize is what
is a septic system when they talk about failure.
A septic system is a concrete box which is fairly easily dug up and
replaced. There is no technology, it's not a building, it's a concrete
box. So that's a failure and a method of solving the failure is to
replace the concrete box.
Number two. It has lines/pipes that go out to disperse the liquids
that have been dealt with within the tank itself, by the stuff that
does its business within the concrete tank. So it goes out in pipes.
Well, those pipes sometimes get clogged or fail. So what will be
done by companies like the former testimony they had, it will be
dug up and replaced into a different section of the greenbelt. It
was not difficult, not a sophisticated process. It's digging up some
46
MtNUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNtNG COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
pipes and �elocating them. So a failure of a septic system is not a
difficult problem to sofve. It wasn't an expensive problem and that
is why the testimony ear(ier 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 nat within the Cornrnission's purview directly, but
what was unfair here is throughout most cities, the infrastructure
in the street is put in by a city or water agency and the residents
merely have to hook up their home to that line that is within the
street. What's being asked of the park and the residents of the
park in this situation is to pay for the whole system; all of the
pipes within the streets. That is a burden that is usually borne by
the general public because of concerns and desires to get homes
off of septics onto sewer. So maybe in the bigger picture of the
City Council there should be thought as to how to solve this
problem, if there be a problem, through a solution that is more of
the nature of what is done in other areas of, he assumed in this
city, as well as other cities.
MS. LOFTIN readdressed the Commission. She thanked them all
for their time this evening. She wanted to highlight a couple of
things. First of ail, the sewer septic issue was clearly a very
confusing issue and at times an overwhelming issue. For example,
one gentieman testified he calied and the Water District toid him
it would be Sfi,000 to $10,000 to hook up to a private system in
the street. And that's true. What the person answering the
question didn't understand is there is no hook up in the street.
That has to be built. That is why there is such a significant
difference in cost in this project then in a rnore typical project.
The last kind of item was some of the things that had been
commented on are part of the day to day maintenance such as
every day the manager does check every septic connection. That's
part of his job, that's part of his duties, and that's part of
management.
47
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
She wanted to answer one question for the audience that came up
last night and she answered it, but she wanted to answer it again.
Who pays for the repairs after this is a condominium project?
Whether it is septic or it is sewer, the homeowner's association
will pay for the repair without regard to whose lot the problem
occurs on. That is the monies they were discussing earlier that go
and are calculated into the homeowners association dues.
In closing, they wanted to reiterate their request that they approve
the project and delete Condition No. 5. They thanked the
Commission and everyone who came out tonight to give input on
this matter.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked them, closed the public hearing and asked
for Commission comments. He did have a question for Counsel and said
it touched on some possible legal ramifications and asked if they should
very briefly convene into closed session or discuss that here. Mr.
Hargreaves said he would need to hear the question and requested him
to ask the question. If he felt it should be more appropriately handled in
closed session, they could adjourn to closed session.
Chairperson Jonathan hoped this was appropriate and then Mr.
Hargreaves could guide them from there. In his opinion the applicant has
made it clear that should the Planning Commission not make a decision
that the applicant is happy with, it was very likely that some level of
litigation or legal action may follow. He asked if Mr. Hargreaves had
considered that and if he felt they would be acting within their legal
authority, regardless of what their decision was tonight. Mr. Hargreaves
said yes. First of all, the applicant made it clear one way or another that
litigation could be the result of a decision they feel is adverse. Number
two, they have reviewed the recommendations of staff from a legal
perspective and feel that the actions would be within the jurisdiction and
power of the City if, as a factual matter, they conclude that requiring a
sewer addresses a health and safety issue. There is a factual
determination that needs to be made there and that's their determination.
As far as the legal is concerned, if they determine that requiring sewers
is necessary to address a health and safety issue, then they felt the law
would support them in that decision.
48
MiNUTES
ADJOURNED MEETiNG
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was a health and safety issue, or an
existing 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 developr�ent: 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 hs intended and what his understanding of
what the Counci! intended, was that the ordinance was intended to apply
to anyone that was on a septic system. The list there was a list on which
properties that encumbrance would actually be filed, so those were the
property owners that were officially put on notice, but when the
ordinance was wordecl, and he thought there was an allusion ta this in
some of the testimony, there was an operative provision that said that
basically whether they are an that list or not, it is the property awner's
responsibility.
Commissioner Finerty commented that is seemed liice the Planning
Commission has heard Ms. Loftin and Mr. C(ose's, as argued in court,
and they afways need to have the other side of fihe story and asked if
what they have as far as this side of the story is the staff report.
Because they cited a bunch of reasons as to why this wouldn't apply and
why that wouldn't apply, but even if it did apply, it wouldn't because
these other three conditions weren't met and it was a lot to follow and
digest. Mr. Hargreaves apologized for not having a memorandum to that
effect on the law, but if there was a particular concern, he would address
it. If they would like him to go through the correspondence and respond
to the different points, he'd be happy to.
Chairperson Jonathan thought it might suffice if he could tell them that
he has reviewed the legal issues raised by the applicant's representatives,
and after reviewing those issues, his answer is the same, which is they
would be acting within Mr. Hargreaves' interpretation af the !aw and
within their range of authority to make whatever decision they made
tonight. Mr. Hargreaves confirrned that was his opinion ar�d that's what
.•
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
he intended to express earlier, having reviewed the various issues, and
they had the chance to discuss and thought they agreed to disagree. But
again, he could respond to the issues. With respect to the number of
legal issues, there is ambiguity. They were never really going to know for
sure one way or the other until they run into a court, but in this case they
feel reasonably confident that the City would be well based in reaching
the decision that staff has proposed. From a legal standpoint. He wasn't
going to comment on the factual process because that's not his purview.
Chairperson Jonathan asked Commissioner Finerty if that was adequate
in her mind. She said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion.
Commissioner Tschopp said personally he would like to see Indian
Springs Mobile Home Park connected to the City's sewer system. He
thought that would be good not only for the homeowners, but the rest
of the city as well. The issue, though, prior to granting the condominium
overlay is, can the City require the applicant to hook up to the sewer
system? And from the applicant, they had a lot of argumentative legal
substance that the City could not require that. He said it was quite
interesting hearing the attorney's opinion just moments ago, it was his
feeling that the City code then applies and that the mobile home park
should be hooked up to the City's sewer. And that is what he would
have to go on. That is the City's code, that is how they would treat all
applicants looking to place a condominium overlay map on a project like
this, and that's what he would go with. So he would be in favor of the
staff's recommendation.
Just to provide some clarification, Mr. Hargreaves stated that the city
code requires hook up and the city code exists whether or not the
applicant goes through this process. And the city code is there whether
or not they make it a condition of approval. So the city code is somewhat
apart. The process they were actually going through right now is a
subdivision map process, a parcel map process, where there is the ability
to condition a parcel map on those specific existing health and safety
issues. So if they are going to move forward and put that condition on
the parcel map, he would suggest that is the test they need to meet --
whether or not it addresses an existing health and safety issue, not
whether or not it's required by the city code.
50
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETtNG
PALM DESERT PLANNiNG COMMtSSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Commissioner Tschopp thought it would be helpful if they actually had
the city code in front af them, the actuai verbiage. Mr. Hargreaves
befieved the code sections were in their report. But there again, the issue
wasn't whether or not the code app(ies, in this proceeding the issue was
whether or not there is a health and safety issue here that needs to be
a�ldressed.
Chairperson Jonathan said if he understood him correctly, Mr. Hargreaves
established in his mind that the City has the authority to condifiion 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 satety 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. Commissianer 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 also Mr. Ford stated that a septic tank is a block of cement and you
have pipes. If they get clogged, then they put in new pipes to go in a
different location, so all of this ground underneath there where these
pipes are going are being saturated and being contaminated and that was
seeping into our ground that is sand and is reaching all of us, and the
water is being contaminated and eventually they have to go ahead and
think about the welfare of all the people, not just in Palm Desert, but all
the desert.
Chairperson Jonathan didn't disagree with what had been said, but
following up on Commissioner Tschopp's inquiry to legal counsel, and it
was his concern as well which was the point of his earlier questions, he
asked Mr. Angel of the Regional Quality Control Board earlier whether or
not the Board had substantial evidence that the septic system at Indian
Springs will cause water quality damage. He answered that no, they did
not. His question to Counsel was if they lack substantial evidence, if they
were still able to make a determination that there is an existing condition
that threatens the health and safety of the residents. Mr. Hargreaves said
52
MtNUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSiON
DECEMBER 29, 2004
as he understaod Mr. Angef's statement, they do not have a water
rnonitoring system in place out there so they did not have actuai
evidence. He believed that Mr. Angel testified that in his opinion the
system represented a substantial threat to water quality based on the age
of the system, the density of the system, and the nature of the systems.
Chairperson Jonathan said that the fact that the Board doesn't have the
evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist or that there isn't
an existing condition that threatens the health and safety of the
residents; in fact, Mr. Angel felt that the�e was. Mr. Hargreaves said that
was right, and then it would be circumstantial evidence rather than actual
physical evidence. Chairperson Jonathan said that in spite of that, the
lack of substantial evidence didn't preclude the Commission from
reaching a conclusion. Mr. Hargreaves said the lack of substantial
evidence would. The water monitoring system is not in place. If it was,
they would have actual physical evidence. Substantial evidence can be
ather factors.
Commissioner l.opez 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 invofved in it; there's a lot of common sense that needs to
be applied to it. He thought they heard enough, at (east fram his
perspactive, 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 abaut that. As residents
here and as human beings, he thought they all had to be concerned about
what happens to our environment over long periods of time. And they
had seen how in many instances if they avoid or ignore situations such
as what they ware talking about this evening, that in the long run
something will happen that will create a very difficult environmenta!
53
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
problem for all residents of Palm Desert, whether it be in Indian Springs
or the rest of the residents in the Coachella Valley.
Knowing that the system has created problems in the past, he thought
it was appropriate that Condition No. 5 be part of this application. The
decisions they had to make tonight are those that impact all of them and
before they voted on this, he wanted to make sure they have all of the
changes before them and they understand what has been changed, what
has been added and thought it would be pretty simple to do that. But
from his perspective, he thought they are moving in the most appropriate
direction and that was to approve the application with Condition No. 5
incorporated into it.
Chairperson Jonathan thought the only change from the staff report was
the conditions of approval from the Department of Public Works, the
elimination of the deceleration lane and the sidewalks. Mr. Hargreaves
suggested that if they are actually going to go forward and impose
Condition No. 5, that there needed to be a specific finding by the
Planning Commission that Condition No. 5 is necessary to address an
existing health and safety condition based on the evidence presented
tonight regarding the nature of the system, the history of the system, the
density of the system, and the age of the system. Something to that
extent so that if anyone ever questions the decision, there would be a
determination by the Commission that they could refer to and have some
sense of what they based that decision on.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Lopez was ready to
incorporate that into a motion. Commissioner Finerty asked if there would
be more discussion. Chairperson Jonathan said he was just asking if
there was a motion. They would have discussion following.
Commissioner Lopez said no, that was his opinion and he would wait for
further discussion.
Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't want to be redundant, but he
wanted to clarify for his own mind since this was a complicated issue
dealing with both state and local ordinances and laws. Again, Mr.
Hargreaves' opinion is Ordinance 8.6 applies to this property. Mr.
Hargreaves said yes. Commissioner Tschopp said that it should be
considered with California Water code. Mr. Hargreaves didn't know that
54
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
the California Water code addresses the issue definitively one way or
another. Commissioner Tschopp stated that the California Water Code
prohibits that the Regional Board cannot establish a prohibition against
discharge waste--it must provide substantial evidence for the record to
show that such discharge will result in violation of water quality
objectives, and on and on and on. Mr. Hargreaves explained that is the
water code and that is a provision that applies ta the Regional Board.
They have a different process that they need to go through before they
can impose that kind of a requirement. He suggested that to some extent
they operate under similar provisions that they would need substantial
evidence of an existing threat to health and safety. He believed that the
Water Board would go 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. Comrnissioner 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 af a
parcel map and it has by state statute a very limited window for making
conditions. And the fact that the City has an ordinance one way or
another, would not be a sufficient basis to apply that condition to this
parcel map. He was trying to make it perfectly clear.
Commissioner Lopez said that with any application that comes before
them, they rely on staff's report, as well as testimony before the
Commission, whether it be for or against the application itself. He
thought what he heard this evening from the testirnony 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 the�e are
malfunctions that occur. When those occur, however long it takes them
to discover those occurrences, during that time there is something going
on that is going down into the earth and whether it is a day, or two days,
55
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
a week or however long it takes to repair this, from his perspective at
least, that was an indication that there is an existing danger to the health
and well being. From his perspective.
Commissioner Finerty concurred because their job is to, they aren't
experts in this area, but they need to rely on the information given. And
whether it was the testimony from Mr. Angel, or the letter from CVWD,
or the letter from the California Regional Water Board, there's no question
as to what they are telling them with regard to septic tanks being the
leading cause of ground water pollution. Locally they talk about the
discharge from the septic tank leach field is a concern because the
discharge contains pollutants that migrate in the subsurface due to the
permeable nature of our sand, and there is no question that this is a
concern for the entire city. And if septic tanks were so adequate, it was
hard to imagine why everybody goes to sewer. It was in Palm Desert's
interest that everything go to sewer and she thought that was the
purpose of their ordinance and why they say if there is a sale, this is
going to happen because it's a good thing. It's the right thing.
Chairperson Jonathan didn't want to let the opportunity go without
thanking everyone. As Commissioner Lopez indicated, it helped the City
make better decisions when they hear from more and more people and
he thanked them for taking their time tonight. He hoped that as they go
through this process, they came away with the conclusion that they have
a very dedicated staff that has devoted a great deal of professional time,
effort and expertise to this matter and that they have volunteer citizens
from their community that are taking their time as well to listen to
everyone that is affected by this matter to just make the best decision
they can given the information that is made available to them. When the
Commission makes a decision, some people are happy and some people
are unhappy. He certainly hoped that they, all of them, focus with the
process and that they were all pleased that everyone had a chance to be
heard and be part of that process.
Having said all that, he said he was certainly in favor of approval of the
parcel map. It seemed to come down to the one condition, Condition No.
5, which is the requirement to replace the septic system with a sewer
system. It is something that will inevitably need to be done, so the
question was whether it needed to be done now as part of this parcel
56
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNlNG 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 ta
come to a conclusion that there is an existing health and safety situation,
an existing condition that threatens the heaith and safefiy of the
community. He believed that they do in fact have that situation.
The reason he felt that way is that they have gotten testimony from
individuals about leaking septic tanks and malfunctioning septic systems.
They have received a recommendation from the Coachella Vafley Water
District fihat the septic system needs to be replaced because it threatens
the heafth 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 comrnunity. And they received that same recommendation
from staff after they reviewed all of those recommendations and came
to their own conclusion. So in his mind there was certainly enough
information and indication to the Commission that there is an existing
health and safety issue out there that makes it appropriate to sustain
Condition No. 5 and, therefore, he would be in favor of approving the
parcel map.
Action:
With that, Commissioner Finerty made a motion that they accept staff's
findings and that the Commission does believe there is an existing health
and safety condition due to the age of the septic system which they
know to be at least 30 years old, the density of the Indian Springs Park,
the very nature of a septic tank which contaminates the ground water,
mainly due to the nitrates, the testimony received from Mr. Angel, the
letter from CVWD�, and the letter from the California Water Quality Board.
Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked
if there was any further discussion. He called for the vote. Motion passed
unanimously 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2319, approving
PM 31862, subject to conditions as amended. Motion passed
unanimously 5-0.
57
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan thanked everyone again for attending.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
None.
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
None.
C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE
None.
XI. COMMENTS
None.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
• It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
Palm Desert Planning Commission
Itm
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
58
EXHIBtT A
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS - PLANNING & ZONING COMI�4ISS14N
December 29, 2044
GOOD EVENING - MY NAME 1S MARI SCHMIDT AND [ 4WIV THE COACH ON SPACE #86 IN
IND[AN SPRINGS. TT IS MY PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
I HAVE A STATEMENT WHICH I WISH TO READ INTO TE� PERMANENT RECORD
OF Ti-IIS PUBLIC I-IEARING ON Tt-� MATTER OF THE CONVERSION OF INDIAN SPRINGS
MOBILE HOME PARK FROM REN'TAL SPACE TO MOBILE HOME CONDOMINIUMS.
FIRSTLY. LET ME SAY 7HA? I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING AND
ZON[NG COMMISSION CONVENED THIS EVENII�iG FOR TE� PURPOSES OE T'HIS PUBI.IC
HEARING IS AlY ADVISORY COMMISSIOr1 TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT YOU
PURVIEW IS TO STUDY T�-� PROPOSED APPLICATION F�R CONVERSION AND MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND TT IS Tf-IE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION
A!= l�� llt�� ��ONSI�Eita ���0� i�►�� � ri�K ACCEPT UR REJECT TI-�E APPI,,ICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. WE ALSO ICNOW YOU WANT TO PASS THIS ON ASAP TO
THE COUNCIL. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS VERY CLEAR TO US IN Ti-� PARK AND,
HERE TONIGHT.
SECONDLY. I WISH TO THANK Y4U FOR YOUR POSITION ON THE SEWER/SEPTIC
ISSUE PERTAINING TO TI-IE PARK CONVERSION. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU THAT THE
RESIDENCY AT INDIAN SPRINGS IS FULLY IN FAVOR OF YOUR REQUIREMENT THAT THE
PARK OW'NERSHIP BE REQUIRED TO CONVERT THE ENT7RE PARK TO Tf-�E CITY�S SEWER
SYSTEMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO SELL ANY LOTS. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT
THE CfTY WILL HOLD FIRM TO THA'f POSITION AND, WE EULLY SUPPORT YOU IN THAT
DECISION. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT T� PLACE INTO THE RECORD OF THIS
CONVERSION APPLTCATION PROCESS THAT'THE SEP?IC SYSTEMS OPERATING IN
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE I-IOME PARK IS OVER 30 YEARS OLD, FAILiNG, REQUIRE
CONSTANT MAINTENANCE AND POSES A POTENTIAL HEALTH H�►Z�ARD TO THE
RESIDENTS. IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF T'IME BEFORE WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO
CONNECT TO THF SFVVF'RS �TNCF THE PAR.K OWNERSI-fIP HAS OPTED TO CONVF.RT THE
PARI� AND SELL OFF THE LOTS. IT SHOULD BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPENSE TO
UPHOLD THE LAW AND CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. IT WOULD BE
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING TO LEARN FROM PARK RECORDS TNE INCREASING
FREQUENCY THAT TI-�SE SYSTEMS MUST BE PUMPED AND PAMPERED. I CAN
PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT IT 1S OFTEN AND ONGOING.
THIR.DLY. I FEEL IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME T4 SPEAIt BRIEFLY T4 SEVERAL
OTHER ISSUES IMPERATNE TO THE CONVERSION APPLICATION.
1) RECARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT - IN 7'HE EARLY PART OF APR.IL (2004) WE
V�'ERE INFORMED BY THE OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES THAT A LETTER OF INTENT T'O
CONVERT THE PARK HAD BEE;�i FILED WIT'H THE CI'TY OF PALM DESERT. THIS CAUGHT
MOST EVERYONE BY SURPRiSE AND CREATED �CiREAT UNREST IN THE COMMUNITY.
THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATEON BOARD APPO[NTED � RESIDENTS TO EORM A
"COIv`VERSiON �ONiivtIiTEE". W� F�LT 1T WAS IMPORTANT TO WORK WI7�-i iHE
OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES TO AVOID ANY PITFALLS THAT WE MIGHT ENCOUNTER
AND KEEP A DIRECT LINE �F COMMUNICATION WI'TH THE OWNER DURTNG THE
PROCESS. WE WAITED MOST OF T� SUMMER, COMMUNICATIONS DWINDLED AND
Rscelved at Ptanninp Commis�on meetfr�
Date• '�}��` � � �`' Case Na �r� �� I�S� �
F�OfI� ``l'1�•.r-i Sc��mic-i}'.
THEN. WITHOUr MUCH NOTICE TO THE ASSOCIATION. THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVES CALLED FOR SEVERAL RESIDENT MEETINGS. THE INTENT AND
TIMING OF WHICH IS SOMEWHAT SUSPECT.
LONG STORY SHORT, THE RESIDENTS ARE TOTALLY CONFUSED BY THE
PROCESS. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE -PRELIMINARY SURVEY PLAT' WAS IN THE PARK
MANAGERS OFFICE FOR INSPECTION BY THE RESIDENTS TO ASCERTAIN IF THE PLAT
WAS CORRECTLY DRAWN IN REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL LOT LINES. THE PACKET OF
DOCUMENTS AND THE MAP SAT IN THE OFFICE FROM SEPTEMBER 8TH UNTIL MID
OCTOBER WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE RESIDENTS FROM THE PARK OWNERSHIP
THAT IT WAS THERE FOR RESIDENT INSPECTION. I WILL ADD THAT BOTH PAT BELL
AND I RECEIVED SIMILAR PACKETS IN SEPTEMBER BUT WITHOUT THE MAP. NOT UNTIL
OUR NOVEMBER GENERAL HOA MEET!NG DID WE LEARN THAT OUR RESMENTS
TRULY HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY HAD Ali OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THESE
DOCUMENTS AS THE PARK OWNERSHIP HAD NOT INFORMED THEM THAT THESE
DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR VIEWING. IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT
INCUMBENT ON THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO ANNOUNCE THE PURPOSE OF
THESE DOCUMENTS. DUE TO THE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED FROM
RESIDENTS, THE HOA COMPOSED AND CIRCULATED A FORM THAT ALLOWED THE
RESIDENTS TO COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THEIR LOTS LOOKED PROPERLY
DRAWN . WE RECEIVED 64 RESPONSES TO THAT FORM, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED
AND RECAPPED. YOU WILL SEE THAT 64 RESIDENCES IN THE PARK FILLED OUT THE
HOA FORM AND RETURNED IT TO PAT BELL. I HAVE ATTACHED A COLOR CODED MAP
SHOWING WHERE THESE INQUIRIES OCCUR THE RESULTS ARE:
9 RESPONDED THAT -COMMON AREA APPEARS TO BE INCLUDED IN
MY LOT BOUNDARIES'',
4 RESPONDED THAT "ADJACENT PROPERTY BUILDINGS APPEAR TO BE
IN MY LOT BOUNDARIES".
49 RESPONDED THAT THEY COULD FIND NO VISIBLE WAY TO
DETERMINE THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES-.
24 RESPONDED THAT THEY ARE PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES ARE CORRECT'
8 RESPONDED TO -OTHER" AS FOLLOWS-
- 'MINE APPEAR OBVIOUS.
- -LOT BOUNDARIES APPEAR CORRECT.-
- -APPEAR OKAY."
- -TT LOOKS OK TO US."
- -WE LOOKED AT THE MARKS AT THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE ON THE
- CURB AND WE CAN SEE THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE WIDTH BUT
- WE CAN'T SEE THE DEPTH OF OUR PROPERTY."
- DON'T FEEL WERE QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE EXACT
BOUNDARY LINES.-
- NO LOT LINE STAKES!-
2
THESE INQIIIRIES REPRESENT 34% OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. LET ME SAY
THAT THESE ARE NOT "OBJECTIONS" TO T� BOUNDARIES BUT RATE�R LEGtTIMATE
COHCERNS OF RESIDENTS TRY"[NG T4 DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT Tf-�Y WANT TO
BUY TE�IR LOTS AND JUST WHAT IT IS THEY WILL BE BUYING.
Z) THERE IS CONSIDERABLE CON�ERN REGARDING THE "SAMPLE CC&R'S" -1
WANT 7� RECORD T'O REFLECT MY CONCERNS REGARDING Tf� LANGUAGE AND
C.ONDITIONS PRESENTED IN THIS `'SAMPLE DOCUMENT''. I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED WTTH DOZENS OF CC&R'S OVER TE� 1'EARS AND I AM AMAZED AT T[-�
INCLUSION OF A REQUIREMENT PERTAINING TO A 5 YEAR CONTRACT FOR TEIE JAMES
AND COMPANY TO MAIYAGE THE PROPERTY COMMENCING UPON THE SALE OF THE
FIRST LOT. THERE IS OT�iER UNACCEPTABLE `'GRAY MATTER'' IN THIS DOCLnVIENT
'['HAT MUST BE ADDRESSED rilv'D C�RR��'ED RE�72�' �.r �F :'� �:R�� �"-.:tL .�'.,�..�.^.n^ET�.
31 REGARDING THE EXISTING EN4'UMBRANCE OF �5.7 MILLION RECORDED.
_.. ...: ._ .,..:.. __:.,.... _.,
AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE (NON�1JfiTLI7"Y) �ASE]�ZENT'S�WI-I�CH��AV`E�BEEN.
RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY SINC�� 1971�= ARE'T'IIESE ISS'UES'THAT ARE ADDRESSED
AND RESOLVED DURING THE CIT1''S REVIEW OF 'I'HIS APPLICATION'?
AS Y4U CAN SEE. WE ARE CONCERNED REGARDING HOW Tf-IIS APPLICATTON
PROCEEDS. THE FURTI-IEST T�QNG IN OUR MINDS, I-iEAR.TS AND ACT'IONS IS TO SLOW
DOWN 'fHE PROCESS. BELIEVE ME, WE WANT IT DONE AND DONE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, NOT AT T'F-� EXPENSE AND DISRUPTION OF THE EXISTING
RESIDENCY OF Tf� PARI�. W'E APPEAL TO Y4U ALL HERE AT 7'HE CITY TO ACT ON OUR
SEHALF. AS ��EI,L AS. THE APPLICANT'S. THIS WH4LE EXPERIENCE HAS AN INCREDIBLE
PRICE TAG ATTACHED TO IT. WE WANT TO BE DEALT WITT-I FAIRLY - NOTHING MORE,
NO`CHING LESS aND WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU ALL T'O ACT IN EVERYONE'S BEST
iNTEREST. THANK YOLT,
RESPECTFULLY SUBMiTTED,
MARi SCHMIDT
49-3U� HWY 74 #86
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARIC
0
,
�
�
,. ..
� �� �
d..- �,, � .•
� o� �
c�
� �' � �
,.� � � y.
�n � ��
�' A �D .
�
� N, G
4 � �
l•
r
r
t.
r
♦
r
�
M
�
.
' 7
� -V - . _ . , � ^ .. .. � .., i -. V •-- �ar �������
-- •---_--.-.-___... ._ __--.�.. _.. ����r��4
� � ,� i�2 � -� � p �
.
� _ �
INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEC�WI��RS ASS()CIATT4AI
GErIERAL iViEETING
NaVE�ViBER 14, 2004
s�
�
0
1
A �
� �
UWe have looked at the u�ap posted in the Club house per the instructions
of t�e park owners representatives.
ilwe am unable to detennine if the lot lines are correct as cirawn on that
pre�iminary survey �_
Therefore I request a re-survey map 3ustification of my resident lot
boundaries for the fflllowing reasons:
l Common area appears to be ;.ncluded �a my iot boundan.es.
� Adja+cent property builc�ings appear to be in my Iot boundaries.
� TheFe is no-visabie way for me to determine my lot b�undary
line.
� y
� + -
� i am pnysicaily unable to determuZe t�neu.er my l�t bc��daries
� are correct_
� �-- ���� �=,�--�--�_5
� g �ther C 5�� t(' },.� ����D �[� `_T'o 11��
� �'` /�' Cp �u�..� 1 to t� S o�.► `[�-4 iS
5 x '
Name: Space # ��� ,J``� � L1.� � �.fj
C�-G i � E.. t.._.�.�T'.
Phone: Date: �2�-t �o�
This frnm has beea provided by the Homeowners Associat�on for the
cUnv�nzen�e of t�ie r�s����4�g rQside�*s.
P`tit a check where ap�ilica�je and return to pat F3elI, President, #I 7I,
773-3771, A,S SE3E3N AS P+OSSIBLE.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Mr. Drell had no items to report for the November 18, 2004 City Council
meeting.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PATRICIA BELL, President of the Indian Springs Homeowners
Association, addressed the commission. She said she was to speak to
the Planning Commission on this item as a hearing item, but they were
informed at 4:45 p.m. that the hearing was canceled.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that this was the time for items not on
the agenda or non-public hearing items.
Ms. Bell stated that as far as she was concerned, it had been taken off
the agenda.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that the commission would hear her
comments at the appropriate time and thanked her.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMVV 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. PMVV 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
MlNUTES
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 no1.
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2314,
recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-23, subject
to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbefl
and Finerty voted no).
Mr. Smith asked for clarification that the motion included the condition
relative to the prohibition of amplified sound and bells. Chairperson
Jonathan and Commissioners Lopez and Tschopp concurred.
� F. Case No. PM 318fi2 - INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., Applicant
Request for approval of a parcel map to establish a one-lot
subdivision witn a condominium overlay at the 191-space
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305
Highway 74 (APN 652-9 20-007).
Chairperson Jonathan asked for a staff report, reiterating that it is the
expectation that this matter would be continued.
Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission received copies of the
tentative map in their packets which showed the proposed lotting which
was for a one-lot subdivision with a condominium overlay for the existing
191-space mobile home park. The project is lacated 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 1974.
He explained �tnai tiie appficant seeks to change the ownersi�ip 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 alter the
existing 191-unit density or impact on the physical appearance of the
park. There would be no displacement of tenants or residents. Residents
would be able to choose to buy their condominium unit or continue to
rent their space.
Government Code Section 66427.5, a copy of which was attached to
the staff report, prescribed the criteria to be considered in reviewing the
application. That was outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the report. And on
page 4 staff showed how each of those issues had been addressed. He
stated that the City was quite limited by the applicable government code
as to the issues it may consider as part of its review of the map.
He said the City Attorney might wish to comment on some of the issues,
but basically, in the last day or so staff received a couple of pieces of
correspondence from Mr. Close of Gilchrist & Rutter, an attorney for the
applicant, questioning the appropriateness of certain conditions included
in the report. He believed the City Attorney was requesting additional
time td review certain portions of that information.
It was Mr. Smith's understanding that a continuance to January 18,
2005, was being requested in order to accomplish that. He concluded by
asking if the Commission had any questions.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that there were a couple of conditions of
approval being recommended by Mr. Greenwood. Mr. Smith concurred
and thanked Chairperson Jonathan for the opportunity to comment. He
explained that was received just recently from the Department of Public
Works and it was seeking the street deceleration lane and he was sure
Mr. Close might wish to comment on that also, but it was there for the
Commission's consideration.
Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing. He reminded those
present that if they wished to speak, they had a right to do that. In the
event that the matter was continued, there would be further opportunity
to address the Planning Commission. That would be at the continued
meeting, which in all likelihood would be the second meeting in January,
January 18, 2005. He explained that the procedure was to ask the
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004
applicant to address the Commission first, then to take testimony in favor
of the project, take testimony in opposition to the project, and then to
give the applicant an opportunity to address the comments that have
been made and then close the public hearing or continue the pub(ic
hearing. In addition to that, he requested all those addressing the
Planning Commission to make their comments in five minutes or less and
to avoid being repetitive other than to say they endorse earlier
comments. With that, he asked the applicant ir tnEy wisi�ed to acldress
the Commission.
MS. SUE LOFTIN, an Attorney representing the applicant, 433 C
La Jofla Vi!lage Drive in San Diego, 92122, stated that they would
be raquesting 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 ofifice for their cooperation
and wor�c 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. Bath acts were greatly restricted
because of the nature of the subdivision. It wasn't like some of the
things they had seen eariier tnis eveniriy, vviiici� uvas r�evv
construction. This wasn't even like a conversion of an apartment
building. Mobile h�me 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 ot protections.
Having said that, she wantPd to cover briefly their comments that
came in writing, and as such, would be requesting that they be
�ncarporated into the record for tonight's public hearing: the two
letters from Richard Close of Gilchrist & Rutter, and the
correspondence from Anne James, Pres�dan� ot .fames &
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Associates, regarding the septic system, and the correspondence
from Larry Owens regarding the septic system.
Condition No. 3 from the Department of Community Development,
they were requesting that the last sentence be deleted. The
sentence reads, "Said amount to be determined through the City
rent review process." The statute provides very specific means of
establishing market rents and what can be charged. For example,
attached to their Tenant Impact Report was the schedule of rent
increases that would be the maximum rent increases that could be
imposed upon a low income household and that was a matter of
a calculation, as opposed to really having anything to do with the
City's rent review process. The market rents by statute had to be
established by an MAI appraiser. Again, 66427.5 specified and
restricted how those rents could be established.
With regard to Condition No. 5 and the request to put in a sewer
system, 66428.1 did not allow for any onsite improvements
unless those were imposed in response to a state Title 25
inspection which is separate and apart from this process. She said
the septic system that is existing is in good working order and
condition, has never been cited for polluting in any manner
whatsoever. She informed Commission that Mr. Owens with Tri-
Star Construction was going to speak to the issue in a moment.
Further, she said the Commission was restricted to mitigating an
existing health and safety condition for an offsite improvement.
The requirement was for an on -site improvement. As stated, that
is contrary to the HCD Title 25 Guidelines, as well as the
governing section of the Government Code. It was their position
that state law preempts the local ordinance to the contrary and for
other reasons stated in their correspondence.
Further, both as to this condition and they just received that
evening the Engineering conditions, but as to both, any
requirement for an offsite improvement for an existing health and
safety condition required that the condition provide that it could be
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004
completed in one year with an unsecured agreement and that was
in 66528. i Subsection E.
Lastly, with regard to the +ndemnity, they accepted that it was a
common practice that a subdivider indemnify the City; however,
this was a little braad, sa they were requesting that they inciude
at the end of the first sentence, "except as to any claim, action or
proceeding brought by the applicant, or any of the residents, to set
aside, void, or annul any of the conditions of approvaf." Obviously,
if there was fitigation, they didn't befieve it was appropriate to ask
them ta indemnify and pay fior 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 monumsnts; 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 filing of a parcel or
tentative and tinal map shall be required." Therefore, as to ttie
approval of this one-!ot subdivision, they couldn't have a condition
that requires a final map, and in particular a condition that was
related to a map under the authority of the state.
With regard to Condition No. 2, this was requiring offsite
improvements and they needed to study this particular issue;
however, this issue did come up previously and they talked to
some of the people that have been involved, they happened to be
at the meeting tonight and it was found not feasib{e at that time
and it did not mitigate an existing �hea{th 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 befieved the project in terms of protecting the
:
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
residents who select not to buy was a positive project. For those
people that want to buy when they are completed, over time it
ultimately changes the two -tiered ownership where one party
owns the land and one party owns the home and joins those two
interests. Over time it would become 100% owner -occupied
without any rental of the land and an owner of a mobile home that
has resulted in other cities in other areas in projects which are
maintained well and with residents who have pride of ownership
and ownership participation in the community.
With that, she said she would like to turn the mic over to Larry
Owens, but also wanted to let the Commission know that their
engineer, Larry McDermott, was present if they had questions;
Anne James, who was in charge of the maintenance of the septic
system was present to answer questions, as well as Richard
Close.
MR. LARRY OWENS, the owner of Tri-Star Construction, said he
would be speaking about the septic systems within the Indian
Springs park. His company for the past several years, and now,
had completed an extensive program to locate, inspect and install
manholes and risers on all 46 of the septic systems located within
the park. With this project completed, along with any repairs that
they had to make that were necessary to the leaching areas, he
believed this brought the system up-to-date and in a good working
condition. Any repairs they did have to make was relatively easy
to the leaching system. There was sufficient expansion area for
future expansion that may become necessary in the future.
It was his opinion that the septic systems were in good working
condition and with the park's stringent maintenance and pumping
program, along with an occasional repair, the system should last
indefinitely. He thanked the Commission.
Ms. Loftin informed Commission that Mr. Owens is an engineer,
as well as a contractor. With that they shortened the presentation
in light of the fact they would be continuing the matter and
welcomed any questions the Commission had.
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
There were no questions. Chairperson Jonathan nated 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 C(ose for the app(icant. He didn't know if Mr. Close had further
comments to make.
MR. RICHARD CLOSE, an attomsy Tor the appiicant, 1299 Ocean
Avenue in Santa Monica, Ca4ifornia, addressed the Commission.
He said one of the conditions that they object to, as Ms. Loftin
referred to, was the one that states that the rent controf
board/commission of the City would have ongoing jurisdiction after
the canversion. For the purpase ofi estabfishing rents, under state
iaw the focai rent control authority disappeared and had no force
and effect on the property after the first safe ofi a lot. So legally
after the first saie of a lot, the Commission would have no
authority over setting rents. It would all be established by a state
rent control law which would deterrnine what the appropriate rents
were. The way the condition was currently worded, the last
sentence, was contrary to that statutory provision.
Number two, they all knew that the major issue that they hear
about is the sewer system. They understood 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 the precautions, the
costs of this maintenance was approximate{y $8 per month per
space. That was the same amount that woufd be paid on a
monthly basis to the City or a�ency tha� woufd administer a sewer
{ine. Sa if S4 mil{ion was spent, the cost would not go down. fn
��,
�
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
fact, the Department of Real Estate would require the residents to
pay into a reserve for the whole property and the sewer system.
So it didn't make sense for the residents of the park, it didn't
make sense for the area, for the residents, to be required to spend
$4 million for a new sewer system. As well, his letter set forth a
number of legal reasons why the City no longer had jurisdiction
with this issue.
When he said no longer, these laws were imposed, unfortunately
from the point of view of the City, restricting what conditions can
be imposed because many cities, especially in the early 1990's,
were trying to condition conversions on more parking places --
upgrading facilities. And the legislature said no, we want to make
it easy for conversions to occur because we want to see resident
ownerships of mobile home parks. So the state enacted a law
saying that cities cannot impose conditions upgrading of the
property type of conditions on a conversion. And that was why
there were a number of restrictions on what the City can do.
Reading the local newspapers, he said they probably knew that
they had these problems with the City of Palm Springs. That led
to litigation that really settled the law in this area. It was an
appellate court case, the Eldorado Case, which established the
rights of the park and the responsibilities of the city. He said there
was an ongoing $6 million lawsuit against the City of Palm Springs
because of the delay of the conversion. Also, the residents in
Eldorado were still very upset because the eight years of delay
doubled the prices of the lots, so he didn't think anyone in this
park or the owner wanted a delay. They wanted to see the project
move forward in a reasonable manner in compliance with all the
laws and they really appreciated the participation of 'the City
Attorney's office and the cooperation of the city agencies. He
thanked them.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that he had a Request to Speak Card from
Mari Schmidt.
41
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7. 2004
MS. MARI SCHMIDT, a resident of Indian Springs Space 86,
addressed the commission. She said she turned that card in prior
to the opening of the public hearing for a very specific reason. At
approximately 4:30 this afternoon, she said Phil� Drell called Pat
Bell, the President of their homeowners association, and told her
that this meeting, this public hearing, was to be continued until
January 18. There were approximately 120 people who were to
come this evening to publicly hear what the applicant nad to say.
And her effort to reach the Chair before he opened the hearing had
that at its basi�s. They got very busy and called everyone, telling
them based on his informatian that this hearing was not going to
happen this evening.
They have some very e(derly 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 alsa established
a date which was very critica( to the conversion process. She
wasn't sure if they were aware of that, but it now established the
conversion as being real and ongoing. She hesitated t� eve>>
conjure or try to think of the ramifications of holding the public
hearing when the public could not be there or were told not to be
there. That was the reason she put the note on her card to please
hear what she had to say before opening the hearing. Just the few
comments that Sue Loftin and Richard Close said this evening
should have been heard by the 120 residents who would have an
opportunity to respond to that. So she asked that everything that
had been said so far this evening be said again in January when
everyone, she guaranteed them, would be here. She was to speak
__ for 64 of the residents regarding possible questions on the
boundaries of the lots in the plat. She didn't know what to do. She
didn't know what stance to take. She thought the City put itself
in some jeopardy. She said they needed to help them with how to
respond to this.
42
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan said he appreciated her concern. He said she asked
to speak before the matter was opened to a public hearing. He explained
that she is part of the public hearing, so that would have been
inappropriate and why she was speaking now. This was the public
hearing process. Number two, the matter had been publicly noticed, so
they were bound to open the public hearing. And number three, as he
said earlier, everyone that was here tonight that has offered testimony
could do so again at the January meeting, and all those that weren't here
that want to address the commission would have an opportunity to do
that in January. In addition to that, the minutes of the meeting would be
available to the public. Anyone that wanted to get those minutes could
contact the City or go onto the website and retrieve them. In addition,
there was an audio tape that could be made available for those that
wanted to listen to the actual proceedings. So hopefully she would come
to the conclusion that the process is fair and just. He thanked her for her
comments.
Ms. Schmidt said she had a couple of other comments since he
insisted on holding the hearing. She told them that her toilets
backed up. And that is about the sixth time in the last five months
that that has occurred. She personally had witnessed the pumping
of two septic tanks that were backing up last week. It was
consistently a problem in the park and part of her point tonight
was if she was not here and if Pat Bell wasn't here, no one could
respond to some of the comments being made about their system.
They have to play catch up or they have to get tapes and be
brought up to date on what has occurred tonight. And they would
have been here if it were not for the City's staff alerting them that
there was no meeting. It was a conundrum that was not going to
go away she had a feeling.
Mr. Drell added that the applicant's comments were virtually verbatim
from the letter that they submitted to the staff and she could have a
copy of them, which again, summarized completely all their comments.
She asked if they could have 191 of them. That was her point.
Mr. Drell said she could have 191.
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Referring to the Request to Speak Cards, Chairperson Jonathan next
asked Pat Bell to address the commission.
MS. PAT BELL, the President of the Indian Springs Homeowners
Association, addressed the commission. She said it was difficult
to say what she was going to say now because it had almost all
been said by Mari Schmidt. They were very discombobulated that
things have gone the way they have this evening having been
primed to come tonight and put forth their stand on what was
being said and then told farget it, don't came, and now told go
ahead, you can say it.
She stated that in na way was their stand this evening to siow
down, or stop, or change the position of the conversion going
ahead. That wasn't it at all. They knew it would and they just
wanted to make sure it went through smoothly and they have
some concerns. And those concerns she would rather not say too
much about tonight. She had the good luck to be able to listen to
what the other side was saying and maybe she could base her
position a little stronger next time.
She stated that she did not believe that Title 25 covered what Mr.
Close had in mind, that it was the main governing body Tor ihem.
She believed that the City Ordinance 743, which was based on the
state plumbing code, bath of those were applicable in this case
and that was the stand she would take when the hearing
continued on the 18th. She said they had other issues. Lot lines
were one of them. She thought for sure that would be the biggie
tonight. Her biggie was the sewer situation and she was very
much interested in discussing it with them on the 18th.
She believed that was just about all she had to say tonight and
thanked them.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the
Planning Commission regarding this matter.
..
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
MR. CHARLES BURTON said he bought a place in Indian Springs,
Space No. 110, in September. He did not know these issues were
coming up. He knew there was a possibility of conversion. He had
no idea that the septic and sewer system was an issue, and the
streets and the line lots, although he could have anticipated that
the line lots would be an issue.
He wanted to make sure that he understood that they have access
to the minutes this evening and asked about the procedure for
going about getting them, and if they could have a copy of Mr.
Close's letter and any other information that they might
disseminate to the rest of the residents of Indian Springs.
Chairperson Jonathan asked staff when the minutes might be available
for the public. There was a question about the dissemination of draft
minutes. Mr. Hargreaves stated that since draft minutes are part of the
Planning Commission's packets, it was a public document. They weren't
the official minutes, they would be draft. Chairperson Jonathan noted
that they were draft until approved or modified and approved by the
Planning Commission. So those could be made available to the public.
Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked when the draft
minutes would be ready. Staff indicated that draft minutes should be
ready by Friday, the 17th. Chairperson Jonathan informed the audience
that they should be available at that time. In addition, all attachments and
all the documents, letters and so forth were part of the public record and
would be available as well. It was noted that if they wanted an approved
set of minutes, those would be available on December 22. He asked if
that answered Mr. Burton's question.
He concurred and thanked the Commission.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Pat Bell asked to be able to speak again.
Chairperson Jonathan agreed.
45
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSiON DECEMBER 7, 2004
Ms. Beli explained that there was a very strict time frame invoived
for certain procedures to be done. One of them began today, and
180 days from now, according to the Tenant Impact Report and
she hoped she was quoting that correctly, 180 days from now
another period begins and that count started today, whether they
were privy to give their whole spiel tonight or not, it started today
because they did start it today and the City started it today.
Another thing that was happening today was a very important
definition of resident which begins the first time this commission
hears these things. That was important because anybody who
bought a house after or was in escrow after this date was not
considered a resident. That meant they wouldn't have the same
terms for buying or renting as the resident. She said she might
have that a little bit wrong. That was why this date was so
important if it was going to start counting tonight, even though all
the materiai 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.
R
��
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TPM 31862, INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
DATE: December 6, 2004
RECEIVED
2004
IMUNITY DEVELCPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY C,F PALM DESERT
The following should be considered conditions of approval forthe above referenced project:
(1) Application approval by City is subject to complete final parcel map being submitted
to the City Engineer for checking and approval. The parcel map shall be based on a
field survey in conformance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City
Ordinances. Survey monumentation shall include, but not be limited to, the internal
street centerlines and lot / parcel corners to the approval of the City Surveyor.
(2) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards.
Deceleration lane required on Highway 74.
8' sidewalk required on Highway 74.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be
dedicated to Caltrans prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
Mark Green ood, P.E.
GAPubWorks \Conditions of Approval PMAPS\TPM 31862 revised.wpd
LAW OPFICES
GILCHRIST R RUTTER
PROFESSIO\AL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
� 299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90Q01-7000
December 3, 2004
TEIEPHONE (3t0) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (3t0) 39a-4700
E-MAIL: rcloseQgrlawyars.com
�, �� �..� � � � .3� JL.J
� _ , `, 7 ?if04
�._�, u
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 Mr. Erwin:
c�O'st:�iL'�f�fY DEVELCP)1ENT DEPART`lENT
C;TY OF Pa L1i DESEAT
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' 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 "E�ibit 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 board of
supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the
requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality
OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David J. Erwin, Esq.
December 3, 2004
Page 2
or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Pain Desert has
not enacted the necessary legislation.
Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local
agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other
things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership.
Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a
conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements
unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other
dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact,
Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent
municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership
with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks.
In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a
septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality
damage.1 In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board
Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board
overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to
the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section
13360. The State Water Board stated:
"Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate.
If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of
waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger
connect to a sewer system. . . . [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference
for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section
13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board
may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of
Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied."
Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian
Springs will force us to challenge the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60
is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to
comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60
is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms
exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its
enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal
constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full
compliance with all applicable regulations.
Water Code §§ 13280-13284.
li\W OFFICES
GILCHRIST 8a RU�1'ER
PROFESSIONAL COEtPORAT20N
David J. Erwin, Esq.
December 3, 2004
Page 3
Our consultant's have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would
cost in excess of $4,000,000. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel
map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system will be vigorously
challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the
Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage.
As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on
the conversion oithe El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El
Dorado Palm SprinQs, Ltd. v. Citv of Palm Snrings, 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 Comm.ission at its Hearing on
Decernber 7, 2004 that it must not impose a sewer connection as a condition of approval of
parcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST TER
Prof Corpor ion
�
R.ichard H. Close
Of the Firm
RH C: aap/ 110644_ I/ 1203 04
3416.006
cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
Sabby Jonathan, Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairrnan, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Sonia Campbell, Memher, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Jim Lopez, Member, Plarming Commission (Via Federal Express)
Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA. 90401-1000
December 6, 2004
VIA FEDEX
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
rclose@grlawyers.corn
RECEIVED
;
7 2004
"OM MUNN'Y DE7EOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1:ITY FALM DESERT.
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 7, 2004
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community Development Staff Report regarding
Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian
Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staffs proposed
Resolution to approve the Application with the attached Conditions of Approval. Following are
our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence
and argument at the Hearing on the Application on Tuesday, December 7-, 2004.
Condition of Approval No. 3.
Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code
section 66427.5(0(1), rent for non -purchasing residents may increase upon conversion to market
levels over four years. However, the last sentence of Condition No. 3 as drafted states, "Said
amount to be determined through the City rent review process." In fact, upon conversion, state
law governs the four-year increase to market rents, and the City's rent control rules and
LAW OFFICES
GILCHIZIST J�:. RLT'PER
PROF ESSIOVAL COIZP02\TI01
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Com.missioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 2
jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined b� the Court of Appeal in El Dorado
Palm Sprin�s, 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.) Accordingly, the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deieted
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 Candition af 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 conditian of approval.
Condition of At�proval No. 6.
Draft Condition of Approval No. 6 would require Indian Springs to defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and its agents from any claim, action or proceeding against the City
to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the Application by the City or the Commission.
The Staff Report recognizes that the City's action with respect to the Application has the
potential to result in litigation. However, given the illegal Conditions of Approval discussed
above (as well as Condition of Approval No. 6 itself as currently drafted), litigation against the
City regarding its approval of the Application very possibly would be initiated by Indian Springs
itself or by residents of the Park who object to the conditions which will interfere with and delay
the Park's conversion and their ability to purchase lots in a timely manner.
Although it may generally be appropriate to require, as a condition of approval of a parcel
map, that an applicant agree to defend the City against attacks from others regazding 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 includs the following language at
the end of the first sentence therein: "... except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by
the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void or annul any of the Conditions of
Approval."
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 3
For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the
Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from
draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft
Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft
Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIS & RUTTER
Prof oration
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TWC:twc/110716_1/120604
3416.006
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
JAMES 8� ASSC�CIATES, INC.
::�. —.—r;..� ,$:al{--. - :'.;�:.:;'�;:�.i;',s-,. :�,'v-: .�.a7+.. —...�: :.W� .y:::'-.:'Z`'�c: �F"" :.a��:,
�:i'�.�. �,;,..T
Decembez� 2, 2004
City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-257$
Re: India�� Springs Mobilel�ome Park Conversion, Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66425.I, PM 31862
Pubiic Hearing: December 7, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Requested Aciion: 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, wiihout the imposition of a condition to connect to sewers.
I am President of James and Associates, Inc., and have been involved with the
management and maintenance of Indian Springs Mobilehome Park located ai 49-30�
Highway 74 for the last eighteen (18) yea.rs, including without liinitation, the Septic
System.
We became aware 10 years ago through the Southern California Water Quality
Control Board and ihe Coachella Valley Water District of the seriousness of ground
water contamination in the Caachella Valley. We agreed to a progranl to raise all lids
and risers on the septic tanks to at�ove ground levels, making the maintenance and
testing easier, and the tanks more accessible to puinping. The project cost was
approximately $300,000 and was completed in 2003.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Water Quality Coi�ztrol Boaxd, ail tanks were
to be pumped at the end of this project and wil] continue to be pumped on a scheduled
three year cycle.
We had discontinued the use of chemicals because of �ossible ground wa.ter
contamination, using pumping as ai� altez-zzative to break u�� scum layers. This resulted
in the rotation �rogram refez-red to above.
255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #28G
Palm Spriugs, CA 92262
Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588
T-mail: jamesk.assoc@verizon.net
JAMES & ASSOCIATES, I\C.
With thecompletion of the program, the Coachella Valley Water District
confirmed that as long as the Septic System is maintained in good working condition.
there is no basis, environmental or otherwise, to require hook up to sewer.
The septic system consists of a solid cement tank with two separate
compartments, with a line from the home entering the tank on the solid waste side,
letting the liquid flow through the outlet side of the tank to a leach field or seepage pit,
which filters through gravel and sand. We have 46 tanks ranging from 1,500 to 2,500
gallons, depending on location, and serving 3-5 spaces per tank.
Our maintenance program includes a routine of checking the septic tanks for
scum and water levels, and inspecting the leach fields.
In addition to daily inspections and monitoring by park staff, Coachella Valley
Water District requires annual testing, done by ATS Laboratories, who take random
samples and submit the test results to Coachella Valley Water District. This testing
helps protect the environment. We have always been in compliance and within the
required range, with no citations for contamination.
Letters are sent periodically to the Residents to remind them of how to maintain
and protect the septic system, and the ground water table from contamination. A binder
with Map Locations, Septic Schedules and Annual Inspections is available upon
request.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
( Anne James
President
Cc: James Goldstein
Richard Close, Esq.
L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
GADocurnents\Properties\lndian Springs 452\Septics\Letter re Maintenance 12-2-04 .doc
255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588
E-mail: jamesk.assoe verizon.net
, 7!k �'on.trac.ting, �xcar�ation, Grrrdin�,
• � "We dig the Coachella Yalley"
.._ . . . __., � ���_.,.�',�./.?�'"
� �k
F7iday, DeCembel03, 2Uo�t.
Re: Indian Spxings Mobi�e Home Pcrrk
Palm Desert, Calij'orr�a
To whom it may concem,
In 2003 Tri 5tcar Contrcacting complefed an e�cferx,s�ve program ro Iocate, inspect
c�rid instc�lt mcrnholes and risers on ctl! 46 systems cuithin the pcxrk This projecr
hcrving been completed crlong with any xeperirs necesscuy to the leaching areas
makes this an up to date and good working system.
Any repau� that have been mode to fhe leach�ng system are relatiu�'y simple
since there is su}�c�ent room for fcrrther seepage arer� expcm.sion. F�rrthermore
these repcvrs crre made c.vith the most cwrenr maretiais ond up grcrded storadcrrds
wirh an the indusmy. �s an e�ccrmple, see,page pits have been insralled and are
burled straighf down into the ground leadirig to a prolonged seepage area out of
rearh of landscape probtems.
!n my opinion the sept�c syst�ems are in good worldng condmon and w�th the
pari�s strvngenr mainrenance and pumping progrcun crlong with vn occasionai
repQir t,hese sysrems should jasr inde�nitely.
S�racerety,
�'; �
Lam� 1. Owens
.......___ ...._._--------____.__._._..._.�_.__.__._._.._._.........__..._.....__._..._.___.__._._.......,.,.,�,,,......,.,,......_....._..._....,....,..,..�..,..�.....�,...�.........,.,
Bus (760) 251-5454 IS-501 LittieMurongu Rou4 Deserr,�ozSprings, CA 92140 Fux (760) ZS1�5458
e-mail: infn(a)T�i-Star.info
JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Received at Planning Commission meeting
Date: rit Case No, 7 51
From: 5 k (.
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
GADocumentsTropertiesUndian Springs 4 52\Septics\Letter Charles Springer 12-21-04.doc
255 N. El Cielo, Ste 140 #286, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone:(760) 320-2217 Fax:(760) 416-1588
ATS
LABORATORIES
December 15, 2004
Indian Springs Mobile Park
' Gentlemen,
Enclosed please find results of analysis of samples submitted by you on
November 17, 2004 and covered under our lab no: 4603.
A portion of the sample was contracted to D Tek Analytical and a copy of
their report is enclosed.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve your company needs. If I may be of
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 760-344-2532.
Sincerely,
1 ir4
Linda L. Webster
Lab supervisor
104 S. 8TH ST, BRAWLEY, CA 92227 (760) 344.-2532 FAX (760) 344-3459
ATS
LABORATORIES
Lab no: 4603 Reported: 12-15-04
Indian Springs Mobile Park
Discharge
1. Space 96 2. Space 150
EPA 601/602 reported in ug/1
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromodichlormethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chlorornethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dich1orobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dich1oroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Received 11-17-04
Space 96 Space 150 DLR
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 1.0
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 1.0
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
ND ND 0.5
104 S. 8TH ST., BRAWLEY, CA. 92227 (760) 344-2532 FAX (760)344-3459
ATS
LABORATORIES
Lab no: 4603
Indian Springs Mobile Park
Septic discharge
EPA 601/602 continued:
Reported: 12-15-04
Received: 11-17-04
Space 96 Space 150 DLR
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND 0.5
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND 0.5
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND 0.5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND 0.5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND 0.5
Ethylbenzene ND ND 0.5
Methylene chloride ND ND 1.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND 0.5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND 0.5
Tetrachloroethene ND ND 0.5
Toluene 74.7 22.5 0.5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND 0.5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND 0.5
Trichloroethene ND ND 0.5
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND 0.5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND 0.5
Vinyl chloride NI) ND 0.5
Xylenes, Total ND ND 1.0
6.43 6.95 NA
663 492 1
0.58 1.76 NA
41.00 46.66 0.1
pH
Total dissolved solids
Nitrate
Total Nitrogen
Portij42ofana1ysis by D Tek Analytical, copy of report enclosed.
)
Linda L. Webster, Lab supervisor
104 S. 8th Street, Brawley, Ca. 92227 (760) 344-2532 FAX (760) 344-3459
''� California Re -�onal Water Quality CV�ntrol Board �`� ;
'� ,�����,
�% Colorado River Basin Region �,_ ,��,.,,
Terry Tamminen 73-720 fired Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, Califomia 922G0 Arnold Schwarzenegger
Secrc�ar�� for (76U) 34G-7491 • Pax (7G0) 341-G82U Govcr•��or
rnviratmenrnf hltp://wwwswrcb.ca.gov/rwqcU'J
�1'O1CCI1p17
The er:er•gy challenge facirrg Cnlifa•nia is 1•e�rl. Every Califorirr�n nee�(s to (nke rmmediale ncrion ro reduce energ�� ca�sumpiion.
For a lisr of sinrple ivn}�s �-ou can re�Juce denrn�id nnd c•ur yotu• energ}� cos�s, »rsit o��r ia�ebsi�c.
November 3, 2004
Indian Springs MH Estates
225 N. E1 Cielo , Suite 140 # 286 ,
Palm Springs, CA 92262-6973
RE; REMINDER NOTICE — ANNUAL REPORT FOR INDtAN SPRINGS MH ESTATES, BOARQ
ORDER NO. 97-50017
7he 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
d'+scharger shall forward a letter ta the Regional Soard indicating that there has been no activity
during the required period. ,
Please be sure that the name of the facility, Board Order No. and WDID No. appear on your form.
Note that the report should be signed by a duly authorized representative of the discharger prior to
submitiaf of the report to our office or it wifl be considered invalid.
Fai{ure to submit this report by the above date may subject you to enforcement actions including,
but not {imited to, administrative civil liability of up to S 1,000.00 per day p�rsuant to Section 13268
of the California Water Code.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at {760? 776-8941 .
?�arine� ��odri�ue.z
�
Sanitary Engineering Technician Trainee
MR/hs
File: 7A 33 1 168 01 1, Indian Springs MH Estates, Board Order No. 97-50017
Califor�zia Enviro�i��rerr.tal Protection Agerrcy
�a Recycled Pnper
CALIFORNIA IlEGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 97-500
INDIAN SPRINGS 1VIII ESTATES
V/DTD NO. 7A 33 1168 011
ORDER NO. 97-50017
REPORTING FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY
ANNUAL REPORTING
YEAR: 4/
z. 1/9 6 46o,3
1. Estimate of the total maximum daily Dow of sewage discharged to the sewerage system (septic tank/seepage pit
systems)
2. . List any proposed changes in the sewage disposal facilities during the upcoming year.
•- .• 1• . • •-
3. Report any surfacing of wastewater or other failures in any of the systems during the past year.
4. Swimming pool wastewater shall be monitored for Total Dissolved Solids before discharge.
5. One of the septic tank/seepage ph or leach field disposal systems for every 20 septic tank systems shall be
sampled during November. The samples (all grab samples) shall be analyzed for the following:
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L s
Volatile Organics mg/L ATTACH RESULTS
Hydrogen Ion 4 3
Nitrate as NO3-N mg/L
Total Nitrogen Ing/L / , 0 0
The collection, preservation and holding times of all samples shall be in accordance with U.S. Environmental
. Protection Agency approved. procedures. All analysis shall be conducted by a laboratory certified by. the State
Department of Health Services to perform the required analyses.
I declare under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in
this document, and that based on my 'inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. I arn aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Signature:
ANNE JAMES (President) Title: 'c-...._•\(-'
JA MES & ASSOCIATES INC.
Agent for Owner Dat:
255 N. El Cielo Suite 140 #286 e
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone (760) 320-2217
�
CALiFORNIA �'ATBR QUALTTY CO2�1"ROL BOARA
COLORADO i2T'VER BASIN REGION
MON't"tO�tING ANA R�PORTrNN�'ir PROGRAM
F4R
INDIAN SPRINCrS MOBILE HOME ES�"ATES
WDID NQ: ?A331 i68 Ql l
ORDER NO.: 97-500 i7
REPORTING FR�QUENCY: AI��T[IALLY'
ANNUAi REPORTING � j� � � � ���
�r�
Bsrimate of thc tofai maximum daily t�ow of se+ovage dischazged to ti�c scvverage system (sepric tank/scepage
pitsystems) \c� \�`i\_� `, \�` ,�,�� =
c�Sd '�. � rauJ w �'�,� -
2.
3
4.
List aay pro}�osed cbangcs in tbe sewaga dispasai facilities during tb.e tipcorning ycar. ���
]teport any surfacing of wast�v�rater or other failures in ar�y of the sysicros duria� the past year: S� e- �.��0.�.�e�
Sc��cC��� .
'YEAR;
L� �
��D �
�� � �
S�+vimYnin,g p�ol wastewa�eer shail be monitored for total dissoived aolide before dischargc. �p `��� ����
. ��-�-, •
S, �ne of thc stptic tank/aeepuge pit or leach field disposal sys0ems for every 20 septic taak systems sha13 bc
saxnpled during November. 't'ha sampies (sll grab samples) shall be analyzed for the following:
'T'otal Dissolved Solids mgjL "'� ��
Voladle C>rganics
Hydmgon ion
Nitrate as NO,-N
Tota] Niao�en
mg/I.
P�
��
�
A'Y"Y'AC�i RESULTS
�
r� , 9�
! . ��
L Ll/. //� 4�
TbE CO�CCLIOIl, pfeS6NdilOA and holding rimes of a]i sa�aples shall be. in accordance with U.S_ Enviran:n��n.ta1
�rotection Ageney apgroved procedures. All aaalysis shali be canducted b� a labozatory certified by the State
Deparpneat of Health Services b� perform the required anaiyses.
I deciare under thc pcnalty af iaw that I}►ave personally examined and am fauuliar with the in#'orix�ation submitted
in this document, and thas basul on my inquiry of thosc indi�viduais immediately responsible for obtaining tiie
infornoation, i believe that the information is hve, accwatc, and complete. I am aware that there are si.gnificant
penaities fvr submitting false infonnatinn, ineluding the possbility of a fine F►nd irnprisonmcnt foz knowing
violations.
ANNE JAMES (I'resident)
JAMES & ASSOCWTES INC.
Agent for �wner
255 N. EI Cieio Suite 140 #286
Paln� Springs, CA 922b2
Phone(760)320-2217
o �-�_�._�
Signat•ure: � _"' , ,
Tirle�C��G.?�\ \��e.� � ��-�_
Datc: '��_.��-\\O~�
�
�-TEK Analyticai Laboratories, I� _.
902U Kenamar Drive. Suite 205
5nn Ilitigo, CA 9212t
(858) �G6-454D FAX (858) 5�6-45�iZ
ATS LABORAT4RiFS
104 S. 8'" 5tcee!
Br#wMey, CA 922Z7
Attn: Ms. Linda Webster
Date of Rcpurt:
Sampitng Ds�te:
D�te Satapte Received:
Dste Aoalyzerl:
An��y��a By:
Method:
t3nits:
S�mple Type:
Projcct Name:
12/14104
11/� 7/04
� YI1s�o4
Nuvember 2Z, Z004
ASL
EPA 601-60Z
µg/L
Waste Water
4b03 / Indiao Springs Mobile Park
ANALYSES RES(1LTS
Analvsi�s
Ben?,ene
Bromobenzene
Brotttodichl�romethane
Bromoforrn
Brcmiarcnethane
Garbcm Tetrachloride
Chiambenz�se
Ghlaraethane
Chloroforcri
Chl4r4methane
DibrcTmochi orom�thaae
Uibrdmomethane
i,2-Dichlor�benzene
1,3-L�ichinrnbenzene
1, 4-T3icht orobenzene
i,l-Dichloroethane
1,2- Dichloroethanc
1,1- Dichiorncthene
Detectio�
Limits
Log Nnmber: 0455�4
Sam,ple iD; Space 96
I�ii3
I�TD
2�TD
�
ND
�
ND
ND
ND
ND
rro
ND
ND
�
Ia'D
ND
T�TD
ND
04-5525
Space t 5il
0.5
0.5
a.5
0.5
0.5
4.5
Q_5
l.0
fl.5
0.5
o.s
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0_5
0.5
4i.5
Pagc 1
NL?
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
rrn
NC�
N1�
I�'I3
NI�
NT3
TFI)
N I�
NT�
ND
�
ND
..-TEK Anatytical Laboratories, I►.
90Z0 K,ens�mar Drive, Suite 2Q5
Ssn Diego, CA 92t21
(858� 56�-+1'_S40 FAX (85$i'_566-4s4Z
Anatysis
Uetection
Lintfts
L.og Nutnber: 04-5524
S�tmple fD: Space 96
I7 i ch}oroc3 i fl u orvmethane
cis-1,?- L�ichloroethene
trans- 1,2- Dichlorosthenc
1,2-llichloropr�pane
cis-1,3-ilichl�ropropene
trans- 1,3-l�ichiorapropenc
fithy3benzCne
Methylern. Chiaride
1, i ,1,2-Tetraehloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorcethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tolueoe
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
l ,1.2-Trichiorcethane
'E�riChloroet�ene
Trichlaro f1 uoromerhane
Vinyt Chl�r�ide
Xyien�s (Total)
*ND = Nane Detected
Ellen Atienza
Oper�tians Manager
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.�
0.5
0.5
9.5
O.S
0.5
0.5
I .0
I�ID
ND
ND
r1D
ND
ND
ND
l�iD
ND
ND
ND
74.7
ND
23T�
I1D
�
ND
ND
Page 2
04-5525
Sp�cc 150
TiD
ND
NU
ND
Nll
ND
1«iD
ND
ND
ND
T1D
22.5
ND
ND
I�ii?
ND
ND
�
D - TEK ANAL YTICAL LA8ORATOAIES, INC.
9020 Konazuar Drive, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 566-4540 FAX (858) 566-4542
ATS Laboratories
104 8.. 8th St.
Brawley, CA 92227
Attn: Linda Web8ter
Project ID: 4603-Indian
Log Nuxnber Sainple ID
04-5524
04-5525
Springs Mobile Park
Analyeie:
Method:
Date t
kna1yt;
RL:
Units
1. Space 96
2. Space 150
Page 1
Date Reported: 12/14/04
Date 8ainpled: 11/17/04
Date Received: 11/18/04
Sample Type: ?Jater
Nitrate-N
5M4500NO3E
11/19/04
oJ
0.10
mg / L
0 . 58
1.76
�A�LIFORNtA WATEi� 4liAL17Y CqNTRC�L �OART�
CO�ORAflL'� RIVFfi 8ASlN REG10N
WD1D {��1.: 7A331�S$0't'1
OAD�R NO.: 97-504(17}
R� POfiTIN�, fiREQU�t�CY:
NfOt+}tTQR1l�� AN4 R�POATING PROGRAM
� �'C?R
l�iDiAN SPfiiNGS M081LE H03NE PARlC
YEA�i; �G�.. �Qi � .
�
AN3�UAi.,.;,Y
MAiNi�f�AN�E AN1? fNSPEC'�i��t
Raport shalt 4nciud� the iocation of the septiC tat�lclseepage �its systems, nearest space nur,-E�er.
��d measurement of the thickngss c+f the scum {ayer in eaCh com�8rtsnenL. f'lease use #i�is forrrt
for adt3itionai septi� tanks,
Rest�its shatt be reQorted for tha fotfot+�ing:
Date
of ir+spectiors
�'1/!�/�"�
,
�j �t'2- ��_
j �J�'7/C S/
�'f/i�l��
. ,
�����fc�
,
f� r � L,
1�}e�rest
Space No,
7
�
1 S'
��
z .s'
Z�
Thickr�ess Sniet
Sc�rrn iaYar/ilnches)
�GE r�'?�Q�
�u����.�
�t1731 f��ai-�
����
��-����
����
Tfcickr►ess t�utiet
S�um L$yer/(fr��hes)
����� �
,
��/ r�/� �
�� �'7/�f�
ir/����'�
t j z o�Q�
�
� � � ���� �
in t�eu of sepzic tank measuring, the sep2ic iank rnay ba annually ehecked by �n autt�qfizsd septic
tank p�m�at ar,d pum�ed (it nee�ied}.
! declare under thz penafty of faw that ! have p$rsonally examir,ed and am farnitiar with the
infotmation subrh3tted if� this documsnt, Snd ti�ai based on my inquiry of those individuals
imrned'sately res�Ans�ble #or obtainir�g the inforrnaiiqn, 1 beiieva that the +r�iormatian is true,
accurate, and �omplete. i am aware t�ist ihera are significant penal�ies fa� submiiting falsa
information, inc�udins the possibiliry of a iine and impri5onment for knov�+ing vioiati0ns.
�
._--y� �
Si�n�ture: /�`���
r
i�itie: ��Q''9��.-�
r
Oate: %�/i / � �
CAUFOFN1A WATER QUALITY CQNTROL OARD
COLORAbO RVER 8A$N REGQN
MONITORINAN! RPORTIN PflOGRAM
FOF
NDANSPRNGS MOBII..E HOME PARK
WDID NO,: 7A331 68Ot1 2 c
�RDER NO.: 97-600{17)
RPORTNG FREQUNCY: ANNUALLY
MANTENANCE AND INSPCToN
eport s&1 incude the ocation of the septc tankIseepag pts systems, nearest pae riurnber.
and rneasurmer1t f the thiGkness f the cum ayer n ath Omprtment. P1ae use this tarrn
far additonal sptic tanks.
Results shat b reperted fr the foUowng:
Dte Nerest Thickness Inlet Thekrss Outlet
af ripecton $pece No, Scum Layer/(nths) Scurn LayerRlnchcs)
3,c ________
-
4713
/O/&i/cV 5O
n teu of ssptc tank measurng, the septic tank rnay be annuafly cheked by an authQs-zed septc
tank pumper and pumed (f needed}.
1 dec1re under the penalty of law that have personaly examined and am famflar wth the
intorrnaticn submtted in ths docurrient, and that bsed on my inqury of those 3nthv1du815
rnrnediately respon&ble fpr obtainn the irormatQr, 1 beUeve that the informtion is true,
accurte, encl omplete. 1 am aware that zhere are sriflcant penahes fo submttn false
nformation, inc1udng the possibility o a fine and imprisonment or knowing violations.
'fltle:
Date:
�A�LIFpRNIA WAi�ER t,1t1AL1TY CQN7ROL �i7Afii�
Ct�LORAflt� RIU�R $A$1N REG10N
�tSONi7QRINC2 AND REf'flRTi�aG PROGRAM
� � F��i
lNDiAN SPRiNGS M�BiLE HOME �ARK
�h1D1D �IO.: 7A3311f>80'1"�
DRDER Nq._ 97-bWi�7?
R�Pfl3i71ftv fiREQiJENCY: AN�UAI..I�Y
t�AA�NiEhlANCE AN� ltVSPECI`3t3�J
1'�AR: � �r' C% `�►�
Rapvrt shal2 incl�de t�ie Iocation of the se�ti� tat�lc/seepage p'rts systerns, nearest space ncam�er,
�nd �'r�easuretnent o! the tt�icfcness pi t3�a scum leyer in each cam��rtmet�t. Please use #his farm
for adc3itiona� s��ii� tanics,
Resu�ts shait be �aporied far tha icSfo+xir�g:
Date
of lns{�ecti4n
�� ���
�/� ��o �%
�/�/ a �'
�% �`�� �
� � 2� �
��/ �/� �-
,
Ne�rest
Spece No,
�-�
.�-�
���
��
��
��
T�icicness lniet
Scum �ayarJilnches)
'1�`z��
_ -���-� _
s�
G . 1T/�c(7��
�s-
���
,��>��.�
��,��
Th,ckt��ss CYtrt.let
5�um l.8yer1#1n�Ches)
%��y/��`
�/.� �/� si
�/�%%�
�'/'�/��
�if.�/� �'
��f����
tn lieu of ssptic t�nk measuring, the septic Iar�k may 5a annuaily cl�ecked by an sut#�oriz�d septic
tank pum�as and pumped fif nes�ied},
1 de�i�re undet khe penally of law thai ! have personaity examined asid am fiam"s►iar with t3�e
in�3otr1'3ation subrtzit#ed ir1 fhis document, and thai based on rny inc}uiry of those individvals
immediately respansible #vr obtaining the iniorrna�iqr�, i believa that the ir,formation is true,
accu�ate, and completa, i am aware tiiat thera are sign�#icant penatti�s for submitring iaisa
informat's�n, inciuciing tl�e passibiiiry 4f a fine and i�priSpnsrienL for k�ov�ring violations.
�
Signaturs: /j"�Gr�%�k� ��
��
Titie: ��.,�����C.,i
02Ie:_ ����'%�C��
CALIFOF*41A WATER QUAUTY COWTROL BOAR
COLORAtXD PLIVER BASN REG1ON
MONITORINAND REPOTG PROGRAM
FOR
ND1AN SPRINGS MOBLE HOME PAK
WDD NO: 7A321 68O1
ORDER NO.: 97.SOQ17)
REPORT)NG FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY
MANTENANCE AND 1NSPECTjON
YEAR
Rport shall inelude the ocation of the septi tenk/seepa98 pits systems aearest pae number
and measument of the thcknsss o the scurn ayr sach ompartmert. Pteae use this farm
for addtionaL sptic tanks,
Resfts hfl be reprrted fDr the fotkwng:
Dte Nearest
of 1npection See No.
7-
Thickness lnet
Sum LayerJ(Kches)
Thckss Outlet
Scurn Layer/(1rches}
- I7
5j/f,J c' 4/
9 /7/ h/c /
In Iieu f ssptic tark measudng, thc septc ank rny be annually checked by ari authprized S8ptC
tank pumpr and pumped Ut needed).
decare under the penaty of aw that 1 have personaily examined and am famiflar with the
inormation submftted n ths document. and that based on rny inquiry of those indMduals
nmedtey responsible fQr obtanr the inforniatiofl, 1 believe that the information is true,
accurater en ompete, am aware tMt the!e re significant penaiues for submitting fase
information, induding the possbi1ity of a fine and imprisonment ¶or knowing violations.
Sgnature:
Date:
CA,Lt�ORNiA WA7ER �l1ALIT'Y CQNTRflL �OAf�i�
COLOf3A�C? RIVER 8A$tN �EG�ON
MO#Ji70RiNCz At�i� R��pRiiNG PROGRA?v1
�OR
1�DiA� SPRiNGS �il0$JLE,HU4VfE PARK
v,JDi� NL>,: 7A331388aj �
{7R�7Eft iVp.: 97-b0i3{�7}
33��U�?TtNG fiREQU�.�tCY: AN�1ilAt,.i,.Y
�JIA1Ni�l�AiVC� At�D ENSP�C�'iO3�
YEA3i: �- �'' �;, �{
�isport shall tncfud� Che iocation of ths septia Lanklseepa�e ��i� systems, nsarest space r�c�mber,
a�d measurerneni o! the t�ickness vf ti�e scum isyet in asch c�rri�aarcment. Piease use #his farm
far acic3itios?�t se�ti� tanks.
Resutts shait be reported for tha foS#aw�r�g:
[}ate
a
af ins�ectian
.^��7�""`7'�.��
��� � 1���
�/� �/c��'
�1�1 �zj��
�r��a��y
Nesresi
&pece �la.
Tivck�ess inae#
Scs�m tayerJifnchesi
�� .�.�
v
�
�����
��
✓� p�.�
�c.��13�
Titicics�ess t�ut3et
Sc�m Layer!(1n�f�es)
__"�L'�_''7`�._
� / g,�,�y
��>�/��
�jjl�/��
��f ��/��
9��� ��
�
��
�`'�
���
���
1 �. Z.
tZ�
�%� % ��
� , .
i� iieu nf septio tank m�asuring, the septic La�k may ba annually checked by 2n aut#to�iz�d sepiic
Lank #�um�ar ar�d pusrs�ed Gf ne$�ied}.
� deC�are under the penafiy of Saw that ! hays par&onatiy examined and am fsmitiar with the
in#otmation subrnittgd i±t this docurr��nt, 9nti th8t baSed on my inq�iry of those ir�divid�ats
immeciiateiy respr�nsible €Qr obtair�;ng the inforrnation, t betievs that the ir�fs�cma�tian iS true,
accu�ata, and compieie. f am aware t�iat ihess are sig�ri�cant pena#i.ies fat submitiirtg fais8
sr�fiormation, inc�uciing ti�� 'possibiii2y of a fine and impr:sanmeni for knov,ring violaiions.
Signature� �'''�-'"
� �- ��°�
/
7itl e��.,.,-yy1@'-t,����
i�i
DaiB: /�� i / O �%
�
CALtFORN1A WATER QtJAUTY CONTROL BOARD
COLORADO PdVE BASN REGION
MONITOR1NGAND REPORTNG PROGRAM
Po
1NDAN SPRINGS MO8LE HOME PAIK
VIDID t'4O. 7A331 !68O1t
ORDER NO.: 97.500(17)
EP0RTNG FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY
MAWiTENANCE AND NSPECTt0N
YEAR: L)c7Lj
port shafl inckde the oction of the septk t k/seepge pts systems, nearest pace number
ad measuremert of the thickress cf the scum ayer n ach eompartmnt. Pease use ths tarrn
for additona sptc tanks.
Resufts ha!t b rapcnted fur the fofl�wng:
Date
of 1npection
ft/3.cfot,i
///3Cfc c,/
/c,2»/ijoq
Jo/ L/(5 9!2
Nearest Thickness lnlet Thickriess utet
Sce No. Suq Layer/(lnchS) Scum Layer/rhes}
/27
JL
/ LM ,ctp1
/6C
In 1eu of septic tank measurh-g th septic t.nk may be annuatly checked by authQrized septic
tank pumpr and pumped (if needed).
1 decare under the penaity of law thet have personafly examined and am fam1iar wth the
information sibmtted in this document. and that bsed on my inqury of those indMduas
rrmedtate1y responsible tor obtainfr the irfornaion, 1 beeve that the nformation s true.
accuate, anci complete. 1 arn aware t1t there re sgnficant penaLties for submittng false
nformation, nc1uding the Possibty of a fne and imprisonment for nowin violat1ons.
Sinature'
Tt1e:
Date:
�A�IF(J�iNiA WA'C�ft fll1AL1TY C(7NTRbL �OARiJ
CC�i�Of�t��'J RIVER 8A$1N �i�G1d�i
MONiTOR1N�'i ANia R�?OA�'1NG PRQC�RAM
� FOR
lN��Ai� SPRlNGS #r�08i�E H03�f� �'ARiC
Z/JDiD i�0,: fiA331 �£8a'i"�
t�R�1�ft t1(7.: 97-�CK)i� 7�
R��f�TiNv fiR�Qll�N�Y: ANNL�AU.Y
MA�Ni�#�AN�E AND fNSPEC'�iON
Y�,4�i: �' � �'1 "7 .
Repvr# shsll inc�c�de tt�e tocation c�f ths se�ti� i�nklsespage p`rts systerns. r�sares7. space �umber,
�nd measuremeni o� ti�e thicknsss at ti�e scum iayer in eath �om�8rtmer�i. t'iease uss #i�is form
for acitiititinal septic tanics.
Ftestlfi5 sh2i! be repott�d far the 'totfov+ring:
Date
of 1�s�ection
� 1� � ,�
�� ����
� I ���c�
���/�/��
�1���,y;
��� fv�
HBaresi
S�+�ce No.
i.��
1��
/ �'�
�� �
1 � ra'
���
TFuckn�ss Sniet
Scum taYsr/(3nct�es)
-�z.�,:,,� �!1
�����
�,
���
�� A�
.
���
������
'�hickness #�utlet
S�um ��yer/itc��hesl
�' / �`J 1c� L�
.
���� ��
�
� li�,/e�1
�t'�� /��'
g/ .�%e� c%
d��d ��r��
!� lieu of septic i�nk maasuring, zhe septio tank rnaY be annuailY Checked by 3n autttqriz�d septic
iank p+���par arid pum�ed (if ne$ried).
1 decl�re under thz penaf�r ot taw that I have parSonaily examineci and am famitiar with the
infottt3ation subrnirted in this dOGttt7��nt, �nd IhBi baseti on my it�c}c�iry of those 'sndividua;s
immediately resp�nsible #or obtainir�g the iniosrnai'son, i betieva tha# the ir,formaTion i$ Yrue,
accurate� a�d complete, f am a�rare t�i�t there sre ssg�'sfcar�� penafti�s for subrn'si�ing iaise
informaiiDn, induciin� ihe '�os$ibiliry oi a fine and im�r:sonrnent far kno�+�ring viofaLiqns.
5ign�2ure: �< ( �t ` .����
Tit1e: ��87���.,v'
r
���s: /��i � � �
CALtFON1.A WATER QUAIJTY CONTROL BOARE
COLORAtXD RIVER BASN REGON
MOMTORINAND REPQTNG PRoGRAM
INDAN SPRINGS MOBLE HOME PARK
WDID NO 7A331 1680t1
�RDER NO.: 97&OO(17)
RPORTNG FREQUENCV: ANNUALLY
MAThJTENANCE AND INSPECTioN
YEA
port sh&t inekide the kc2tion f the septic terik/seep.9e pts systems. nearest pace rumbr.
nd measursmert of the thickness o the sum eyer rn aach compertment. Pease use ths orm
for dditiona septi tarks,
Resufts h1t b reported furthe foUowng:
Dte Nearest
of npectin $pe No.
/7'
/9a
Thicknes fret
Thcktess Outiet
Scum Layerf(Whe) Scurn Layerflfnhes)
cLm 9
-
C'LU M Ld
'Y/ 9/°V
/2/i/°7'
In eu of septic tank measudng the septc tank may annu&y theckecj by ar authodzed septic
tank pumper and pumped (f needed).
1 decare under the penafty of lw that 1 1'ave personaily examined rd am fmiliar with th
infomatiori submftted in this document. and that based on rny inquiry of thos ftdMdua1s
immediately responsible fpr obtainfr rhe in1ormaton, 1 believe that the formton s tnje.
accurte, nci complee, 1 am aware tMt there re sgrficant penaltes for submtting !ase
nformaton, inc1udng the possib1it-y of a fne and irnprisonmera or thowin vio1atons.
Date: //f/c
�
��' � Z
� m
� W Co Oo j V 07 W V7 U7 j Cll A A W W N N N�� p(O (O CO O� W V V J�� U1 U1 ch (h .a A W W W N N-+ -' O� V n 'D O
C � N O O�I A fD W O Vt O W Ctt V m N(D .P � O� m U7 fT Ut m Ut N�.1 .P CO 07 W O a7 W Oo Cn O�t (It O� Vt �p -I D
m (�
Z
.... _+ N n 9�7 J N � N � 7 N-+ A N N� N �� N � �+ � IJ N D��-O
� .A �� S A � (n A p Q A A�� .P � A A? _ .A A A Cn .A n� Z TJ
^' :i1 p N p :i7 ."0 .�'7 .Tl � j .'a '�T7 tn .N.. .'CJ p .il .T1 S .y.. :i1 :L7 .Z7 ."[7 SJ ai -' T` Z
iv � m O m m lND t��D m m m � ry m m �� �� ry m w �n' m m' m' �n W r�
' � (� N N N (1 (n U3
O O O 'O N f� N � N 7 N 7 N N N 0�-I �
� < � °^' � � � -o ° 0' W
m w o' o _ �.
N pl �—
n�i m � m
�G N � _
�� z �
`� 3 < m
v �
'p p r r �p r- r r r r r r cn r r- r b
� � m w � � �� �� � � � ��� o 0 0 o y-, o� o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o �
c» °' °- o p: fl: °:. ?°: P: P« °:- °: m� � � o c� �• �� o .. � � � � o � � - � � �
m m m m m� m m a� � e: c: ?» °' �- w p: °: o' m°: n: °' u: n: °' y A: °: �°; �
an. � n aa°�a ananfD °�anaad � m m m m m m m m m m �O n.ac�o� �
� c � o c ,�� nm a saa naa aa � �
�
`O�
r
�
�
w
0
m
+
rn
�
N
(D
�
�
�
m
Qo
�
�
O
0
- °' »
-� .� o -
�
m � 3 � � � � m �
� � > > > > > � �
�' o 0 0 0 0 o T o
�o m m m m m m m
' + + + + t + m
� m rn m rn m rn� o
� .Z7 .Zl .Z7 .Z7 .'[1 .Z) 7 N
N N� t/! N N N n W
� fP f� l� l� � Q A
-+ W N N m
tD W (�O c�D (�O r,�p n tD
� �
d � � �
> > � �
0 0
� fD N A �
Q� fto O Q°
� � �
� � N
A
W W
0 4 O
0
3 m a�,
m
> > 7
? O O
O
� (C N
Sp fZp Q�
� �T �
N y N'
� � �
A
p -+ N
O O
�
N
�
S
O
(D
�
�
N
cn
W
0
0
W
� �
7 fNp
O �
(p O
��
� o
N
f�
�
m
O
�
N
7
S
O
m
�
�
N�
(D
�
�
N
' � r
���
N t= p
� m d
� ? �
m -n �
m �D �.
� � �
N (J� �
O.�pin
�
O o
a
fl1 N N N N
� O O O O
� m m m m
Re S�+ ao Sk+ Rn
�7 X7 T7 T1 �1
� N N N [ND
°' �NNNN
�
O p (J1 Oo Ul
N N O O O
N N N
�
W
�
�
O
m
ao
�
N�
N
�
�
O
�
N
7
S
O
m
�
�
N'
N
�
�
0
's �S �7
7 �' �
O O �
m m �
R° R° 'o
� � N
(ND N
N -�-�
� O
N N
�
A1
7
S
D
m
a�
�
N'
�
(�w
0
O
W
�
m
�
m
Q�
z
N
.A
O
'S � � 'S �
� � 7 � 7
O O O O O
m m m cro m
� a����
.iJ �U �7 �7 �7
� m N N m
W V 00 � �
� W � W
� o��o
� O W W O
N
�
m
� �
m
�
m
_O
N
cn
C�`Jl
O
A
�
a
�
0
N
fi�
�
N
A
O
0
�
m
7
O
�
A�
:D
�
.A
O
v m m m
3 � 7 3
7' � ? 7
O O O O
(D lD N (D
Ro Qe Ro G+
:i1 .T1 :Ll Zl
N N N N
� � A �
� � —� N
� � O O
a o
N N
O O
N N
O O
O O
�
v
�
�
0
m
�
�
��
ro
�
m
W
� �
A1
�
r
�'
m
�7
N
�
g
�
N
U1
O
� �
� �
� 7
� O
a �
ao
�
� �.
o �
W �
�
a
�
w
�
o �
� D
�' n.
z1 Q, in
fD
m � t�
W N
d
�D ma
v
3
D
Q N
kb o
� O
N
a
�
�
D
R N
R� �
N �
w
m
a
�D
3
�
O. N
RD O
� N
�
n
�
3
°
fl- N
� o
_ W
�
a
v
3
0
n �v
Q0 O
= A
m
m
Q
N
�
0
�
12/21/2004
NDIAN SPRINGS MOBILEHCME PARK
FUMPING SCHEDULE
Space Space Schedule Date
7 2ndWed. in
8 3rdWed.
15 lstWed.
18 2ndWed.
25 3rdWed.
27 4th Wed.
30 lstWed.
35 2ndWed.
38 3rdWed.
43 4th Wed.
46 lstWed.
50 2ndWed.
53 2ndWed.
56 3rd Wed.
59 4th Wed.
64 lstWed.
67 2ndWed.
72 3rd Wed.
75 4th Wed.
76 5thWed.
85 lstWed.
86 2ndWed.
95 3rdWed.
96 4th Wed.
98 4th Wed.
106 140 2nd Wed.
114 3rdWed.
119 4thWed.
122 lstWed.
126 2ndWed.
127 3rdWed.
135 4thWed.
138 2ndWed.
140 3rdWed,
145 lstWed.
150 2ndWed.
151 2ndWed.
158 3rdWed.
159 4thWed.
159 continued
164 5thWed.
167 lstWed,
170 2ndWed.
171 3rdWed.
180 4thWed.
182 lstWed.
186 2ndWed.
Clubhouse 3rd Wed.
Dates Pumped
January 05/04/04
in January 11/12/04
n February 06/17/04
in February 11/18/04
in February 10/29/03 11/26/2003 12/2/2003 12/5/2003 12/23/2003 1/20/2004
in February 06/17/04
in March 10/06/04
n March 11/18/04
in March 11/12/04
in March 11/04/04
in April 10/21/04
in April 10/21/04
in January 11/04/04
in AprU 02/06/04 3/29/2004 4/7/2004 4/21/2004 4/26/2004
in April 05/04/04
in May 08/04/04
in May 01/11/04 9112/2004
in May 11/04/04
in May 09/04/04
in May 08/18/04
in June 08/18/04
in June 12/22/03 12/31/2003 4/21/2004 11/15/2004
in June 05/03/04
in June 10/06/04
in June 09/09/04
n July 08/11/04 9/9/2004
in July 09/17/04
in July 11/12/04
in August 11/30/04
in August 09/29/04
in August 10/14/04
in August 11/30/04
in September 11/30/04
n September 08/11/04
in October 12/01/04
in October 10/14/04
in October 08/11/04
in October 08/04/04
in October 10/27/03 11/10/2003 11/19/2013 11/26/2003 12/21/2003 12/5/2003
12/03/03 12/23/2003 1/29/2004 2/6/2004 2/14/2004 2/18/2004
n October 10/06/04
in November 06/07/04 8/16/2004 8/20/2004 8/26/2004 9/4/2004 9/9/2004
in Ncvember 08/26/04
in November 09/29/04
in November 09/29f04
in December 11/14/03 4/4/2004 8/20/2004 12/1/2004
in December 08/04/04
in December 10/21/04
Note: This eaves at Ieast 7 Wednesdays open.
Annual Pumping Schedule, per agreementwith the
Water Quality Control Board.
Septic Pumpng Schedule
Tank Number
7
8
15
18
25
27
30
35
38
43
46
�0
53
56
59
64
67
72
75
76
85
86
95
96
98
106
114
119
i22
i26
i27
135
138
140
145
150
151
158
159
164
lb7
170
171
180
182 .
186
Clubhouse
Ir�dian Springs M.H.P.
. Last Date Pu�nped
5/4/04
11 /3 2/U4
6l] 7/04
l 1/3 8/04
1 /20/04
6/l 7/04
I O/6/04
11 / I 8/04
11/12/04
11 /4/04
10/21/04
14J21/04
11 /4/04
4/25/04
5/4/04
8/4/04
9/12I04
11/4/04
9/4/04
8/ i 8104
8/18/04
4I21/04 1 l/i 5/04
5/3/04
10/6/04
9/9/04
9/9/04
9/17/04
11112/04
11/30/04
9/29/04
10/14/04
11/30/04
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
S/2b/04
9/29/04
9/29/04
8/20/04 12/1/04
8/4/04
10/21/04
Year� �eptic Pumping Record.
Other
oE� � � z���
LA.W OFFIcEs
GILCHRIST & RUTPER
PROFESSIONAL CORPcR&TION
WtLSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA £'4ONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-100o
December 22, 2004
VIA FEDEX
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Conimissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
City ofPalm Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Paim Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-rvto.I L: rcIose@gr)a,,,#_rsoom
:110E1VED
232Ot14
M,J;f,: UEELCPMENTDEPARTMENT
OP PALM DESEwr
Re: Jndian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 29, 2004
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissjoner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community Deve!opment/pIaing (the "Planning
Conimission") 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 ourinitial comments and objections to you and the City Attorney, Mr.
Erwin, in letters datedDecember 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, respectively, and at the Hearing
on the Application held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004.
In additjon, we have also reviewed the Jnteroffice Memorandum from Mark Greenwood,
City Engineer, to the Planning Conimission 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, foliowing are our initial observations and comments on the
recommendatjons contained within the Memorandum.
L/�W OFFICES
GILCHRIST &i RUTTER
PROFESSIOl�AL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice-Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Comrnissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 2
The..Memorandum recommends re�uiring Indian S�rings 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 Pazk's perimeter wa11 of Oleander hedges
wonld requiring regrading and an unsightly retaining wall would have to be constntcted. 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 queskion 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 qf 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.
Furthenmore, 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 Hausing 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, znay a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a
mobilehorne park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation.
LW FF)CES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 3
As we have previously informed you, a similar attempt by Paim Springs to irnpose iliegal
conditions on the conversion ofthe El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by
the court in El Dorado Paim Springs, Ltd. v. City ofPalm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4t) 1153 (2002).
The delay caused by Paim Springs' imposltlon of iliegal conditions caused El Dorado at least
$6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject ofcurrent litigation against Paim Springs for those
damages.
Neither may the City require Indian Springs to construct any offsite improvements as a
condition to approval ofits 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 withthe conversion ofmobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to
extract improvements, make dedications or other exactions fromthe parks.
For the reasons stated above and in our letters ofDecember 3, 2004 and December 6,
2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Heanng on the Application on December
29, 2004 (1) disapprove any recommendation to require construction ofa sidewaik, (2)
disapprove any recommendation to require the addition ofa 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 ofthe indemnity appropriately.
L'IV OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORAPION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 4
Ifyouhaveany questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILC .". & RU TER
Pr-i1 Cori,o'.tion
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TWC:twc!11 12621/122104
3416.006
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express)
Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST � RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHiRE PALISAPES BUIL�ING
'1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIF�RNtA 90401-'1000
January 7, 2005
V�, FEDEX
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:
�
�
�
�+
c..
�
C.�
xa•
�
:.
G�3
4�
Enclased 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 3I862. The
Planning Commission rendered its Decision on December 29, 2004.
Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $197.00 made payable to the City of Palm
Desert.
Please stamp the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed envelope
signifying your receipt of the Appeal.
Very truly yaurs,
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
Professio o tion
-.,.
;
Richard H. ose
Of the Firm
RHC:app
Enclosures
COPY TQ ���[,t���-
DATE ..�„(..�.Lt,�,� �
TELEPHONE (3'10) 393-4000
FACSIMIIE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclosa@grlawya�s.com
c�
��
.r� .�
���
c�i�;;;
���
���
���
�s �
:�'' ��
r� ;
D�
rY7
(RHC:aap/111739_l /0107d5/3416.OQ6]
pac-Q?14 1239pm FrorPALM DESERT CITV CLERI(
1603400514 T-103 P.01/01 F-G2S
CITV OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
APPLLCATION TO APPEAL
DECISION OF THE
(Name af Detemiinng Bady)
CaseNo. PM 31862 DateofDecisiOn: 12/29/04
NameofAppeflaflt Indian Springs, Ltd Phone (310) 393-4000
Richard 1-1 Close, Esq , Gilchrist & Rutter
Address 1299 0cean Avenue, Suite 900 Santa Monica, CA 90401
PLANNING CONWLSSION
r) C)
.-„-
r-rn
-
—40c,
-
•.
rn
c-n
Descriptioaof .PM 31862 to convert rental mobilehorne park to coudominiun
Apphcation or Matter Cons,dered
park.
Reaon for Appeal (attach additional sheets If necessary):
Please see attached sheets 1-3
See Attached
(Signature of Appellant)
FOROFFICALUSEOP1LY
Date Appea) Filed: —f7 — Fee Received: 4 1q-1
Treasurer's Receipt No. .33'O rD Received by: J"S
Date of Considaration b Cty Goundll or City Official:
Acton Taken:
Date:
Rachefte D. Klassen, City C)erk
WWPWPDOC$WORpp to
COFiTOLMJ (t4__
Rav 8f29tV
DATE I-'°--'
�� ,
may anly properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of
W�ter Code Sections 13280-132$4 are satis�d."
Testimony by Mr. Jose Angel of the Regional Water (�uality Control Board at the
December 29, 2004 hearing regarding PNf 38612 made clear that Indian 5prings' septic system is
�'unction.ing properly, is not in violation of waier discharge requirements and does not represent a
health hazard. He further statecl that the Board had no authority to require the Park to connect to
the sewer system.
Accordingly, Sectian 8.60 is void an its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian
Springs will force a chatlenge ta the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60
is void will Iikely cause a great number of ather property owners who have been forced to
comply with its terms at great expense tv s�elc ret3ress against the Ci#y. As writ#en, Section 8.54
is an illegal restraint on aliena�aon of praperty. Ofteu, the cost of compliance with its terms
�ce�ds the value of the property itself, thus rendering graperty un-sellable. In addition, its
enforcement against t�e Park would constitute a"taking" under the state and federat
constitutions for wluch compensatian hy the City is required, as its septic syst�cn is in fix1l
compliance with all applicable regulatians.
As you may be a�vare, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to unpose il�egal conditions on
the conversion of the EI Darado Mobilehorne Country Club was stavck down by the court in El
Dorado Pa1m Svrin�s, Ltd. v. Citv of Pa1m Snrin�s, 96 Cal.App.4�' i l 53 (2(J02). The delay
caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegai conditions caused El Darhdo at least $6,000,000 in
damages, and is the subject of curre.�t litigation against Palm Springs for those damages.
P�ccording,ly, for the foregoing reasons, Applicant appeals as to tt�e imposition of
Condition of Appraval Number 5.
INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., a California limited partnership
By: Gvldst�in Pxoperties, Inc., a Caiifornia corporation
Its: General Partner
t � � w �,;
_� �f
: Jarnes . Golastezn
ts: Fresident
�TWC:cwc/111575_I.UOClOIU305l3416.UU6] 3
,..�. .
� i.`�
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION TO APPEAL
DECISION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER: PM 31862
Reason for Appeal:
Applicant and Appellant is Indian Springs, Ltd., owner ofthe Indian Springs Mobile
Home Park in Paim Desert ("Indian Springs" or the "Park"). Applicant hereby appeals the
approval by the Planrnng Coniinission of PM 31862 on December 29, 2004 only as to Condition
ofApprovalNumber 5 ("Condition No. 5"). Condition No. 5 states:
"That pursuant to General Plari Water Resources Element Policy No. 4 and
Municipal Code Chapter 8 60, the subdivider pnor to the sale of each umt, shall
conneet said unit to the public sewer and provide evidence ofsame to the
purchaser."
Despite the fact that the septic system currently operating at the Park functions properly,
is not in violation ofwater discharge requirements and does not represent a health hazard,
Condition No 5 would require the costly removal of the septic system and the constructiofl 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 Spnngs would cost in excess of $4,000,000
lndian Springs recognizes the general policy ofthe 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 connectrng 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 developmeflts, but rather would require expenslve construction and
maintenanCe ofa private sewer hne within tbe Park, connection of each ofthe 191 Park homes to
that sewer hne, and connectiofl of the pnvate sewer hne to the City' s main sewer line, in addition
to the expensive procedures required to remove the septic system.
In fairness to Indian Spnngs 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 proj ect if the costs and expenses of constructing the sewer line were borne by
the City andlor 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 iliegal 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/1 11575_1.DO/0 10305/3416.006]
1
�
�
�
�
i
r
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 "Urdinance") 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 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 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 municipaiity
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 664�8.1, 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 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 rnay regulate.
If a[septic system] is properly iunctioning, 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 c�nnot without violating Section
13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board
Water Code §§ 13280-13284.
[TW C:twc/ 111575_ 1.DOC/010305/3416.006]
2
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
LAW OFFICES
GILLCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
December 22, 2004
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (31 O) 394-4700
E-MAt L: rclos®@grlawyars.com
RECEIVED
VIA FEDEX
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
2 3 2
.MMVNi'PY UE\T Li PMENT DEPARTMENT
('TY OF .PALM DESERT
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 29, 2004
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community Development/Planning (the "Planning
Commission") Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian
Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the
"Application") and Staffs proposed Resolution to approve the Application with Conditions of
Approval, and have given our initial comments and objections to you and the City Attorney, Mr.
Erwin, in letters dated December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, respectively, and at the Hearing
on the Application held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004.
In addition, we have also reviewed the Interoffice Memorandum from Mark Greenwood,
City Engineer, to the Planning Commission regarding the Application, dated December 6, 2004
(the "Memorandum"), which was provided to us immediately prior to the December 7, 2004
Hearing. Although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on
December 29, 2004, following are our initial ohservations and comments on the
recommendations contained within the Memorandum.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 2
--The-Memorandums recommends requiring Indian -Springs to-constnict!u1Lpuhlic
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 wail 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
Hour's golf course addition across Highway 74. There is now more than sufficient room on the
western side of the highway (i.e., in front of Indian Springs) for cars to decelerate out of the lane
of traffic before turning into the Park. Furthermore, a sidewalk was constructed on the other side
of Highway 74 from the Park two years ago. That sidewalk continues down the highway and
around its block. Yet, a sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would go nowhere, and would
connect to nothing. The park adjacent to Indian Springs, Silver Spur, has no sidewalk, nor is
there any sidewalk in front of the apartment building adjacent to the Park on the north side. In
fact, there is no sidewalk on the western side of Highway 74 from El Paseo to the mountains. A
sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would serve no purpose and would be useful to no one, and
yet would force major destruction to the Park and its attractive entrance.
Furthermore, the City does not have legal authority to order Indian Springs to construct
any improvements within the Park or to dedicate any of the Park's property to the City, as
recommended in the Memorandum. The California Department of Housing and Community
Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only
where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant
to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section
1004, may a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a
mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation.
L.;iW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 3
As we have previously informed you, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal
conditions on the conversion of the_El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by
the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4`h 1153 (2002).
The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least
$6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those
damages.
Neither may the City require Indian Springs to construct any offsite improvements as a
condition to approval of its conversion unless there is a proven health and safety hazard.
Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from
attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements or dedicate property rights
upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section
66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the
local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are
necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications,
improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency. In fact, Government Code
section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from
interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to
extract improvements, make dedications or other exactions from the parks.
For the reasons stated above and in our letters of December 3, 2004 and December 6,
2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December
29, 2004 (1) disapprove any recommendation to require construction of a sidewalk, (2)
disapprove any recommendation to require the addition of a deceleration lane, (3) remove from
draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (4) delete draft
Condition No. 5 altogether, and (5) insert the additional language proposed previously to draft
Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUPPER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 4
TLyouhatie any quest ons,_please givie_me mall
Very truly yours,
GILC
P
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
T W C : twc/ 111262 1 / 122104
3416.006
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Federal Express)
Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via Federal Express)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
TER
ion
MY NAME IS PAT BELL
49305 HIGHWAY 47, UNIT ## 171,
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
I AM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE
INDIAN SPRINGS HOME OWNERS'
ASSOCIATION.
TONIGHT I AM REPRESENTING ALL OF
THE RESIDENTS IN OUR PARK, NOT JUST
THE MEMBERSHIP.
I would first like to say a few words to the Seniors
who are here:
Last night, a last minute meeting was called by the
Park -owner's representatives; they are also
present here tonight. The purpose of last night's
meeting was to discuss tonight's meeting.
It is the holiday season, and the hour was late.
People had family visiting, and it was pouring
rain. Nevertheless, the room was full of concerned
seniors.
1
Once again we were told of the magnificence of
their current Septic system and how it will last
forever.
Once again, we were given outrageous cost
estimates to hook up and maintain a sewer system.
With a new wrinkle....
"What is the City's motive", asked the Park -
owner's legal representative? This was presented
as a rhetorical question, and the response was:
"Money, they want the money." {my paraphrase}
To their credit, the audience remained polite and
attentive.
To the Palm Desert Planning Commissioners:
The seniors in our park have run out of patience.
We are getting the same evasive answers
regarding the sewer situation at Indian Springs.
We are worried about the cost of the land we are
being required to buy.
We won't even know the cost of this land until the
Conversion is almost complete.
2
...and
We are worried about an aging infrastructure,
particularly the Septic system that is part of the
proposal.
Given the prime location, it is hard to fathom how
the Park owner could be allowed let a 30 year old
outmoded system to be left in!
Yes, we worry about HOW we will pay for the
sewer....
Many of us are on limited income.
Maybe there are options....
Let's find out
Most of the park residents feel that keeping the
old septic system is not a viable option.
That would be equivalent to keeping the old out
house when septic systems were invented...
Let's move into the future.
Both the City and the State say,..
"Abandon the old septic system."
SO DO WE
Shame on those of you who are spending big
bucks to convince these Seniors that substandard
is good enough for them
THANK YOU, CITY OF PALM DESERT FOR
HAVING THE COURAGE OF YOUR
CONVICTIONS.
Insist that Ordinance 743 and the State Code be
complied with.
I ask that this statement be entered into the
permanent record.
Thank you
Pat Bell
49305 Hiway 74,171
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
760-773-3771
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
December 29, 2004
GOOD EVENING - MY NAME IS MA.RI SCHMIDT AND I OWN THE COACH ON SPACE #86 IN
INDIAN SPRINGS. IT IS MY PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
I HAVE A STATEMENT WHICH I WISH TO READ INTO THE PERMANENT RECORD
OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MATTER OF THE CONVERSION OF INDIAN SPRINGS
MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL SPACE TO MOBILE HOME CONDOMINIUMS.
FIRSTLY, LET ME SAY THAT 1 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 ANT) THAT YOU
PURVIEW IS TO STUDY THE PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION AN]) MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND IT IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION TO EITHER ACCEPT OR REJECT THE APPLICATION
SUBMiTrED BY THE APPLICANT. WE ALSO KNOW YOL1 WANT TO PASS THIS ON ASAP TO
THE COUNCIL. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS VERY CLEAR TO US IN THE PARK AND,
HERE TONIGHT...
SECONDLY, I WISH TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSITION ON THE SEWERJSEPTIC
ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE PARK CONVERSION. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU THAT THE
RESIDENCY AT INDIAN SPRINGS IS FULLY IN FAVOR OF YOUR REQUIREMENT THAT THE
PARK OWNERSHIP BE REQUIRED TO CONVERT THE ENTIRE PARK TO THE CITY'S SEWER
STEMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO SELL ANY LOTS. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT
THE CITY WILL HOLD FIRM TO THAT POSITION AND, WE FULLY SUPPORT YOU IN THAT
DECISION. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO PLACE INTO THE RECORD OF THIS
CONVERSION APPLICATION PROCESS THAT THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS OPERATING IN
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK IS OVER 30 YEARS OLD, FAILING, REQUIRE
CONSTANT MAINTENANCE AND POSES A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD TO THE
RESIDENTS. IT IS SIMPLY A MA 1 IER OF TIME BEFORE WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO
CONNECT TO THE SEWERS. SINCE THE PARK OWNERSHIp IIAS OPTED TO CONVERT THE
PARK AND SELL OFF THE LOTS, IT SHOULD BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPENSE TO
UPHOLD THE LAW AND CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. IT WOULD BE
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING TO LEARN FROM PARK RECORDS THE INCREASING
FREQUENCY THAT THESE SYSTEMS MUST BE PUMPED AND PAMPERED. I CAN
PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT IT IS OFTEN AND ONGOING.
THIRDLY, I FEEL IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO SEVERAL
OTHER ISSUES IMPERATIVE TO THE CONVERSION APPLICATION.
1) REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT - IN THE EARLY PART OF APRIL (2004) WE
WERE INFORMED BY THE OWNERSREPRESENTATIVES THAT A LETTER OF INTENT TO
CONVERT THE PARK HAD BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. THIS CAUGHT
MOST EVERYONE BY SURPRISE AND CREATED GREAT UNREST IN THE COMMUNITY.
THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD APPOINTED 5 RESIDENTS TO FORM A
'CONVERSION COMMITTEE''. WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO WORK WITH THE
OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES TO AVOID ANY PITFALLS THAT WE MIGHT ENCOUNTER
AND KEEP A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER DURING THE
PROCESS. WE WAITED MOST OF THE SUMMER, COMMUNICATIONS DWINDLED AND
1
THEN, WITHOUT MUCHNOTICE TO THE ASSOCIATION, THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVES CALLED FOR SEVERAL RESIDENT MEETINGS, THE INTENT AND
TIMING OF WHICH IS SOMEWHAT SUSPECT.
LONG STORY SHORT, THE RESIDENTS ARE TOTALLY CONFUSED BY THE
PROCESS. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE "PRELIMINARY SURVEY PLAT" WAS IN THE PARK
MANAGERS OFFICE FOR INSPECTION BY THE RESIDENTS 'TO ASCERTMN iF THE PLAT
WAS CORRECTLY DRAWN IN REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL LOT LINES. THE PACKET OF
DOCUMENTS AND THE MAP SAT IN THE OFFICE 'FROM SEPTEMBER STH UNTIL MID
OCTOBER WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE RESIDENTS FROM THE PARK OWNERSI-EP
THAT IT WAS THERE FOR RESIDENT INSPECTION: I WILI, ADD THAT BOTH PAT BELL
AND I RECEIVED SIMILAR PACKETS IN SEPTEMBER BUT WITTiOU'I THE MAP. NCT JNTII'
OUR NOVEMBER GENERAL HOA MEETING DID WE LEARN THAT OUR RESIDENTS
TRULY HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THESE
DOCUMENTS AS THE PARK OWNERSHIP"I M NOT INFORMED THEM THAT THESE
DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR VIEWING. IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT
INCUMBENT ON THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO ANNOUNCE THE PURPOSE OF
THESE DOCUMENTS. DUE TO THE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED FROM
RESIDENTS, THE HOA COMPOSED AND CIRCULATED A FORM THAT ALLOWED THE
RESIDENTS TO COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THEIR LOTS LOOKED PROPERLY
DRAWN . WE RECEIVED 64 RESPONSES TO THAT FORM, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED
AND RECAPPED. YOU WILL SEE THAT 64 RESIDENCES IN THE PARK FILLED OUT THE
HOA FORM AND RETURNED IT TO PAT BELL. I HAVE ATTACHED A COLOR CODED MAP
SHOWING WHERE THESE INQUIRIES OCCUR. THE RESULTS ARE:
9 RESPONDED THAT "COMMON AREA APPEARS TO BE INCLUDED IN
MY LOT BOUNDARIES".
4 RESPONDED THAT "ADJACENT PROPERTY BUILDINGS APPEAR TO BE
IN MY LOT BOUNDARIES".
49 RESPONDED THAT "THEY COULD FIND NO VISIBLE WAY TO
DE IERMINE THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES".
24 RESPONDED THAT "THEY ARE PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEIR LOT BOUNDARIES ARE CORRECT".
S RESPONDED TO "OTHER" AS FOLLOWS:
"MINE APPEAR -OBVIOUS."
- "LOT BOUNDARIES APPEAR CORRECT."
- "APPEAR OKAY."
- "IT LOOKS OK TO US."
- `AWE LOOKED AT THE MARKS AT THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE ON THE
- CURB AND WE CAN SEE THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE WIDTH BUT
- WE CAN'T SEE THE DEPTH OF OUR PROPERTY."
- "WE DON'T FEEL WE'RE QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE EXACT
BOUNDARY LINES."
- "NO LOT LINE STAKES!"
2
THESE INQUIRIES REPRESENT 34% OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. LET ME SAY
THAT THESE ARE NOT "OBJECTIONS" TO THE BOUNDARIES BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO
BUY THEIR LOTS AND JUST WHAT IT IS THEY WILL BE BUYING.
2) THERE IS CONSIDERABLE CONCERN REGARDING THE "SAMPLE CC&R'S" - I
WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE
LANGUAGE AND
CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN THIS "SAMPLE DOCUMENT". I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH DOZENS OF CC&R'S OVER THE YEARS AND I AM AMAZED AT THE
INCLUSION OF A REQUIREMENT PERTAINING TO A 5 YEAR CONTRACT FOR THE JAMES
AND COMPANY TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY COMMENCING UPON THE SALE OF THE
FIRST LOT. THERE IS OTHER UNACCEPTABLE "GRAY MAi'1hR" IN THIS DOCUMENT
THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED BEFORE THESE CC&R'S ARE RECORDED.
3) REGARDING THE EXISTING ENCUMBRANCE OF $5 7 MILLION RECORDED
AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE (NON UTILITI'} EASEINENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 1971- ARE THESE ISSUES THAT ARE ADDRESSED
AND RESOLVED DURING THE CITY'S REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION?
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE CONCERNED REGARDING HOW THIS APPLICATION
PROCEEDS. THE FURTHEST THING IN OUR MINDS, HEARTS AND ACTIONS IS TO SLOW
DOWN THE PROCESS. BELIEVE ME, WE WANT IT DONE AND DONE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, NOT AT THE EXPENSE AND DISRUPTION OF THE EXISTING
RESIDENCY OF THE PARK. WE APPEAL TO YOU ALL HERE AT THE CITY TO ACT ON OUR
BEHALF, AS WELL AS, THE APPLICANT'S. THIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE HAS AN INCREDIBLE
PRICE TAG ATTACHED TO IT. WE WANT TO BE DEALT WITH FAIRLY -- NOTHING MORE,
NOTHING LESS AND WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU ALL TO ACT IN EVERYONE'S BEST
INTEREST. THANK YOU,
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MART SCHMIDT
49-305 HWY 74 186
INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK
3
C
a
INUlAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNEI ASSOCIATION
�r �s �r 7�� (^�
GENE' RAL EETI G
NOYEMBER `14, 2044
Ike lave looked at the map posted in the Club house per the instructions
of the park owners representatives.
ewe am unable to determ ne if the lot lines are correct as drawn on that
preliminary survey map.
Therefore 1 request a re -survey mapjuslification of my resident lot
boundaries for the following reasons:
Comnion area b'
appears to e included in my 1c+t boundaries,
o 4 Adjacent property buildings appear to be in my let boundaries.
1
A' 4 There is no visable way far me to determine m lot
LE line. y
2 I am physically unable to determine whether my lot boundaries
o are correct.
8 Other �� - �D p To 1} �
Name:
pace #
Phones Date;
w • -
This form has been provided by the Homeowners Association for the
convenience of the responding residents.
Put a check where apphcab a and rturn to Pat Bell, President, #171
773-3771, AS SOON AS POSSIBI 1F,.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE. S)JITE 900
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
December 3, 2004
VIA FEDEX
David J. Erwin, Esq.
Best, Best & Krieger LLP
74-760 Highway 111
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclosa@grlawyars.com
Dear Mr. Erwin:
On November 29, 2004, Sue Loftin and I met with Philip Drell and Stephen R. Smith of
the City of Palm Desert (the "City") Planning Department regarding Indian Springs' Parcel Map
Application Number 31862 (the "Application") to be heard by the Palm Desert Planning
Commission (the "Commission") on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. They stated that staff would
recommend to the Commission that it condition approval of the Application on Indian Springs'
abandonment of its septic system and construction of a sewer system within Indian Springs
Mobile Home Park ("the Park") that would connect to the City sewer system. They contended
that Palm Desert Municipal Code section 8.60 ("Section 8.60" or the "Ordinance") requires the
sewer condition.
To the contrary, by its very terms, the application of Section 8.60 is limited to those
properties listed on "Exhibit A", attached to Section 8.60. Indian Springs is not one of the
properties identified in Section 8.60 or its attachment.
Furthermore, if the City were to contend that its Ordinance compelled Indian Springs to
connect to the City's sewer system, such an ordinance would be illegal and unenforeceable for
several reasons.
First, the City does not have the authority to order Indian Springs to connect to its sewer
system. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has exclusive
jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only where a city council or board of
supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant to, and which meets the
requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section 1004, may a municipality
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
_'
W
David J. Erwin, Esq.
December 3, 2004
Page 2
or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a mobilehome park. Palm Desert has
not enacted the necessary legislation.
Second, Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local
agency from attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements, among other
things, upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership.
Section 66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a
conversion, "the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements
unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other
dedications, improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact,
Government Code section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent
municipalities from interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership
with attempts to extract improvements, such as sewers sytems, or other exactions from the parks.
In fact, even a Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot require abandonment of a
septic system without substantial evidence that such septic system will cause water quality
damage.' In In re Matter of Nipomo Community Services District, State Water Resources Board
Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL 17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983), the State Water Board
overruled the Regional Board's requirement that septic system users would have to connect to
the sewer system on the grounds that such a mandated connection violates Water Code Section
13360. The State Water Board stated:
"Water Code Section 13360 serves to limit how a Regional Board may regulate.
If a [septic system] is properly functioning, and not otherwise in violation of
waste discharge requirements, a Regional Board cannot specify that a discharger
connect to a sewer system.... [A] Basin Plan can properly establish a preference
for a sewer system. However, a Regional Board cannot without violating Section
13360 require an area or a project to be connected to a sewer. A Regional Board
may only properly prohibit subsurface discharge in the area, if the requirements of
Water Code Sections 13280-13284 are satisfied."
Accordingly, Section 8.60 is void on its face, and any attempt to enforce it against Indian
Springs will force us to challenge the Ordinance's validity. Of course, a ruling that Section 8.60
is void will likely cause a great number of other property owners who have been forced to
comply with its terms at great expense to seek redress against the City. As written, Section 8.60
is an illegal restraint on alienation of property. Often, the cost of compliance with its terms
exceeds the value of the property itself, thus rendering property un-sellable. In addition, its
enforcement against the Park would constitute a "taking" under the state and federal
constitutions for which compensation by the City is required, as its septic system is in full
compliance with all applicable regulations.
i
Water Code §§ 13280-13284.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
David J. Erwin, Esq.
December 3, 2004
Page 3
Our consultant's have estimated that constructing a sewer system at Indian Springs would
cost in excess of $4,000,000. Any attempt to impose as a condition to Indian Springs' parcel
map approval a requirement that the Park connect to the City's sewer system will be vigorously
challenged in court. Furthermore, an attempt to impose such a condition will cause delay in the
Park's conversion and will cause Indian Springs significant monetary damage.
As you may be aware, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal conditions on
the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by the court in El
Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4t' 1153 (2002). The delay
caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least $6,000,000 in
damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those damages.
Accordingly, we expect that you will advise the Planning Commission at its Hearing on
December 7, 2004 that it must not impose a sewer connection as a condition of approval of
parcel map number 31862. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST r TER
Prof-.: i,Corpor. ion
'
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
RHC:aap/110644_ 1/120304
3416.006
cc: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
Sabby Jonathan, Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Sonia Campbell, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Jim Lopez, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
Cindy Finerty, Member, Planning Commission (Via Federal Express)
COPY
DATE
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900
SANTA MON ICA; CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
December 6, 2004
VIA FEDEX
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyers.com
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 7, 2004
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community Development Staff Report regarding
Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park("Indian
Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the "Application") and Staff's proposed
Resolution to approve the Application with the attached Conditions of Approval. Following are
our initial observations and comments thereon, although we intend to present further evidence
and argument at the Hearing on the Application on Tuesday, December 7, 2004.
Condition of Approval No. 3.
Draft Condition of Approval No. 3 correctly states that pursuant to Government Code
section 66427.5(f)(1), rent for non -purchasing residents may increase upon conversion to market
levels over four years. However, the last sentence of Condition No. 3 as drafted states, "Said
amount to be determined through the City rent review process." In fact, upon conversion, state
law governs the four-year increase to market rents, and the City's rent control rules and
LW OFFICES
bILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 2
jurisdiction over rent control terminates. As determined b ' the Court of Appeal in El Dorado
Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4t 1153, 1178 (4th Dist. 2002)
conversion occurs, and local rent control terminates, upon the sale of the first unit. "Under no
circumstances ... is it left to local governments to legislate when state law takes effect." (Id. at
p )Accordingly,
1179. the final sentence contained in draft Condition No. 3 needs to be deleted,
entirely.
Condition of Approval No. 5.
For the reasons stated in our letter to the City Attorney dated December 3, 2004, a copy
of which each Planning Commissioner received, proposed Condition of Approval No. 5, which
purports to require Indian Springs to abandon its septic system and connect to the City's sewer
system is illegal and improper, and must be removed as a condition of approval.
Condition of Approval No. 6.
Draft Condition of Approval No. 6 would require Indian Springs to defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and its agents from any claim, action or proceeding against the City
to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the Application by the City or the Commission.
The Staff Report recognizes that the City's action with respect to the Application has the
potential to result in litigation. However, given the illegal Conditions of Approval discussed
above (as well as Condition of Approval No. 6 itself as currently drafted), litigation against the
City regarding its approval of the Application very possibly would be initiated by Indian Springs
itself or by residents of the Park who object to the conditions which will interfere with and delay
the Park's conversion and their ability to purchase lots in a timely manner.
Although it may generally be appropriate to require, as a condition of approval of a parcel
map, that an applicant agree to defend the City against attacks from others regarding its approval,
the City certainly may not require an applicant such as Indian Springs to agree to defend the City
against challenges to Conditions of Approval which the applicant objects to and regarding which
the applicant itself initiates an action to void or annul. Accordingly, Indian Springs requests that
the Commission amend Condition No. 6 as currently drafted to include the following language at
the end of the first sentence therein: "... except as to any claim, action or proceeding brought by
the applicant or any of its residents to set aside, void or annul any of the Conditions of
Approval."
LAW OFFICES
ItCiiRIST &a RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 3, 2004
Page 3
For the reasons stated above and in our letter of December 3, 2004, we request that the
Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December 7, 2004 (1) remove from
draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (2) delete draft
Condition No. 5 altogether, and (3) insert the additional language proposed above to draft
Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
Professi!�.; o isoration
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TWC:twc/110716_1 /120604
3416.006
cc; David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via Hand Delivery)
Rachelle D: Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
COPYT
DATE
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401-1000
December 22, 2004
VIA FEDEX
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Tanya Monroe
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclose@grlewyers.com
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, December 29, 2004
9S :01 WV CZ 33a hl)QZ
Dear Chairman Jonathan, Vice -Chairman Tschopp, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner
Lopez, and Commissioner Finerty:
We have reviewed the Department of Community DevelopmentiPlanning (the "Planning
Commission") Staff Report regarding Parcel Map Number 31862 for the conversion of Indian
Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs" or the "Park") to condominium ownership (the
"Application") and Staffs proposed Resolution to approve the Application with Conditions of
Approval, and have given our initial comments and objections to you and the City Attorney, Mr.
Erwin, in letters dated December 3, 2004 and December 6, 2004, respectively, and at the Hearing
on the Application held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004.
In addition, we have also reviewed the Interoffice Memorandum from Mark Greenwood,
City Engineer, to the Planning Commission regarding the Application, dated December 6, 2004
(the "Memorandum"), which was provided to us immediately prior to the December 7, 2004
Hearing. Although we intend to present further evidence and argument at the Hearing on
December 29, 2004, following are our initial observations and comments on the
recommendations contained within the Memorandum.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST &z RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 2
The Memorandum recommends requiring Indian Springs to construct full public
improvements, including (1) a "deceleration lane" on Highway 74, and (2) an eight foot sidewalk
along Highway 74.
Construction of a sidewalk and a deceleration lane will destroy the Park's entryway. The
entrance to the Park is decorated with two five-foot perimeter stucco walls and is landscaped
with two cascade formations of dozens of large rocks cemented in place which cannot feasibly
be moved, and its destruction would severely impact the aesthetics of the entrance as seen from
the road. Furthermore, it will force the removal of several mature pine trees in the parkway. In
addition, the attractive sloping grounds below the Park's perimeter wall of Oleander hedges
would requiring regrading and an unsightly retaining wall would have to be constructed. Of
course, this construction would come at a substantial cost to Indian Springs, currently estimated
at approximately $160,000.
Moreover, it is entirely unnecessary. The question of a deceleration lane was raised two
years ago, in 2002, and it was determined by the City that it was unwarranted. In addition, since
that time, the road has been widened further and re -striped as a result of the construction of Big
Hour's golf course addition across Highway 74. There is now more than sufficient room on the
western side of the highway (i.e., in front of Indian Springs) for cars to decelerate out of the lane
of traffic before turning into the Park. Furthermore, a sidewalk was constructed on the other side
of Highway 74 from the Park two years ago. That sidewalk continues down the highway and
around its block. Yet, a sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would go nowhere, and would
connect to nothing. The park adjacent to Indian Springs, Silver Spur, has no sidewalk, nor is
there any sidewalk in front of the apartment building adjacent to the Park on the north side. In
fact, there is no sidewalk on the western side of Highway 74 from El Paseo to the mountains. A
sidewalk in front of Indian Springs would serve no purpose and would be useful to no one, and
yet would force major destruction to the Park and its attractive entrance.
Furthermore, the City does not have legal authority to order Indian Springs to construct
any improvements within the Park or to dedicate any of the Park's property to the City, as
recommended in the Memorandum. The California Department of Housing and Community
Development has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park. Only
where a city council or board of supervisors has enacted proper authorizing legislation pursuant
to, and which meets the requirements of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, section
1004, may a municipality or county attempt to assert jurisdiction over the interior of a
mobilehome park. Palm Desert has not enacted the necessary legislation.
LAW OFFICES
GILCIYRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Soma Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 3
As we have previously informed you, a similar attempt by Palm Springs to impose illegal
conditions on the conversion of the El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club was struck down by
the court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Ca1.App.4th 1153 (2002).
The delay caused by Palm Springs' imposition of illegal conditions caused El Dorado at least
$6,000,000 in damages, and is the subject of current litigation against Palm Springs for those
damages.
Neither may the City require Indian Springs to construct any offsite improvements as a
condition to approval of its conversion unless there is a proven health and safety hazard.
Government Code section 66428.1, subdivision (d), explicitly prohibits a local agency from
attempting to impose any requirements to construct improvements or dedicate property rights
upon an application to convert a mobilehome park to condominium -type ownership. Section
66428.1 explicitly states that where a tentative or parcel map is required for a conversion, "the
local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are
necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications,
improvements, or in -lieu fees shall be required by the local agency." In fact, Government Code
section 66428.1 was enacted by the state legislature specifically to prevent municipalities from
interfering with the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership with attempts to
extract improvements, make dedications or other exactions from the parks.
For the reasons stated above and in our letters of December 3, 2004 and December 6,
2004, we request that the Planning Commission at its Hearing on the Application on December
29, 2004 (1) disapprove any recommendation to require construction of a sidewalk, (2)
disapprove any recommendation to require the addition of a deceleration lane, (3) remove from
draft Condition No. 3 the final sentence therein regarding City rent review, (4) delete draft
Condition No. 5 altogether, and (5) insert the additional language proposed previously to draft
Condition No. 6 to limit the scope of the indemnity appropriately.
LAW OFFICES
t ILOHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Vice -Chairman David Tschopp
Commissioner Sonia Campbell
Commissioner James Lopez
Commissioner Cindy Finerty
December 22, 2004
Page 4
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
Pro ssi aorporation
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
T W C : twc/ 1112 62_ 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 FederalExpress)
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING
1299 OCEAN AVENUE. SUITE 900
SANTA MONICA. CALI FORN IA 90401-1000
February 4, 2005
VIA FEDEX
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92210
ATTN: Ms. Wilma Michelson
Re: Indian Springs Mobile Home Park
Parcel Map No. 31862
City Council Hearing: Thursday, February 10, 2005
TELEPHONE (31 O) 393-4000
FACSIMILE (310) 394-4700
E-MAIL: rclose@grlawyars.com
LS 6 Na L— 833 SOoZ
Dear Mayor Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson and Councilmembers Benson, Kelly and Spiegel:
We are in receipt of the February 2, 2005 Memorandum from Robert W. Hargreaves,
City Attorney, to the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council (the Memorandum")
regarding the Appeal by Indian Springs Mobile Home Park ("Indian Springs") of Condition No.
5 imposed by the Planning Commission on its parcel map application to convert the Indian
Springs Mobile Home Park to resident condominium ownership. Condition No. 5 purports to
require the costly removal of the Park's septic system and the construction of a private sewer line
within the Park and connection to the City's sewer line (the "sewer condition"). Indian Springs
is compelled to respond to the Memorandum because it contains numerous incorrect statements
of both fact and law.
As noted in Indian Springs' appeal, the City does not have the authority to impose the
sewer condition. The California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD")
has exclusive jurisdiction over the infrastructure of a mobilehome park.
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember. Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
City Council
February 4, 2005
Page 2
The Memorandum contends that despite exclusive jurisdiction over mobilehome parks'
interiors by the HCD, Government Code section 66428.1(d) provides authority for the City to
impose the sewer condition on Indian Springs. This contention is wrong for several reasons.
Section 66428.1(d) authorizes a City only to require offsite improvements, and only if
they are "necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition." (Emphasis added.) The
sewer condition would require millions of dollars of improvements to be constructed onsite,
within the Park, and the uncontested evidence before the Planning Commission demonstrated
that the sewer condition is not currently necessary and that there is no existing health or safety
condition that requires the sewer construction.
The Memorandum claims that the sewer condition would be an "offsite improvement."
This is clearly untrue under the plain wording of the statute, and the Memorandum's attempt to
support its contention through a convoluted argument regarding the statute's legislative history
makes no sense.
Furthermore, Indian Springs' "sanitary disposal facilities", i.e., its septic system, are fully
adequate to service the Park currently and in the foreseeable future. The evidence produced by
Larry McDermott, the Park's engineer, the Park's records which were submitted to the Planning
Department, and even the testimony and records submitted by Jose Angel of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") at the December 29, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing
make clear that there is no existing health or safety condition which could make the sewer
condition necessary.
The Memorandum attempts to distort the facts by contending that "the park's sewer
system constitutes a current threat to the quality of the ground water." To the contrary, even Mr.
Angel of the RWQCB, whose testimony was given purportedly in support of the sewer
condition, had to concede that "it may take ten, fifteen years" for any waste water to reach
ground water. (P. 9:23-24.) Mr. Angel conceded that the actual nitrate levels for the septic
system are low. (P. 20:25-21:1-6.) Mr. Jonathan of the Planning Commission twice asked Mr.
Angel whether there was any evidence that the Park's septic system will cause water quality
damage. Despite his efforts at times to imply otherwise, when presented with the direct question,
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
City Council
February 4, 2005
Page 3
both times Mr. Angel stated that there was absolutely no evidence that the Park's septic system
will cause any water damage.'
If (and only if), the RWQCB did have evidence that the Park's septic system constituted a
current threat to the ground water as the Memorandum claims, the RWQCB could require
abandonment of the septic system. (See Water Code section 13360; In re Matter of Nipomo
Community Services District, State Water Resources Board Order No. WQ 83-4, 1983 WL
17609 (Cal. St. Wat. Res. Bd 1983)). Yet Mr. Angel conceded repeatedly that the RWQCB did
not have such evidence.2 For this reason, the Memorandum's claim that the RWQCB has
indicated it would likely require abandonment of the Park's septic system in the future if the City
does not impose the sewer condition is a hollow prediction which the RWQCB's own
representative has admitted there are no facts to support. Certainly, the unsupported prediction
does not establish that the septic system poses an existing health or safety condition.
'Mr. Jonathan: Okay. My question to you is, does the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, in fact, have substantial evidence that the septic system in question will cause water
quality damage?
Mr. Angel: We don't have ground water data for the site to address your question. The
answer is no....
(Transcript of December 29, 2004 Planning Commission hearing ["Transcript"], p. 23:25-24:1-
5.)
Mr. Jonathan: The question that I asked is do we have an indication of the septic system
is either operating properly or not as we sit here today?
Mr. Angel: ... As far as answering the ultimate question of whether we have any
evidence that they're polluting the ground water, no, we don't have that evidence.
(Transcript, p. 59: 15-24.)
2 Mr. Jonathan: You're in agreement that the Board cannot require abandonment without
substantial evidence. And you're saying that you do not have substantial evidence at this time?
Mr. Angel: That is right.
Mr. Jonathan: Okay. So would you agree with the applicant that the Board cannot at this
time require abandonment of the septic system?
Mr. Angel: That is correct.
(Transcript, p. 24:9-18.)
Mayor Buford A. Crites
Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Jean M. Benson
Councilmember. Richard S. Kelly
Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
City Council
February 4, 2005
Page 4
Accordingly, we request that the City remove as a condition to Parcel Map. No. 31862
the requirement that Indian Springs construct a private sewer line and abandon its septic system.
Very truly yours,
GILC]ST & RUTTER
Pro ssi C n,oration
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
TWC:twc/112718_1.DOC/020405
3416.006
cc: David J. Erwin, Esq. (Via U.S. Mail)
Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. (Via U.S. Mail)
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk (Via Federal Express)
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 density 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.
Septic systems, by their nature, threaten groundwater resources, because of
pass through of nitrates and certain organic compounds.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-18
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 1998 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That the appeal to the inclusion of Condition No. 5 in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2319 is hereby denied and the approval of PM 31862,
subject to conditions, is upheld, as modified in Exhibit >A= attached.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-18
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:
_________________________________
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
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.
//
4