HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUPPTL INFO - ZOA 06-02 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
AN RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 (ZONING) OF THE PALM
DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 25.112
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS AND
CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO.
CASE NO. ZOA 06-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 19th day of December, 2006, hold a duly noticed public
hearing which was continued to April 17 and May 15, 2007, to consider a request
by the City of Palm Desert for the above mentioned Zoning Ordinance
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the current Palm Desert Zoning Code does not provide
specific procedures for review of condominium conversions of existing rental
stock related to inspection of structural conditions, tenant displacement and
relocation mitigation, and the preservation of rental housing within the city; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of apartment units to condominiums within the
City presents a potential threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that the
City currently has an estimated vacancy rate for rental housing of less than 5%,
according to an independent survey of apartment vacancies in the City of Palm
Desert; and
WHEREAS, it is important to provide a method to address tenant
displacement and relocation, preserve rental housing, and ensure converted
structures will meet current code provisions to protect the public health, safety
and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the City has studied the economic and market impacts of
converting apa�tment units to condominiums and recognizes that amendments to
the City's Zoning Code are necessary to address these impacts and to ensure
that the conversion of apartments to condominiums complies with all federal,
state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, the Residential Condominium Conversion Ordinance will
ensure that the conversion of apartments to condominiums complies with the
goals and policies of the City's General Plan, including the goals and policies
pertaining to encouraging affordable housing and providing a variety of housing
opportunities; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
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. 06-78" in that the Director of
Community Development has determined that the project will not have a
significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has
been prepared; 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 recommendation of approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment:
1. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission and all
written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission,
the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Ordinance will
provide a method for the inspection and examination of structural
conditions, mitigation measures related to tenant displacement and
relocation, and the preservation of rental housing.
2. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65867.5(b), and
based on the entire record before the Planning Commission,
including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning
Commission, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the
Residential Condominium Conversion Ordinance is consistent with
the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, specifically the
goals and policies pertaining to encouragement of affordable
housing and providing a variety of housing opportunities.
3. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission and all
written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission,
the Planning Commission finds that the public health, safety and
welfare will be best served by the adoption of the Residential
Condominium Conversion Ordinance set forth herein, because this
Ordinance will ensure that structures converted from rental units to
condominium units will meet current code standards, and help
preserve Palm Desert's stock of rental housing.
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 it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of
ZOA 06-02, Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
3. That it does hereby recommend certification of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "B", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of May, 2007, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: LIMONT, SCHMIDT, TANNER, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL
NOES: NONE �
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
. �
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 25.112
• RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
SECTIONS:
Section 25.112.010 Purpose.
Section 25.112.020 Definitions.
Section 25.112.030 General Requirements.
Section 25.112.040 Tenant Notifications and Public Hearing Notice.
Section 25.112.050 Standards for Condominium Conversions.
Section 25.112.060 Tenant Purchase Option.
Section 25.112.070 Tenant Relocation Plan.
Section 25.112.080 Consumer Protection Provisions.
Section 25.112.090 Applications for Condominium Conversions.
Section 25.112.100 Affordable Housing.
Section 25.112.110 Tentative Map Review Procedures.
Section 25.112.120 Findings — Condominium Conversion Projects.
Section 25.112.130 Planning Commission/City Council Determination.
Section 25.112.140 Lapse of Conditional Use Permit for Condominium
Conversion Projects.
Section 25.112.150 Exemptions.
Section 25.112.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to:
1. Provide standards and criteria for regulating the conversion of rental
housing to residential condominium units or rental housing to a
condominium hotel, community apartment or stock cooperative types
of ownership and for determining when such conversions are
appropriate;
2. Mitigate any hardship to tenants caused by their displacement; and
3. Provide for the public health, safety and general welfare.
Section 25.112.020 Definitions.
"Condominium" means condominium projects, community apartment projects
and stock cooperatives, as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code.
"Condominium Conversion Project" means a project for which a valid map and
conditional use permit application have been submitted to the city after the
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
adoption of this Ordinance to divide one or more parcels of real property into
condominiums/condominium hotels and the creation of separate ownership of
the units therein with a separate interest in the space within all structures
thereon. This shall not appiy to those conversion projects for which a valid map
was approved by the City prior to adoption of this ordinance.
"Condominium Hotel" or "Condotel" means any condominium hotel that is
intended for transient use and is subject to Chapter 3.28 Transient Occupancy
Tax. A condominium hotel is a commercial use and can only be located within a
commercial zone or residential zone with approval of a conditional use permit. A
condominium hotel is not considered a residential property and may not be used
as a permanent place of residence. Conversion of rental units to a condominium
hotel shall be subject to Chapter 25.112 Residential Condominium Conversions.
� "Disabled Person" means persons defined in United States Code, Title 42,
Section 423 and shall also include handicapped persons, as defined in the
California Health and Safety Code, Section 50072.
"Eligible Tenant" means a tenant who has had a valid lease or rental agreement
in a unit that is proposed to be converted in connection with a Condominium
Conversion Project either since a date within thirty days of the date on which
occupancy was first permitted, or for a minimum of thirty-six (36) months prior to
the first tenant notification, whichever is longer, prior to filing the application for a
Condominium Conversion Project pursuant to Section 66427.1(b) of the
Subdivision Map Act.
"Low Income" means income does not exceed eighty percent (80°/a) of the then-
current area median household income of the County of Riverside adjusted for
family size by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in
accordance with adjustment factors adopted and amended from time to time by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to
Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
"Moderate Income" means income does not exceed one hundred twenty percent
(120%) of the then-current median household income of the County of Riverside
adjusted for family size by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development in accordance with adjustment factors adopted and amended from
time to time by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
"Organizational Documents" means the declaration of restrictions, articles of
incorporation, by-laws and any contracts for the maintenance, management or
operation of all or any part of a Condominium Conversion Project.
"Senior Citizen" means any person who is sixty-two (62) years of age or older.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
"Special Category Tenants" means those Eligible Tenants, which also qualify as
disabled, senior citizen, Low Income, or Very Low Income individuals as defined
under California law.
"Subdivision Map AcY' means those provisions set forth in Government Code
section 66410 et seq., as amended or superseded.
"Unit" means the particular area of land or airspace that is designed, intended or
used for exclusive possession or control of individual owners or occupiers.
"Vacancy Rate" means the number of vacant apartment dwelling units being
offered for rent or lease in the City of Palm Desert shown as a percentage of the
total number of apartment dwelling units offered for or under rental or lease
agreement in the City. Said vacancy rate shall be as established by a public or
private service that monitors apartment vacancies within the City.
"Very Low Income" means income that does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of
the then-current area median household income of the County of Riverside
adjusted for family size by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development in accordance with adjustment factors adopted and amended from
time to time by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937.19.64.020
Section 25.112.030 General Requirements.
A. Where Permitted. If approved under the provisions of this chapter
and Title 25 (Zoning), Condominium Conversion Projects may be allowed in any
district in which residential uses are permitted, including specific plan areas,
subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, a tentative map, and all other
provisions and requirements of this Chapter.
B. Review Responsibilities. Condominium Conversion Projects shall
be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a conditional use permit.
A tentative and final tract map shall be required for all subdivisions creating five
(5) or more condominiums, five (5) or more parcels as defined in Section 783 of
the California Civil Code, a community apartment project containing five (5) or
more parcels for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing
five (5) or more dwelling units or for the creation of five or more condotel units.
A parcel map shall be required for all subdivisions creating four (4)
or fewer condominiums, four (4) or fewer parcels as defined in Section 783 of the
California Civil Code, a community apartment project containing four (4) or fewer
parcels, or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing four
(4) or fewer dwelling units.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
C. Applicable Standards. Condominium Conversion Projects shall
conform to: (1) The applicable standards and requirements of the zoning district
in which the project is located at the time of approval; (2) Chapter 25.112 of the
Palm Desert Municipal Code; and (3) all other applicable local, state, and/or
federal laws and codes.
Section 25.112.040 Tenant Notification and Public Hearing Notice
A. The applicant for a Condominium Conversion Project shall be
responsible for notifying existing and prospective tenants of the proposed
conversion in accordance with Sections 66452.8 and 66452.9 of the Subdivision
Map Act. The applicant shall provide each tenant with a copy of all City Staff
Reports on the application pursuant to Government Code 66452.3. The applicant
shall give notice to tenants residing in units proposed to be converted that a final
map for the proposed conversion has been approved in accordance with Section
66427.1(b) of the Subdivision Map Act. If the Condominium Conversion Project
is approved, the applicant shall give all tenants written notice of the termination
of their tenancies in accordance with Section 66427.1 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
B. All Other Notices. The applicant shall give all other notices
required by applicable federal, state and local law, except that all City pubic
hearing notices shall be given as prescribed in Section 25.86 et. al. and Section
26.20.110 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Nofinrithstanding the provisions of Section 25.86 and Section
26.20.110, all public hearing notices given pursuant to this Chapter shall include
notice to all current tenants.
C. Evidence of Tenant Notification. The applicant shall submit
evidence in writing to the Director of Community Development, certified under
penalty of perjury, that all applicant-required notification specified in subsections
(A) and (B) of this Section have been satisfied.
Section 25.112.050 Standards for Condominium Conversions.
Condominium conversions shall conform to the applicable local, state, and
federal laws in place at the time of the conversion, subject to any valid,
applicable exceptions thereto.
Additional General Requirements
A. That all condominium conversion projects provide off-street parking as
required for condominium projects by 25.58.300 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code, unless a parking study performed to the satisfaction of the City Manager or
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
his/her designee demonstrates that existing off-street parking successfully meets
the needs of all dwelling units.
B. That all condominium conversion projects shall inciude provisions to
demonstrate compliance with the Palm Desert Energy Standards as provided in
Ordinance No. 1124 as may be amended.
C. Surveying. Permanent survey monuments shall be installed at all
parcel / lot corners of a map required per this division by a California licensed
land surveyor or registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying, in
accordance with Section 66495 of the Government Code.
Section 25.112.060 Tenant Purchase Option.
The property owner shall provide each tenant of a rental unit to be converted
pursuant to this Chapter with a 90-day right of first refusal to purchase his or her
respective unit in accordance with Section 66427.1 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Section 25.112.070 Tenant Relocation Plan.
The applicant shall submit a tenant relocation plan containing and complying with
the following:
A. A detailed report describing the relocation and moving assistance
information to be given to each tenant. The report shall state in detail what
assistance will be provided for Special Category Tenants.
B. The applicant shall provide a tenant information handout and a
questionnaire to each tenant with an envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to
the Community Development Department. The questionnaire shall include
questions regarding tenant income, length of tenancy, age, disability, and
household size, and shall request that the tenant return the completed form
directly to the Community Development Department.
Section 25.112.080 Consumer Protection Provisions.
In addition to the tenant protection provisions set forth in the Subdivision Map Act,
the applicant shall comply with the following provisions, as conditions of any
condominium conversion use permit for a Condominium Conversion Project
approved pursuant to this Chapter:
A. Relocation assistance. The applicant shall offer to each Eligible
Tenant a plan for relocation to alternate housing. The relocation plan shall
provide for the following:
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
1. Assistance to each Eligible Tenant in locating alternate
housing, including but not limited to, providing availability reports where
necessary.
2. Payment of a relocation fee to each Eligible Tenant who
does not choose to purchase a condominium unit. The payment shall be a one-
time lump sum cash payment of at least one thousand five hundred dollars
($1,500.00) in 2006 (calendar year) dollars, escalated annually by the Consumer
Price Index for Riverside County. An otherwise Eligible Tenant is not entitled to a
relocation fee pursuant to this subsection if the tenant has been evicted for just
cause. In addition, a cash payment of actual deposit costs shall be made to each
Eligible Tenant who does not choose to stay for utility deposits and hook-up
costs.
3. In the case of Eligible Tenants who are also Special
Category Tenants as defined in Section 25.112.020 herein, the applicant shall
provide to the displaced Special Category Tenant, in addition to the relocation
fee specified in Section 25.112.080(A)(2) above, a one-time lump sum payment
not to exceed a total of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in 2006 dollars,
escalated annually by the Consumer Price Index for Riverside County, of the first
month's rent in the alternate housing, if required upon moving in; and the transfer
to the new complex of all key, utility, and pet deposits to which the Special
Category Tenant is entitled upon vacating the unit.
4. The relocation assistance payments referenced in
subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3) above shall be paid at the time the tenant vacates
the unit.
5. The applicant's offer to each Eligible Tenant of relocation
assistance shall be free of any coercion, intimidation, inducement or promise not
herein specified and shall not cause the tenant to vacate in advance of a
timetable or schedule for relocation as approved in the application for approval of
conversion.
B. Antidiscrimination. The applicant or owner of any condominium unit
within a project shall not discriminate in the sale, or in the terms and conditions
of sale, of any dwelling unit against any person who is or was a lessee or tenant
of any such dwelling unit because such person opposed, in any manner, the
conversion of such building into a condominium.
Section 25.112.090 Applications for Condominium Conversions.
After preliminary applications are accepted for further discretionary review, the
applicant shall submit all the information required for a conditional use permit
application and a tentative map pursuant to this code. In addition, the applicant
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
shall submit information demonstrating that the project as a whole will be in good
repair on the interior and the exterior when offered for sale.
Recognizing that the conversion of existing structures which have been
previously occupied and constructed as rental units presents unique problems to
present tenants and future buyers, the application for a Condominium
Conversion Project conditional use permit shall include the following information
in addition to that required by other sections of this Code:
A. Pest Inspection Report. A report by a California-licensed structural
termite and pest control specialist certifying whether or not all attached and
detached structures are free of infestation and structural damage caused by
pests and dry rot.
B. Buildinq History Report. A building history report identifying the
date of construction of all elements of the project and permit history.
C. Plot Plans. Scaled plot plans and elevations indicating the type
and location of all buildings and structures, parking and landscape areas, signs
and any other plans that may be deemed necessary by the City Manager or
his/her designee. Screening, landscape and irrigation plans shall be included in
the plans.
D. As a condition of approval, all condominium conversion projects
shall be required to provide at its cost each buyer with a Housing Inspection
Report prepared by an architect or structural engineer licensed by the State of
California and in good standing with the California Architects Board or the Board
for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, respectively. Said Housing
Inspection Report to detail the structural condition and use life of all elements of
the property, including, but not limited to, foundations, roofs, electricity, plumbing,
utilities, walls, ceilings, windows, frames, recreational facilities, sound
transmissions of each building, mechanical equipment, parking facilities, and
drainage facilities. Such report also shall describe the condition of refuse
disposal facilities, swimming pools, saunas, and fountains; stone and brickwork;
fireplaces, exterior lighting, appliances, mechanical equipment for heating and
cooling, interior and exterior paint and/or stucco.
Section 25.112.100 Affordable Housing.
In higher density multifamily residential developments, the City encourages
inclusion of affordable units. As part of the application package, the applicant
shall submit an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) showing how the
project will assist in meeting the affordable housing needs of the city.
Said affordable Housing Implementation Plan shall include specific information
concerning the demographic and financial characteristics of the project, including,
but not limited to, the following:
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
A. The square footage and number of rooms in each unit;
B. The rental rate history for each type of unit for the previous three
years;
C. The monthly vacancy rate for each month during the preceding
three years;
D. A complete list of the number of tenants and tenant households in
the project, including the following information:
1. Households with persons 62 years or older;
2. The family side of households, including a breakdown of
households with children five years and younger, and between 5 and 18 years;
3. Households with handicapped persons;
4. The length of residence;
5. The age of tenants; and
6. The designation of low- and moderate-income households
and whether any are receiving federal or state rent subsidies.
When the subdivider can demonstrate that demographic
information is not available, this requirement may be modified by the City
Manager or his/her designee.
E. The proposed price of each of the units.
F. The proposed homeowners' association budget, detailed to include
fixed costs, operating costs, reserves, administration, and contingencies; and
G. A statement of intent as to the types of financing programs to be
made available, including any incentive programs for existing residents.
H. Evidence that a certified letter of notification was sent to each
tenant for whom a signed copy of such notice is not submitted.
In the event that recorded covenants and/or affordable housing agreements
already exist for persons and families of Moderate Income, Low Income and/or
Very Low Income in a multi-family complex or development which an applicant
seeks to convert pursuant to this Chapter, the applicant is required, and must
demonstrate in its AHIP, that the Moderate Income, Low Income and Very Low
Income unit(s) will remain available to persons and families of Moderate Income,
11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
Low Income and Very Low Income, either by the recordation of new affordability
covenants for the newly converted units, which shall be subject to prior review
and approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and the City Attorney, or
by continuing to rent converted units to qualified Moderate Income, Low Income
and Very Low Income persons and families for the duration of the remaining
recorded covenants and/or affordable housing agreements.
Section 25.112.110 Tentative Map Review Procedures.
A. List of Tenants. In addition to the standard application requirements
for tentative maps, the applicant shall submit a complete mailing list of all tenants
occupying the subject property and two corresponding sets of address labels.
The City Manager or his/her designee shall mail a public hearing notice for the
tentative map hearing to each tenant on the mailing list and to property owners
within 300 feet in accordance with the procedures of the Subdivision Map Act
and the Municipal Code.
B. Tentative Map Review. Tentative maps shall be approved,
approved subject to conditions, or denied by the Planning Commission.
Decisions on tentative maps for Condominium Conversion Projects shall be
governed by the Subdivision Map Act and this Chapter.
C. Council Findinqs for Residential Conversions. A final map for a
condominium conversion shall not be approved unless the City Council makes all
of the findings set forth in Section 66427.1 of the Subdivision Map Act regarding
tenant notification, right to purchase and other requirements, as well as all other
applicable local, state, and federal laws.
Section 25.122.120 Findings - Condominium Conversion Projects.
The Planning Commission/City Council shall not approve a Condominium
Conversion Project conditional use permit for same unless it finds all of the
following:
A. That the Condominium Conversion Project is consistent with the
applicable findings specified in Section 25.72.070 of this code.
B. That the applicant does not seek to convert an apartment complex
or development, which received a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit, located
therein within the preceding twelve (12) months.
C. That the average rental vacancy rate in apartment dwelling units
within the City during the twenty-four (24) months preceding the filing of the
application is equal to or greater than five percent (5%). Upon submission of the
application, the City Manager or his/her designee shall obtain, at Applicant's sole
expense, a written study or report from an objective, unbiased 3�d party which
12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
provides such studies and/or reports as part of its ordinary course and scope of
business on a statewide or nationwide basis, which, in the reasonable opinion of
the City Manager or his/her designee reflects, that the average rental vacancy
rate in apartment units then available in the City is five percent (5%) or higher. If
the average rental vacancy rate in the City during the finrenty-four (24) months
preceding the filing of the application is less than five percent (5%) or if as a
result of the approval of said condominium conversion the vacancy rate would be
less than five percent (5%), the Condominium Conversion Project shall be
denied unless the Planning Commission/City Council determines that at least
one of the following overriding considerations exist:
1. Evidence has been submitted that at least fifty percent
(50%) plus one (1) of the Eligible Tenants have voted to recommend approval of
the conversion; or
2. That the evidence presented to the Planning
Commission/City Council as part of the application for the Project overwhelmingly
complies with the policies and intent of this Chapter. Applicants shall be able to
request that the Planning Commission/City Council allow for a Condominium
Conversion Project to be considered for approval where the vacancy rate and/or
tenant approval percentage requirements contained in subsections (C) and
(C)(1) herein have not been met but have been substantially complied with.
D. Conversions of projects containing four units or less shall not be
subject to the above vacancy rate provisions.
Section 25.112.130 Planning Commission/City Council Determination.
The Planning Commission shall hold a duly noticed public hearing on a
Condominium Conversion Project, and the decision of the Planning Commission
shall be final unless a timely appeal is filed.
When a timely appeal is filed to a decision of the Planning Commission, the City
Council shall hold a public hearing on a Condominium Conversion Project, and
the decision of the City Council shall be final and subject to appeal only by way
of writ of mandate to a court of appropriate jurisdiction. A Condominium
Conversion Project conditional use permit may be approved subject to such
conditions as the Planning Commission/City Council may prescribe.
Section 25.112.140 Lapse of Conditional Use Permit for Condominium
Conversion Project.
A. Notwithstanding the time periods prescribed in Section 25.72.110, a
conditional use permit for a condominium conversion shall lapse and shall
become void finro years following the date on which the conversion conditional
use permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of two years, either: (i)
13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
separate property interests have been created and recorded for each unit; (ii) a
building permit has been issued and reconstruction or other work necessary as a
result of the conversion is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion
on the site which was the subject of the conversion permit application; or (iii) a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for the structure(s) which was the
subject of the conversion use permit application.
B. A conversion conditional use permit subject to lapse may be renewed
for an additional period of one year at the discretion of the Planning Commission,
provided that prior to the expiration date, a letter requesting renewal of the
conversion conditional use permit is filed with the City Manager or his/her
designee.
Section 25.112.150 Exemptions.
For residential developments, the conversion of existing apartments to a
condominium project shall be exempt from the requirements of parkland
dedication or parkland in-lieu fees if, on the date of conversion, the apartment
complex is at least five (5) years of age and no additional dwelling units are to
be added as part of the conversion as provided in Section 66477(d) of the
Subdivision Map Act.
14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2445
EXHIBIT B
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: ZOA 06-02
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
City of Palm Desert
Department of Community Development
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, Califomia 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A resolution amending Title 25 (Zoning) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
adding Chapter 25.112 Residential Condominium Conversions.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
Califomia, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect
on the environment. A copy of the lnitial Study has been attached to document
the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the
project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
av 15, 2007
LAURI AYLAIAN DATE
DlRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
15
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Condominium Conversion Ordinance
2. Lead Agency and Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
3. Contact pe�son and Phone Number.
Stephen R. Smith, Pianning Manager
Department of Community Development
(760) 346-0611 ext. 486
4. Project Location:
City of Palm Desert
5. Project SponsoPs Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palrn Desert, CA 92260
6. General Plan Designation:
N/A
7. Zoning:
N/A
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.
Attach additionai sheet(s) if necessary.)
Adoption of an ordinance to establish a procedure for the processing of conversion
of existing residential rental housing to condominiums.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projecYs suRoundings. Attach additional
sheet(s) if necessary.)
N/A
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
X Population / Housing
CI7Y(STANDARD)\SACIJTB12006122628.1 PAGE 1 OF 15 FORM "J"
DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
� I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
� I find that although thc proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGAT'ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(� I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
(� I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant" or"potentially significant unless mitigated"
impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT is required,but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
(� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially
significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standazds,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATTVE
DECLARATION,including revisions or mit'sgation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing
further is required.
I�pl � � . r
Signature Da— te_
�� 1
Printed Name � , For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for al]answers except"No Impact" answers that aze adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply dces not apply to projects like the one
invoived(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particulaz physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significan�less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
"Negative Declazation: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
� significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
C1TY(STANDARD)1SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 2 of 15 F�RIVI "J'�
Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief discussion
should identify the following:
� a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standazds,and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g.general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies aze free to use different formats; however,lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that aze relevant to a projecPs environmental effects in whatever format
is selected. •
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question;and
b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance.
,
SAMPLE QUESTION
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
AESTHETTCS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on � � � �
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic � � � �
resources,including,but not limited
to,uess,rock outcroppings,and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing � � � �
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial � � � �(
light or glare which would adversely 1�'�e
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
CITY(STANDARD)�SACVTB�2006�22628.1 Page 3 of 15 FORM "1"
Less Than
Significant
Po[entially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
' Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources ate
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepazed by the
California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique � � � �
Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide
Importance(Farmland),as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for � � � �t'
agricultural use,or a Williamson y�
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing � � � �
environment which,due to their
locaaon or nature,could result in
� conversion of Farmland,to non-
agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available,the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct � � � �
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or � � � �
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively � � � �
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutac►t for wtuch the
project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholdsfor ozone precursors)?
CITY(STANDARD)�SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 4 of 15 FORM"J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to � � � �'
substantial pollutant concenvations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting � � � �
a substantial number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, � � � �
either directly or through habitat
modifications,on any species
identified as a candidate,sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans,policies,or
regulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ �
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies,regulations or by the
'�, California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on � � � �rt
federally protected wetlands as ���'
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act(including,but not
limited to, marsh,vernal pool,
coastal,etc.)through direct removal,
filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ 't�.Y
movement of any native resident or 'r�l
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,or
impede ihe use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or � � � �
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
CITY(STANDARD)1SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 5 of 15 FORM "1"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
� Conflict with the provisions of an � � � fa'
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. ��
. Natural Community Conservation
Plan,or other approved local,
regional,or state habitat
conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change � � � �
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in§ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change � � � �
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a � � � �'
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, � � � �
including those interred outside of
� formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the projecr.
a) Expose people or structures to � � � �
potential substandal adverse effects,
including the risk of loss,injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake � � � �
fault,as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the azea or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
� Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) 5trong seismic ground shaking? � � � �
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, � � � �
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? � � � �
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or � � � R(
the loss of topsoil? t�
CfTY(STANDARD)�.SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 6 of 15 FORM `�1"
Less Than
Significant �
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil � � � �
that is unstable,or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project,and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide,lateral
spreading,subsidence,liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as � � � �
defined in Table 18 1 B of the
Uniform Building Code(1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately � � � �
supporting the use of septic tanks or
altemative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Geate a significant hazard to the � ❑ ❑ IS7f
public or the environment through j�
the routine transport,use,or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the � � � I�
public or the environment through 5��
reasonably foreseeable upsetand
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ❑ �
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials,substances,or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is � � � �{'
included on a list of hazardous �"�
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5
and,as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
CITY(STANDARD)\SANTB�2006�22628.1 Page 7 of 15 FORM "J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lssues: Impact lncorporated Impact Impact
e) For a project located within an � � �] �
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted,within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport,would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
� For a project within the vicinity of a � � [] [�
private airstrip,would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
azea?
g) Impair implementation of or � � � �
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or swctures to a � � �] �
significant risk of loss,injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
� adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standazds � � � �
or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater � � � �
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level(e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing p O ❑ �
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river,in a
manner which would result in
� substantial erosion or siltation on-or
off-site?
CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 8 of 15 FORM"J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significanl Mitigation Significant No
lssues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing � � � 14r
drainage pattern of the site or area, Y
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river,or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water � � � �
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
� Otherwise substantially degrade � ❑ ❑ 1Q1
water quality?
Al
g) Place housing within a 100-yeaz � � � �
flood hazard azea as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
F1ood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
� h) Place within a 100-yeaz flood hazazd � � � 1�
area structures which would impede
ycl,
or redirect flood tlows?
i) Expose people or structures to a � ❑ ❑ rvf
significant risk of loss,injury or
W�
death involving flooding,including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j) Expose people or sUvctures to � ❑ ❑ �
inundation by seiche,tsunami,or
mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLAM�IING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established � � � �
community?
)
CiTY(STANDARD)�SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 9 of 15 FORM"7"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation � Si$nificant No
! Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Conflici with any applicable land � ❑ ❑ �
use plan,policy,or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project(including,but not limited
to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program,or zoning
ordinance)adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat � � � �
conscrvation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a � � � 1Sd
�G�
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a � � � `�
locally-important mineral resource f�'
recovery site delineated on a local
� general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation � � � �Q
of noise levels in excess of �`-'`
standards established in the local,
general plan or noise ordinance,or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation � � � �
of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in � � � �
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ❑ �
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
C1TY(STANDARD)�SANTB�2006�22628.1 Page ]0 of 15 FORM "1"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
� Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ r�!
airport land use plan or,where such
t/J�
a plan has not been adopted,within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport,would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a � � � �
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population � � � �
growth in an azea,either directly
(for example,by proposing new
homes and businesses)or indirectly
(for example,through extension of
road or other infrasuucture)?
�
� b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing,necessitating the � � � �
construcdon of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of � � � �
people,necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse � � � �
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the
conswction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios,response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection? � � � �
CITY(STANDARD)�SACVTB12006�22628.1 Page 1 1 of 15 FORM"J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentiaily With L.ess Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
) Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
PoSice protection? � � � �p(
/o��
Schools? � � � �
Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
Other public facilities? � � � �
RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing � � � �
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Dces the project include recreational � � � �,'
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational
facilities which have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFZC. Would the
; project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is � � � �
substantial in relation to the existing
va�c load and capacity of the street
system(i.e.,result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips,the volume to capacity
ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed,either individually or � � � �
cumulatively,a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ �
patterns,including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due 0 ❑ ❑ �
to a design feature(e.g.,sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm
equipment)?
C17'Y(STANDARD)I.SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 12 of 15 FORM "J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
� Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ �
access?
� Result in inadequate pazking � � � �
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, � � � �(
plans, or programs supporting
W'
alternative transportation(e.g.,bus
turnouts,bicycle racks)?
UTILTTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment � � � �
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction � � � �
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction
of which could cause significant
� environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction � � � y�
of new storm water drainage 1�'
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies � ❑ ❑ �
available to serve the project from
existing entitlemenu and resources,
or aze new or expanded entitlements
needed? In making this
determination,the City shall
consider whether the project is
subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water
Code Section 10910,et�sea. (SB
610),and the requirements of
Government Code Section 664737
(SB 221).
CITY(STANDARD)�.SACUTB12006�22628.1 Page 13 of 15 FORM"1'�
L.ess Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
�l Significant Mitigation Significant No
, Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Result in a determination by the � ❑ ❑ �
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
� Be served by a landfill with � � � �
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal,state,and local � ❑ ❑ �
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Dces the project have the potential � � � '�'
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment,substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species;cause a fish or
� wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels;threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community;substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of an '
endangered,rare or threatened
species;or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Dces the project have the potential � � � �
to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-
term environmental goals?
c) Dces the project have impacts that � � � �
are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects,and the
effects of probable future projects.)
1
CITY(STANDARD)1SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 14 of 15 F�RM "J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
l Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Does the project have environmental � � � �
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
CITY(STANDARD)�SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 15 of 15 FQ���j��
RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CASE NO. ZOA 06-02
BACKGROUND:
The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will establish a procedure for the review of
conversions of existing rental housing units to condominium units.This ordinance will apply
to existing rental units only. It will not apply to newly constructed housing units.
The purpose of the ordinance is to preserve a certain level of rental housing stock in the
city consistent with the General Plan goals, to provide information relating to structural
conditions of the units to be converted and review levels of tenant displacement and
provide relocation measures to mitigate impacts related thereto.
As a result of the above, all criteria in the Environmental Checklist Form will have no
physical environmental impacts except as follows:
Population and Housin�b) and c):
The ordinance, if adopted, will preserve a certain minimum amount of rental housing units
in the city. When the vacancy rate in rental housing in the city is below a specified
threshold, owners of rental units will not be able to obtain approval of applications to
convert rental units to condominiums.
Failure to adopt the ordinance could result in the conversion of significant quantities of
rental housing with the potential to displace significant numbers of renters necessitating
the construction of replacement rental housing elsewhere.
The ordinance itself is the mitigation to address these potential impacts.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 2006
needs to be done. She had no problem with having only Phase 1 in front of
them. If he goes though Phase 2, he has to spend so much money for
something he may not be able to build and if he can't build anything, he has
to return the property to its natural state. She moved for approval of the
project.
Commissioner Tschopp concurred and thought the applicant has done his
best to try to mitigate any problems to other areas of the hillside. He wished
the appficant good luck.
Commissioner Tanner and Chairperson Lopez concurred. Chairperson
Lopez asked for a second to the motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2429, recommending
to City Council approval of Case No. PP/HPD 05-17, subject to conditions.
Motion carried 4-0.
a�� D. Case No. ZOA 06-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for recommendation to City Council for approval of an
amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 26, and a
zoning ordinance amendment relating to residential
condominium conversion approvals.
Mr. Smith recalled that on September 26 the Commission initiated the zoning
ordinance amendment before them which is the residential condominium
conversion ordinance. As staff got into the document it became considerably
more complex than they first anticipated, so staff circulated to Commission
a draft of the ordinance and the recommendation was to take any comments
from the Commission and the public and come back at an appropriate date
with said revisions.
Basically, the amendments to the subdivision ordinance itself are to keep the
two areas of the code consistent and it specifies the mapping process for
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
approval of condominiums and it basically clarified existing language relative
to the conversion of residential condominiums. The ordinance will require
that they all be consistent with the zoning district in which they are located,
provides for tenant and neighboring property owner notification of the public
hearings, requires tenants be given the exclusive right to purchase their own
unit, requires the applicants to provide a detailed relocation plan containing
information related to relocation and moving assistance, relocation fees, and
special consideration to special category tenants. Those would be persons
who meet the definition of special category, which is generally handicap.
Mr. Smith said that a condition on all approvals will require a building
inspection on each and every unit in the project by a certified bonded insured
inspection service basically providing a statement of the condition of the unit
being sold. These are used units and some may be quite old. So they have
a statement of what the condition is. There had been some consideration of
front loading that, but if they aren't going to approve the project, why have
them go though that expense? So the idea is to have this back loaded and
have that as a condition on the tentative map approval.
They will be required to maintain affordability provisions for all units currently
in housing agreements with the City or Redevelopment Agency. In Item 7, he
said there is a provision requiring an affordable housing implementation plan
showing how the project will meet the affordability housing needs of the City.
At this point staff wasn't definitive on how that would be accomplished or in
what instances, so staff was interested in Commission's input on that in as
much as the City gets housing agreements in certain circumstances and
typically with higher density devetopments. The thinking here is if they have
some higher density project that somehow did not participate in such an
agreement in the past for whatever reason, this might be an opportunity to
avail themselves of that, but that was something they were open for
discussion on.
As drafted, the document would limit the conversion of projects to which a
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued in the previous six months. The
idea is that they don't want them moving people into a unit and then say they
decided to convert to condos and they either have to buy the unit or move
out. They said six months, but were open to numbers. He asked if 12 months
was a better number.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
On the bottom of page 3, Item 9 contained a provision which would prohibit
conversions when the average rental vacancy rate in the city during the 12
previous months is below 5% or that the conversion itself will result in the
vacancy rate being below 5%. Cu�rently the vacancy rate in the city is at
3.7%. According to RealFacts who provide this type on information based on
studies in the city, one year ago at this time the rate was at 7.3%, so there
had been a considerable down turn in the number of vacant units in the
rental pool.
Mr. Smith said Item 10 would exempt projects containing four or fewer units
from the previous item. He reiterated that they were dealing with a lot of
complex information and staff wanted some comments from the public and
Commission. He asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how many rental units they were covering and
how many separate projects. Mr. Smith said there were approximately 7,200
rental units in the city of which the City, Redevelopment Agency, and/or
Housing Authority had 1,000 units. Mr. Drell clarified that there are about
6,200 privately owned units. There were three large ones: Sevilla (which
used to be San Tropez), Canterra and Oasis which accounted for 1,200
units. So 1,200 of the 6,000. The Department of Finance differentiated
between less than four and more than four so it didn't give much guidance.
Commissioner Tschopp asked why they were exempting units four or less.
Mr. Smith said the thought was they had minimal impact on the 5% rate. Mr.
Drell concurred. Mr. Smith said they had to comply with all the other
provisions, it was just if it was at 4.8% they could apply. Mr. Drell commented
that if the four or less constituted 4,000 units, then exempting them could be
a problem if they all wanted to do it. Mr. Smith said there are 2,500 of those
units. Mr. Drell asked if they should exempt them. If there were 100 of them
on an agenda, they might get a little alarmed. So almost half of the private
units were four or less.
The issue on the affordability question, while they have a general policy in
the general plan talking about trying to get projects to meet the City's
affordable housing goals, when they translate that into an ordinance, they
had better be specific. They couldn't have an ordinance that leaves things
capriciously up to staff to extract from a developer. In general, all of the large
projects with the exception of Oasis, they were developed under our
affordable high density and have inclusionary affordable units included in
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
their development agreements. The other issue is that some of these
development agreements have a life span. So even the ones that we have
controls on, such as San Tropez, it only has nine years left. So they had to
deal with that. When they do an ordinance they had to lay out some ground
rules for achieving that goal. That was one they were going to have to think
about a little more carefully and actually specify what that the requirements
might be. Then the question from an equity point of view is without building
anything and just changing the ownership structure, why would that trigger
it? The answer is they will be making money and we want a piece of it. ThaYs
the dilemma which he thought had to be refined a little more carefully.
Commissioner Tanner asked if they were defeating the purpose when they
take the affordable housing out and put it into condominium conversions. It
just seemed to him that they were adding to the non-affordable housing
issue as opposed to creating more, which is the intent. Mr. Drel! said they
were reacting to developers' intent. All those development agreement
projects have provisions to ask for condo conversions. The zone permits
condominiums, so if they had proposed condominiums in the first place, they
would have proposed condominiums. They would have had the same
affordability requirement, which in the high density they are requiring 20%
low income. Commissioner Tanner understood that; his point is they are
looking at 7,200 units that potentially if there is a larger than 5% occupancy
deficiency, they can apply to convert to condominiums. That would increase
the cost, as opposed to providing that affordable housing that is currently
there. He didn't understand why they were even looking at this. He said they
shouldn't let the people who are trying to convert apartments to condos press
the issue here.
Mr. Drell clarified that right now the city has no regulation whatsoever.
Condominiums are a permitted use in the PR zone, so right now we have no
regulations if they convert, no requirement that they in any way substantially
take care of or make provision for the misplacement of the existing residents.
Right now we don't regulate anything at all. If they had 20% vacancy of
apartments, for example, that tells them they have plenty of apartments and
people would probably be going out of business trying to rent out
apartments. They were trying to work with the market to say if there is a
demonstrated surplus and at the same time there is a demand for ownership
units, then it makes sense to allow people to convert. They were saying if
there is a shortage of apartments and the shortage will be significantly made
worse, then Commissioner Tanner was right. Not only were they converting
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANN{NG COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
rental units to ownership units, which were probably going to be more
expensive, but they were probably going to be jacking up the price of rental
units with the shortage as the vacancy goes to zero. Those were the issues
they are trying to address in the ordinance to be able to respond to the
market rationaliy if there is a shortage or surplus. Right now the only
mechanism they have to stop conversion is there is a different parking
standard for apartments and condos. Commissioner Tanner said they have
to increase the parking by half a car. Mr. Drell agreed and said that then
disappears. Staff felt they needed something better than that to both address
shortages and to deal, if it turns out that vacancy allows conversion, that
converters deal fairly with existing tenants.
Commissioner Tanner asked where the 5% came from. Mr. Drell said that
5% is kind of the industry standard for almost full occupancy. People in
apartments are always moving in and out. Just the pattern of people either
moving in and out to another apartment, there are some vacant that are
available. If they move out and there's no place to move to until you move
out, then the perception is zero vacancy. It is what is considered a healthy
minimum vacancy rate for a stable housing market.
Commissioner Campbell thought it would be quite expensive to do a
conversion for some of these projects if they're being required to
underground utilities. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Smith if that was a requirement.
Commissioner Campbell read the appropriate section. She questioned that
being quite expensive. Mr. Drell said that was why staff wasn't
recommending approval of the ordinance at this time. He asked if they
wanted to essentially make it impossible. There were finro theories here.
Whenever someone comes here to ask us for something, thaYs our
oppo�tunity to sometimes get some upgrades. Traditionally they have taken
that opportunity. There are others in the city who have said that with the cost
of new typical single-family homes, the condo conversion might be the most
economical form of entry level housing ownership. There are instances in
certain circumstances where it is a positive thing. If they are too vague, then
someone wouldn't know what he is in for, or too draconian, to the extent that
it represents a prohibition, but that is the balance we're still looking for.
Commissioner Campbell asked if that was why staff was recommending a
continuance. Mr. Drell said yes and indicated it was similar to what happened
to the energy ordinance. To get it approved, they had consultation with BIA.
He thought they should have consultation with some of the major players
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
who wifl be impacted by this. Unless they look through the public notices in
the Desert Sun, they wouldn't have known to show up tonight. He thought
the Commission should hear their comments before proceeding.
Chairperson Lopez noted that in the staff report it was stated that there
would be a series of ineetings in the near future with major rental property
owners to gain their input toward the final draft ordinance and he assumed
that because staff wanted to continue this to a date uncertain, there would
be several additional meetings that perhaps the public could participate other
than just at the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said staff was going to try to
get in touch with people who are potentially impacted.
Chairperson Lopez commented that what was before them was a lot of
information. There were a couple of items that came up tonight and he said
staff wanted Commission input. Mr. Drell said that as an alternative this item
could be continued to the next meeting to give staff that input. It was up to
them.
Commissioner Campbell thought it would be better to have input from
affected parties first and then come back to the Commission. Commissioner
Tschopp agreed. He noted that she had some concerns about
undergrounding of utilities and he thought that should be taken under
consideration. A couple of other comments he had, Item 3 and also back in
the appendix is that tenants must be given the exclusive right to purchase
their units. He thought the wording should be changed to "right of first
refusal". He thought the question Mr. Smith had regarding conversions, the
time frame, he thought it needed to be longer. As they saw, rental rates could
change significantly depending on the real estate market and what is
happening in the community. He wanted to look at finro different things in
there: maybe a moving average of the prior three years rental rates to an X%
or something of that nature to have a more consistent real estate market
going on and then in a bullet, the prior 12 months so they can get a handle
on what is happening. That way they wouldn't allow something to happen just
because of a bad market and a lot of units available. He said they might
even want to take a forward approach in that look, too. While they are
having a significant study done on some of these units, have the experts tell
them what they think is going to happen down the road (it might be 8% now,
but they might expect 4% because of the way the market is going). He
thought that would be good and thaYs what experts were for and they could
roll the dice just like the rest of them.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
Commissioner Tschopp thought the intent is very good and was pleased to
see this. Available rental in a city the size of Palm Desert is a real necessity.
So he would like to see them come up with a very good plan that puts the
converter's feet to the fire and gives the City some options and discretion. It
might be a case where we might want them to convert. He thought it was a
great step in the right direction.
Commissioner Tanner agreed. The only thing he wanted to make sure was
considered for all of Palm Desert is keeping the housing here affordable.
ThaYs what makes our city grow. They are seeing more and more
opportunities for apartments coming in and one of the ones they recently
passed was brought to them not as an apartment complex initially, but a
condominium complex and they said they wanted to see it as apartments
with no conversion privileges. That opened the door also. It comes before the
Planning Commission and he thought they should have right to say yes, it is
going to be converted from an apartment to a condominium or it's not. They
have more and more apartments coming in and he thought they would see
more and more apartments coming before the Planning Commission over
the next 24 months. So, he thought the most important part of this process
was to make sure we keep the people coming into Palm Desert as opposed
to forcing them out. With that said, he thought they were heading in the right
direction.
Chairperson Lopez o en d the public hearing and asked for any testimony
in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed amendment.
MR. ALEX MEYERHOFF, 74-682 Yucca Tree, thought this was a very
fascinating issue. He thought they could retain affordability by
converting rental to owner-occupied housing. His sister purchased
one of the conversions across from the high school and it was a great
opportunity for her. She is a school teacher in Palm Springs and she
wouldn't have been able to afford a home. That's part of the American
dream and he thought it was pretty exciting. He thought they had to
think about the threshold, the 5%. The Community Development
Director pointed out that it is the hea�thy market number, but if they
have the provision for the four and under to convert, he thought they
might want to bump it up a little bit to maybe 10%. But it looked like
they were working through the issues. He noted that Commissioner
Campbell had a question about undergrounding and the reason there
is money to be made in condominium conversions is because there
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISStON DECEMBER 19. 2006
is a disconnect between the cost of rental housing versus owner-
occupied housing. There is a difference between a rent and a
mortgage payment and that gap is where the buyer can make a profit.
So he thought they should be required to comply with our current
standards, underground utilities and make them provide the amenities
the City wants to see. It is their bite at the apple.
There were no other speakers. Chairperson Lopez explained that the public
hearing would remain open and asked if there were any additional
comments.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, to continue this matter to a date uncertain.
As additional comments, Chairperson Lopez said he was concerned about
the amount of under four being 2,500 units. When they have any type of
arbitrary number, whether it be four or something else, they are going to get
their fair share of requests for exceptions. At this point in looking through it,
he thought it should apply to all groups of units. He didn't think there should
be any number for four or less. With that many, that was a large number of
units in that particular category. It was kind of like putting miscellaneous or
additional items and miscellaneous was the biggest number of all. He
thought it was food for thought.
He also wanted to talk about the time frame for occupancy. They were
talking about six months and he thought that needed to be carefully looked
at. Most rental agreements are one year. He thought maybe 12 months was
the proper number. He thought the document and direction they were
sta�ting out with is very interesting and one that he thought should be
brought before the public as well as the developers to get their input into on
a lot of these items. He had a lot marked that he thought would take a long
time to go through this evening, but thought they were moving in the right
direction. He thought continuing this to a date uncertain might leave this on
the floor for an awfully long time. He asked if that was the intention of the
motion at this point. Mr. Drell said they could kind of point to a date. They
were going to renotice it anyway. They could say no longer than two months.
Commissioner Campbell pointed out that right now two months was quite
short because they wouldn't be doing anything for the last two or three weeks
at city hall and suggested four or six months.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19. 2006
Commissioner Tanner said he could amend his motion. Chairperson Lopez
thought the motion was fine. What he would like to see, perhaps under
Miscellaneous Items, was getting an update on the status to allow
opportunity for additional comments and recommendations. He wanted the
opportunity to go through this again and perhaps have that as an opportunity.
As they move closer and staff has additional public meetings, as well as
some developer meetings, then they zero in on a date unless Commissioner
Tanner wanted to specify a date.
Commissioner Tanner heard Mr. Drell directing them to a date, but they
could continue to get updates under Miscellaneous Items and continue to
discuss it. He recommended a continuance to the second Planning
Commission meeting in April (April 17). That would give everyone an
opportunity. He rephrased the motion to extend it to a certain time, to the
second meeting in April. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he would restate
that to either before or by that date. Mr. Drell said it could still be a time
uncertain, but with the direction that the time should not extend longer than
three months. Commissioner Tanner so moved. Commissioner Campbell
seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Lopez clarified that
would be April 17 or earlier with a renoticing when the public hearing came
back. He said he would still like to request updates with each meeting.
Mr. Smith and Chairperson Lopez asked the City Attorney if it was possible
to place this as a Miscellaneous Item for an update on the upcoming
meetings before the next public hearing. Mr. Hargreaves said yes.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting would be
December 19, 2006.
20
DRAF`t � .
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2007
oved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adop i Commission Resolution No. 2444 approving Case
No. TT 34057 Amendmen , ' ct to conditions. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Limont voted no).
C. Case No. ZOA 06-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for recommendation to City Council for approval of an
amendment to Title 25 (Zoning) of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code adding Chapter 25.112 Residential Condominium
Conversions relating to approvals of the conversion of existing
multi-family residential developments to condominium
ownership.
Ms. Aylaian reviewed the history of the proposed amendment and all the
work that had been done since the last Planning Commission meeting. She
noted that there had been some questions raised as to the number of
apartment units and multi-family rental residential units within the city and
how many of them are in smaller complexes, in duplexes, triplexes and
fourplexes versus how many are in large complexes. She reported that there
is a total of 71,092 rental multi-family units in the city right now. Of those,just
under 2,500 are in units of finro, three and four. The remaining five or more
units total approximately 2,700. The current vacancy rate has dropped over
the last three years. From the first quarter of 2005, the occupancy rate was
at 95.3%. A year ago, first quarter of 2006, it had dropped to 93%. Presently
it was at 89.8%. So they could see that the market has changed within the
last 18 months or two years ago when they were seeing a fair number of
applications.
She also noted that there were a couple of minor technical revisions that
recently surfaced requiring City Attorney review. She requested discussion
and comments from the Commission, but if they were generally in favor of
the concept and ordinance, she would ask that it be recommended to City
Council substantially as to form, subject to some minor technical revisions.
Those revisions involve the exact location for the CPI and indexes corrected
to and the treatment of potential condo hotel projects in residential zones, so
some very specific issues. She asked for any questions.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the mechanism that tracts the vacancy
rate. Ms. Aylaian explained that there is a firm out of Oregon that track
vacancies in communities across the United States. A membership
10
� DRAF't
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2007
subscription was required in order to get the numbers. The numbers she
reported were produced as of today and represent five different rental
communities; the larger ones within the city of Palm Desert. They track
approximately 1,606 units and draw their percentages from that specific to
Palm Desert. It was her understanding they would have a similar type of
representation for communities across the country.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that it wasn't an exact number, but
extrapolated from a sampling. Ms. Aylaian concurred. She explained that it
is a tough number to come up with. She checked with CVAG and different
kinds of economic development data gatherers who would have this kind of
information, but it wasn't easy to come by.
Commissioner Schmidt could foresee problems with smaller units because
5% of a four-unit building was difficult. Ms. Aylaian said that was a very good
point and believed the four or fewer units were exempted from the
percentage of vacancy for exactly that reason.
Commissioner Tschopp indicated that the staff report said that vacancy rates
must exceed 5% for 24 months rather than 12, but the resolution still had the
12 months. Ms. Aylaian said that would be corrected. That was one of the
comments the Commission had previously. Staff had recommended 12
months and Commission suggested a longer period and it would be changed
to 24. Commissioner Tschopp noted that it was located on page 13, item C.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how they arrived at 24 months on that one,
and then also the prohibition on conversion after initial construction of an
apartment complex from six to 12 months. He asked for the thinking behind
that; in his opinion that one could be a little bit longer and perhaps the other
one could be done a little bit differently. Ms. Aylaian explained that it was
kind of a batancing act. The prohibition on conversion was originally
recommended at six months, but most people sign a one-year lease.
Therefore, they didn't want the instantaneous conversion, but they were
trying to allow developers and owners to respond to a market that does
fluctuate, but they didn't want them to over react or be able to respond too
quickly. So originally 12 months was selected and that was actually modeled
after looking at a couple of different cities in Southern California and this is
what they had done. The Commission suggested a longer time and staff
looked at it and realized that was absolutely an appropriate comment
because many leases start out being 12 months and they upped it to 12
months.
11
DRAFY �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2007
As far as the reflection of vacancy over previous years, the Commission,
when staff suggested looking at the previous 12 months, suggested a longer
time of two or three years. She was uncomfortable pressing it as long as
three years because to her that was too slow or cumbersome to respond to
a market that does change and goes through cycles a little more quickly than
that. She felt that two years was a good compromise between the two.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any thought given to a forward
looking vacancy rate. Ms. Aylaian said that was looked at, but as difficult as
it was to find somebody who accurately tracks existing and previous vacancy
rates, they could not find any source they could quantify and all parties could
agree was a credible prognosticator of what was going to come.
Commissioner Limont noted that it states that if someone builds a new
apartment building they are not eligible for 12 months to convert. She asked
if it was eligible and then there was a two-year period. What if they were right
in the midst of the two-year vacancy, because it was a 24-month period? Ms.
Aylaian said if a new apartment complex is built, they were able to convert
after 12 months provided that the citywide vacancy for the previous 24
months has been greater than 5%.
Commissioner Tanner indicated that The Vineyards project came to them
originally as a condominium complex. They suggested that the project be
brought back to them in the form of an apartment project. The reasoning was
that particular area needed apartments. He thought one of the stipulations
they made was that it could not be converted to condos. He thought they
couldn't convert them and committed to owning and operating them. If they
had issues that come before them, a condition could be required not allowing
conversion to condos. Mr. Hargreaves remembered the issue, but couldn't
remember how it was resolved. His vague recollection was that at some point
they would be permitted, but couldn't recall if there was a condition that
restricted the conversion. Sometimes people like to build them as apartments
and hold them for ten years until the statue of limitations on construction
defects runs because that had been a problem with condominiums. At that
point they could condo-ize them.
Commissioner Schmidt noticed condominium hotel and condotel, but no
reference to timeshare units. Ms. Aylaian explained that timeshare units are
different animals all together and they would not be covered by this.
Timeshare units are already typically sold depending on whether they are
selling units of time or real estate property. They are set up differently so
12
MINUTES DRAF�1
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2007
they were not considered multi-family residential and would not be subject
to conversion to condominium properties or ownership.
Mr. Hargreaves indicated that one of the issues that has come up is that the
ordinance is drafted to allow conversion from apartments to a condo hotel,
which would be a commercial use in a residential zone. If people thought that
was appropriate, they would probably have to finreak the residential zones to
allow that under a conditional use, which he didn't think was allowed at this
time. But the broader issue was whether the Planning Commission thought
it was appropriate to take an apartment building and convert it into a condo
hotel which would facilitate the transient occupancy basically. They would
have people in there less than 30 days, a significantly different kind of use
normally from an apartment building. Depending on the kind of direction
received, they could go back and tweak it.
Commissioner Limont asked if there was any way so that there wasn't a rush
to convert from apartments to condos. She thought that San Francisco had
a lottery system so they didn't have a lot of people converting all at once.
She asked if they were looking at anything similar. Ms. Aylaian said no, they
weren't anticipating that big of a demand and frankly thought that the
restraints placed on the developer/owner for conversion were such that they
would not see a stampede. Staff tried to discourage to some extent the
conversion because they want to maintain rental properties in the
community, so it is a relatively tall order they would have to work their way
through to be able to convert. She didn't anticipate that they would ever see
a large rush.
Commissioner Limont said her concern goes back to what Commissioner
Tanner brought up a number of ineetings ago, and that is they don't want to
create a situation where people who need to rent who can't afford or don't �
want to own aren't forced to buy in order to stay where they are. The 5% had
always bothered her; she felt it was a low number, but she wasn't versed
enough in that. She said Ms. Aylaian and Mr. Hargreaves had done an
excellent job in putting this together and thanked them. She asked if they
would try to provide for the people who want to rent so they can afford to
stay. Ms. Aylaian thanked her and indicated that was their intent. In the
newspaper a month or two ago while they've been working on this, one of the
other valley cities has taken a look at an ordinance and proposed their own.
Their threshold is actually 3% because they felt that was a high enough
vacancy they should be allowing conversion at that point. After looking at
that, staff felt more comfortable with a 5% threshold.
13
DRAF`t �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2007
Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Hargreaves if a rental agreement was a
lease. In other words, was every one of the rented units on a lease or if it
mattered. It says "eligible tenant" means a tenant who has had a valid lease
in a unit. She thought that was leaving it pretty vague. Mr. Hargreaves
agreed. Ms. Aylaian also agreed and suggested perhaps adding valid lease
or rental agreement.
Commissioner Schmidt said there were some that were granted for six
months on the contingency that they would renew. She thought if they were
doing all this they should tie down some of this. Mr. Hargreaves noted that
they sometimes have hold-over tenants, people that just get in there
informally; there was a whole series of arrangements.
Commissioner Schmidt thought that if the word "lease" is meant to restrict a
property owner from converting, then leave it. But if this is intended to be a
guideline for someone who wants to change their ownership status, then
they need to be more explicit. Mr. Hargreaves thought it was a good
comment. Commissioner Schmidt said it was on page 5 in the middle of the
page. She also felt that in the smaller units there could be an ownership that
could convert a rental building into five or six timeshares and get under this
ordinance, as weil as tenants in common timeshares. She has done it in
other cities. Ms. Aylaian said she originally thought Commissioner Schmidt
meant the other way from a timeshare converting into a condominium
ownership. Commissioner Schmidt said just the intent of this; if they want to
convert rental units into condominiums and make it a timeshare
condominium setup, they have multiple owners for a limited number of units.
That wasn't addressed and asked if it should be. Mr. Hargreaves said the
Palm Desert ordinance addresses timeshares and has very stringent
restrictions on that. Ms. Aylaian also explained that part of the definition of
timeshare is the requirement to have an 18-hole golf course associated with
it and up to a 500-room hotel. So it was very difficult to be a timeshare in
Palm Desert. Commissioner Schmidt thought it wouldn't hurt to add
somewhere in the ordinance that timeshares are not included in this
ordinance and refer to where they are. Ms. Aylaian said that could be done.
Commissioner Tanner asked if Commissioner Schmidt was concerned that
someone might take an apartment, like a 10-unit apartment, and change it
from an apartment to a condo and then into timeshare. Commissioner
Schmidt said yes. Commissioner Tanner said if it came to that, they would
not be able to get the City approval anyway because there are some very
strict requirements. He asked if it needed to be addressed in this ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt said she wanted to clear it up number one, and
14
� DRAF�r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2007
number two in the sense that timeshares are not included in this ordinance
but somewhere else. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Hargreaves if that
should be added to the ordinance specifically to address it. Mr. Hargreaves
replied that given how timeshares are treated elsewhere, he personally
wouldn't clutter it up. Chairperson Campbell asked if he was comfortable just
leaving it as it is without timeshare. Mr. Hargreaves concurred.
Commissioner Tanner asked about the verbiage on the lease. He asked if
that needed to be addressed in the ordinance before they vote. Mr.
Hargreaves explained that there were going to be some tweaks here and
there and it has to go to the City Council, so if they were generally happy with
it subject to those comments, they would work on it between now and the
time it gets to the City Council. He didn't think it needed to come back on
those kinds of issues. Ms. Aylaian asked that the motion be to approve the
ordinance substantially as to form.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that the housing inspection report requires
that it be performed by a licensed architect or structural engineer. Having
seen a number of the home inspection reports, he asked for the reason for
going to the licensed architect and if the report would be as detailed as the
report someone gets when buying a single family home. Ms. Aylaian said this
change was the result of some input received from the Department of
Building & Safety. They are more familiar with the licensing requirements for
home inspection services and their concem was that although someone
could get very qualified, very good home inspectors, the fact that they are
licensed does not mean good and qualified and that potentially these reports
can be by individuals who really don't have the credentials or experience that
we wish licensure would insure; therefore, the recommendation was to use
a licensed architect or structural engineer. Her experience has been typically
with those on larger types of buildings that they are very thorough and
detailed. They have their professional licensure on the line and errors and
omission's insurance behind it that a home inspection service typically would
not. Commissioner Tschopp said that on a larger building that was a good
idea he thought that was a really good change.
His second comment was on the detail. Having seen a lot of the home
inspection reports that deal with things from locks to appliance condition and
asked if she expected those to be in those reports also. Ms. Aylaian said
they indicate pretty specifically what needs to be inspected and she didn't
think they got into the level of detail that would be seen in some home
inspection reports, they were looking for structural integrity, waterproofing
and things like that. Those were the types of issues they believed a potential
15
DRAF�r � .
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2007
buyer really needs to be advised on in order to make a sound purchase.
They weren't{ooking for routine maintenance types of issues. It was probably
valid to say there woufdn't be the same level of detail they would get in a
home inspection report, but there wou{d be better qualified eyes looking at
the more substantive issues.
There were no other questions. Chairperson Campbell noted that the pubfic
hearing was o r and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSiTION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments or action.
Action:
Commissioner Schmidt moved to approve the draft ordinance pending
comments and possible changes as necessary. It was seconded by
Commissioner Tanner. Motion carried 5-0.
lt was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2445, recommending
to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 06-02 substantially as to form.
Motion carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
Case No. VAR 06-02 -WILLIAM R. HANOUSEK, SR., Applicant
uest for approval of a first one-year time extension of a
varia e to allow a reduction of the R-1 20,000 zone side yard
setbacks m 15 feet to 8 feet on both side yards to allow the
expansion a remodeling of a single family home on a 75-foot
wide lot located 45-644 Verba Santa Drive.
Mr. Stendell explained that thi ase was originally handled in 2006 by a
planner no longer with the City. . Stendell stepped in and reviewed the
material and approvals. He said the o 'nal staff report was distributed, as
well as the plans and exhibits. He was avai le to give a detailed staff report
if requested and was available to answer q stions. He noted that the
applicant was also present to answer any questio or address concerns.
Commissioner Limont asked if they would be adding onto e existing pad.
Mr. Stendell said no, the existing pad would remain. They wo tie into the
� existing pad. He talked to the architect a few different times. ey are
attempting to save parts of the house if they can and utilize that. They und
16