HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/19/2000 - STAFF REPORTS (32) DATE: July 19, 2000
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Planning &Building
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.28087- APPLICATION BY EL DORADO PALM SPRINGS,
LIMITED FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 377 SPACE
EL DORADO MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES. THE EL
DORADO MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB IS LOCATED ON 50.65 ACRES OF LAND AT 6000
EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE, SOUTH OF BOLERO ROAD AND EAST OF GOLF CLUB
DRIVE, W-R-MHP AND R-MHP ZONES, SECTION 29.
BACKGROUND:
On July 5, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the above-referenced
project. At the July 501 meeting,the City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution of
Denial for the project to be considered at the next City Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of a Resolution of Denial for City Council Consideration.
D6UtaLAS R. EV 4S, Director
Planning and Building
C' nager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Denial for Tentative Tract Map No. 28087
JI A
LAW OFFICES OF
4330 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE
SUITE 330
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122-6203
TELEPHONE: (858) 535-9380 FACSIMILE: (858) 535-9381
E-MAIL: Isllaw0pacbell.net
www.lawyers,com/sueloftin/
July 14, 2000
Ms. Trisha Sanders
Office of the City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: El Dorado—TTM 28087
Hearing July 19, 2000 @ 7:00 p.m.
Dear Trisha:
Enclosed herewith are five(5)original letters [one for each of the councilpersons and the Mayor]and
three (3) copies of the letters [one for the permanent record, which you keep, one for Steve Hayes,
and one for David Aleshire, Esq., City Attorney].
Thank you, as always, for your assistance in the delivery of the hearing materials.
Sincerel ,
L. Sue Loftin, Esq�
LSLseb
Enclosures: One Document [8 copies]
Cc: As specified on enclosed document
Law Offices of
4330 La Jolla Village Drive
Suite 330
San Diego, California 92122-6203
Telephone: (858) 535-9380 Facsimile: (858) 535-9381
e-mail: Isllawno.oacbell.net
www.lawyers.com/sueloftinj
July 14, 2000
Via Overnight Mail
The Honorable Mayor Kleindienst,
And Council Members
3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way,
Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
Re: El Dorado Mobile Country Club Estates - TTM 28087
Proposed Resolution to Overturn Planning Commission Action, and Denying Application
File No: ELD - 450
Dear Honorable Mayor Kleindienst and Council Members:
The Applicant El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., has reviewed the proposed Resolution
prepared by City Attorney William Wynder and El Dorado Homeowners' Association,
Inc., Attorney Donald Lincoln. The Applicant, for the record, hereby objects to the
proposed Resolution to Overturn the Planning Commission Action and to Deny the
application for the subdivision of El Dorado Mobilehome Country Club Estates located in
the City of Palm Springs at 6000 East Palm Canyon Drive on the basis that there is no
pertinent factual nor applicable legal basis for said proposed denial, including, but not
limited to the following:
1. First WHEREAS: The Applicant's name is misstated and should be stated as "El
Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd."
2. Fifth WHEREAS: The Planning Commission Hearing was continued to April
12, 2000 and then to May 10, 2000, at which time the matter was heard.
3. Eighth WHEREAS: A staff report was not, and has not been, served on the
subdivider for the July 5, 2000 hearing. D4- 1
V Ali I r
The Honorable Mayor Kle ndienst
And Council Members
Jnly 17,2000
Page 2 of 3
FILE NO: ELD-450
4. Section 1:
a. Seventy three percent of the residents in the Park supported the
conversion of the Park, and the support statements were incorporated as
part of the application to the Sate of California for funds for loans to low
income owners. The support statements did not provide the price of the
Unit, but rather provided that the price would be set according to an
appraisal. It is misleading and wrong to indicate that the residents did
not support the conversion of the property to a condominium
development. In addition under state law it is irrelevant whether the
residents approve the proposed conversion.
b. Doug Coltice and Mel Flach both testified as to the MPROP package,
and the Attorney for the Opposition to the Conversion, Mr. Charles
Prawdzik, Esq., provided in his July 5, 2000, 2:30 p.m. submittal a copy
of the support statement. The Applicant hereby incorporates the
MPROP package.
c. Further, the Applicant does not support the other factual and none of
legal conclusions stated in this section, including without limitation the
concept of"condition(s)precedent."
5. Section 2: This section misstates the law as set forth in the referenced case.
6. Section 3: The subdivider/applicant has complied with Section 66427.5 of the
California Goverimient Code.
7. Section 4:
a. The subdivider/applicant is not required to provide a fixed price at the
time of the hearing on Section 66427.5, nor the precise rents.
b. The subdivider/applicant has complied with Section 66427.5.
c. The subdivider/applicant is entitled to the due process right to a clear
statement of the basis for the decision by the City Coiuicil. Therefore, the
phrase "...among other reasons..., " must be deleted and included in its
stead the specific reasons for the denial of the applicant.
8. Section 5: The subdivider/applicant disagrees with the legal conclusion contained
herein.
9. Section 6: The subdivider/applicant did file with the City a "...legally sufficient
`report on the impact of the conversion' as required by Section 66427.5(b)...."
The Honorable Mayor Kleindienst
And Council Members
July 17,2000
Page 3 of 3
FILE NO: ELD-450
10. Section 7: The subdivider/applicant did provide "...to the residents a legally
sufficient `report on the impact of the conversion' as required by Section
66427.5(c)......
11. Section 8: The subdivider/applicant has met the requirements of 66427.5 with the
inclusion of the date September 30, 1999. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
subdivider/applicant did agree to change that date to the date of the issuance of the
Final Public Report as explained by City Attorney Wynder at the hearing. The
continued inclusion of the September 30, 1999 date in the Tenant Impact Report
was a clerical error that, if given the opportunity, subdivider/applicant would have
corrected.
12. Section 9: There is neither factual nor legal basis for this finding.
13. Required Finding: The Resolution must state the date on which the application
was deemed complete by the City of Palm Springs, which date was December 3,
1999.
The Applicant requests an opportunity to speak in opposition to the proposed Resolution
to Overturn the Planning Commission's decision and to Deny the Application at the July
19, 2000 City Council hearing.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF L. SUE LOFTIN
4r
�7
By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
LSL:seb
Cc: William Wynder, Esq.
David J. Aleshire, Esq.
Steve Hayes, AIPC
Trisa Sanders, City Clerk
Charles A. Prawdzik, Esq.
Donald Lincoln, Esq.
Richard Close, Esq.
James Goldstein for Applicant
James and Associates, Anne James
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILSHIRE PALISADES BUILDING WELLS FARGO CENTER
1299 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 900 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 4100
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9 0 401-10 0 0 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 71-15 6 0
TELEPHONE (310) 393-4000 TELEPHONE (213) 6I1-a000
TELECOPIER (310) 394-4700 TELECOPIER (213) 534-6001
EMAIL July 18, 2000 REPLY TO
Reloseyel lawyers cam Santa Monica
VIA P+ACSIMILE
AND U.S.MAIL
Mayor William G. Kleindienst and
Members of the Palm Springs City Council
P.O. Box 2743
Palm Springs, California 92263
Re: El Dorado Mobile Country Club - TTM 28087
To The Honorable William G. Kleindienst and
Members of the Palm Springs City Council:
This office represents El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. in the application for a Tentative
Tract Map for subdivision, Application Number TTM 28087 (hereinafter, "the Application"). As
you are aware, on July 5, 2000, hearing was set for detennination by the City Council
(hereinafter, "the Council") on the Application. Without seeking the Applicant's consent,
however, the Council elected to postpone its determination on the Application until July 19,
2000.
We now have been informed that a subcommittee of the Council would like the
opportunity to mediate negotiations between the residents of the Park and the Applicant toward
full agreenent of ail parties. Such negotiations, we have been informed, would require
postponing the July 19 hearing until August 2, 2000. It is our position, however, that by
operation of law the Application is deemed approved as of July 6, 2000, and the clerk of the
Council is under a statutory duty to certify or state approval thereof due to the Council's failure
to act within strict statutory time limitations prior to July 6, 2000.
For nearly seven years we have been meeting with residents of the Park to negotiate
acceptable terns and conditions. Those negotiations have not been fruitful. In fact, the demands
of the Park residents keep changing, therefore making final agreement not possible.
Nevertheless, we would agree to participate in negotiations mediated by the Council
subcommittee. "" �.
LAW OFFICES
GILCHRIST & RUTTER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Mayor William G. ICeindienst and
Members of the Palm Springs City Council
July 18, 2000
Page 2
If the hearing currently set for July 19, 2000 is continued to August 2, 2000 for the
pin-pose of allowing time so that agreement of all parties may be reached, we will not contend
that such further delay firom July 19 to August 2 constitutes a further statutory violation on the
part of the Council. We will not waive, however, any rights or claims, including,but not limited
to, those that accrued to us through July 19, 2000, any rights or claims that accrue after July 19,
2000 except those regarding the further delay from July 19 to August 2, or our contention that the
application was deemed approved by operation of law prior to July 6.
Sincerely,
GILCHUST &RUTTER
Pr9,feN0119tC9rporation
Richard H. Close
Of the Finn
R14C:twe/50073.1/071700
3400.010
cc: David Aleshire, Esq. (By facsimile and mail)
William Wynder, Esq. (By facsimile and mail)
IT
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA DENYING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO.28087 TO JAMES F. GOLDSTEIN OF
ELDORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO SUBDIVIDE THE
EXISTING 377 SPACE ELDORADO MOBILE COUNTRY
CLUB FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES. THE ELDORADO
MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB IS LOCATED ON 50.65 ACRES
OF LAND AT 6000 EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE, SOUTH
OF BOLERO ROAD AND EAST OF GOLF CLUB DRIVE,
W-R MHP AND R-MHP ZONES, SECTION 29, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
WHEREAS, Mr. James F. Goldstein of El Dorado Limited Partnership (the "subdivider" or
"applicant") filed an application with the City of Palm Springs("city")pursuant to Palm Springs
Municipal Code § 9.60 for Tentative Tract Map No.28087 for the proposed subdivision of the
377-space, 50.65-acre, El Dorado Mobile Country Club for condominium purposes, located at
6000 East Palm Canyon Drive,W-R MHP and R-MHP zones, Section 29;and
WHEREAS, said application was submitted to appropriate agencies as required by the
subdivision requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code,with the request for their review,
comments,and requirements; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider applicant's application for Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 was given in
accordance with applicable law (Sections 66427.1, 66451, 66452.8 and 66452.9 of the
Subdivision Map Act and Section 4.08.130 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code);and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, a staff report was served
on the subdivider and the representatives of the El Dorado Mobile Homeowners Corporation
(representing the "residents")at least three days before the Planning Commission public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2000, and continued to May 10, 2000, a public hearing on the
application for Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 was held by and before the Planning Commission
in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended, by a vote of 5-1-1, to
approve and forward to the City Council Tentative Tract Map No.28087 subject to the
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No.4691; and
WHEREAS,notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider
Applicant's application for Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 was given in accordance with
2M14024-0M
95417.01 o07/I IPoO
3� 16
applicable law (Sections 66427.1, 66451, 66452.8 and 66452.9 of the Subdivision Map Act and
Section 4.08.130 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, a staff report has been
served on the subdivider and the representatives of the El Dorado Mobile Homeowners
Corporation (representing the "tenants") at least three days before the City Council public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2000, a public hearing on the application for Tentative Tract Map
No. 28087 came on for hearing by and before the City Council in accordance with applicable
law; and
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing of July 5, 2000, the City Council has
carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing
on the application, including, but not limited to, the oral and written staff report and City
Attorney report, and all written and oral testimony presented in support of and in opposition to
the application:
NOW, THEREFORE, AND BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM THE
PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: In its application before the City, subdivider indicates an intent to convert the
El Dorado Mobile Country Club to "resident ownership" pursuant to Section
66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act. According to substantial evidence presented
at the public hearing, the legislative intent in adopting Section 66427.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act indicates that such Section was intended to be applicable to
mobilehome park conversions which are supported by and/or controlled by
residents of the mobilehome park. At the public hearing before City Council,not a
single resident of El Dorado Mobile Country Club spoke in support of subdividers
application for conversion. To the contrary, all representatives of the mobilehome
park residents voiced unanimous opposition to subdivider's conversion application.
Accordingly,there is substantial evidence taken from the public hearing to indicate
that, absent support from the residents of the mobilehome park in question, the
condition(s) precedent to conversion set forth in the legislative history of Section
66427.5 has(ve)not been satisfied
Section 2: The leading case of Donahue v. Santa Paula west Mobile Home Park, 47
Cal.App.4s' 1168 (1996), stands for the proposition that Section 66427.5 is not
applicable to an unsuccessful conversion of a mobile home park to resident
ownership. At least one other City, Union City, has adopted a local ordinance
which provides that for purposes of Section 66427.5 a successful conversion to
resident ownership does not occur until 51%of the spaces have been purchased by
existing park residents. Absent support of the residents for mobilehome park
conversion, Section 66427.5 should be applied so as to prevent hardship and
economic displacement such that an applicant's request for conversion be deemed
legally insufficient absent an agreement that conversion from local rent control to
26II0140844026
95417.01 a0I IPoO -2-
. 1 �'
state-law rent control occur, if at all, only following the sale of fifty percent(50%)
plus one of the proposed condominium units. Since subdivider is unwilling to so
condition the pending application, City Council finds and determines the
application to be legally insufficient for lack of such agreement.
Section 3: Even if, for the sake of argument, Section 66427.5 is applicable to a resident
opposed mobilehome conversion, City Council finds and determines that the
Tentative Map must be disapproved because subdivider has failed to comply with
(1)the requirement that the subdivider must offer each existing tenant("resident")
the option to purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit (Section
66427.5(a)),and(2)the requirement that the subdivider file with the City and make
available to each resident a legally sufficient report on the impact (the "Tenant
Impact Report" or "TIR") of the conversion on the residents (Section 66427.5(b)
and(c)).
Section 4: The TIR is legally insufficient because, among other reasons, it fails to disclose
either the estimated price of the proposed subdivided units or the estimated rents
which would be charged to non-purchasing residents (those residents who are not
"lower income households"). This failure to disclose is inconsistent with Donahue,
supra,47 Cal.App.0 at 1176, which mandates that,pursuant to Section 66427.5 of
the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of filing of a tentative map "the subdivider
must inform local government of the rent increases it expects to enact after
conversion." The failure to disclose is also inconsistent with Business &
Professions Code § 11010.9,which requires the subdivider to disclose the tentative
price of the subdivided interest prior to filing an application for a public report and
with the legislative history of Senate Bill No. 310 (which included both
Sections 66427.5 and 11010.9),which indicates an intent to"require the subdivider
to disclose a tentative price at the beginning of the conversion process."
Section 5: The absence of such price and rental information makes it impossible for the
residents to meaningfully evaluate either their right to purchase their subdivided
unit or their right to continue residency as a tenant. Therefore, City Council finds
and determines that applicant has failed to make the meaningful"offer"required by
Section 66427.5(a) of the Subdivision Map Act, and disapproves the Tentative
Map on that ground.
Section 6: The absence of such price and rental information makes it impossible for City
Council to determine the impact of the proposed subdivision conversion upon the
residents. Therefore,City Council finds and determines that applicant has failed to
file a legally sufficient "report on the impact of the conversion" required by
Section 66427.5(b) of the Subdivision Map Act, and disapproves the Tentative
Map on that ground.
Section 7: The absence of such price and rental information also makes it impossible for
residents to determine the impact of the proposed subdivision conversion upon
themselves. Therefore, City Council finds and determines that applicant has failed
to make available to the residents a legally sufficient "report on the impact of the
2M14084-0026
9541701■07n1= -3-
ala =
conversion" as required by Section 66427.5(c) of the Subdivision Map Act, and
disapproves the Tentative Map on that ground
Section 8: In the "Tenant Impact Report," applicant indicated that certain "rent" provisions,
based on Section 66427.5, are only applicable to persons who were park residents
as of September 30, 1999. On its face, Section 66427.5 applies to all "non-
purchasing residents." Therefore, City Council finds and determines that since
applicant's "Tenant Impact Report" contained the above error it is legally
insufficient in that applicant failed to comply with Sections 66427.5(b) and (c) of
the Subdivision Map Act,and the Tentative Map is disapproved on that ground.
Section 9: Finally, City Council finds and determines that, as a result of the above-mentioned
legal insufficiencies in the pending application, City Council cannot make the
required findings concerning the impact of the subdivision on the housing needs of
the region, how to balance these needs against the needs of the affected residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources, and whether the approval of the
subdivision is otherwise most consistent with the City's obligations pursuant to its
police powers to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and the Tentative
Map is disapproved on that ground.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council
hereby disapproves Tentative Tract Map No. 28087.
ADOPTED this day of 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Manager City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
9s417 m a07/11100 -4-
31 ,43