HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/4/2003 - STAFF REPORTS (19) DATE: June 4, 2003
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FINAL MAP NO, 28087
RECOMMENDATION-
It is recommended that the City Council approve Final Map No. 28087 for Calvada
Surveying, Inc., representing El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd.,a California Limited Partnership,
to convert the El Dorado Mobile Country Club to condominium ownership, located at 6000
E. Palm Canyon Drive, in Section 29, T 4 S, R 5 E.
SUMMARY:
Calvada Surveying, Inc., representing El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd., a California Limited
Partnership, has prepared a one lot Tract map for subdivision for condominium purposes
of the El Dorado Mobile Country Club located at 6000 E. Palm Canyon Drive, in Section 29,
T4S, R5E,
BACKGROUND:
Calvada Surveying, Inc., representing El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd., a California Limited
Partnership, has prepared a one lot Tract map for subdivision for condominium purposes
of the El Dorado Mobile Country Club located at 6000 E. Palm Canyon Drive, in Section 29,
T4S, R5E.
At its meeting of May 10, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 28087,which was subsequently approved by the City Council,
subject to conditions, on August 2, 2000. However, that conditional approval was objected
to by the applicant,who filed suit in the Riverside County Superior Court. Following lengthy
appellate proceedings, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District, Division 2,
concluded that the City Council lacked authority to impose the conditions of approval
objected to by the applicant. A second hearing before the City Council was held on
September 4, 2002, whereby findings consistent with the ruling from the Court of Appeals
were made.
The Final Map will convert from rental occupation to resident condominium ownership the
377 existing mobile home spaces within the El Dorado Mobile Country Club. The specifics
on conversion of the rental spaces to individual condominium ownership and measures to
avoid economic displacement for non-purchasing tenants are contained in Sections 66427.5
of the Subdivision Map Act. Other conditions of approval relating to on and off-site
improvements and noticing of tenants with regard to approval of the Final Map have been
complied with by the applicant.
18 H
Final Map No. 28087
June 4, 2003
Page 2
It has been determined thatthe requisite conditions relating to approval of a Final Map for
Tentative Tract Map 28087 have been satisfied, that Final Map No. 28087 is in substantial
conformance with the approved Tentative Tract Map, and that Final Map No.28087 is ready
for City Council approval.
SUBMITTED: 01r
DAVI❑ J. BARAKIAN
Director of Public Works, City Engineer
APPROVED: �� t 0N41
D tD H. EA
i Manag r
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Map
3. Subdivision Agreement
Law Office of Wiliam J. Constantine
303 Potrero,Building#29, Suite 104
Santa Cruz, 9506 4201(831)420- 23838
Fax: (831)480-5934 n n
June 3, 2003
William W. Wynder & City of Palm. Springs Sent via fax to: 949-113-1180
Aleshire &Wynder, LLP
Tower 17, 18881 Von Karmen Ave, Suite 400
Irvine, California 92612
Re: The Park Owner's Appraisal Is Fatally Flawed
Dear Mr. Wynder:
I understand from you that the City's appraiser,Mr. Brabant, has act been able to get back to you
with his critique of the Park owner's PGP Inc.'s appraisal because he is on vacation. However, I have
no doubt that when he is able to communicate it to you that it will be that the Park owner's PGP
Valuation Inc. appraisal is fatally flawed as I will briefly explain below.
The park owner's appraisal uses a variation of the Richardson thr:ory that Mr. Brabant was able
to tear to shreds in the Cotati case that I sent to you earlier. That variation claims that all the value in
the sale of mobilehomes, above their bluebook,values, in rent-controlled mobilehome parks is derived
from the value of the space which is kept low by rent controls. The PGF appraisal has now attempted to
boldly apply this discredited theory to the non-rent controlled ROP park s that it used as its comparables
by claiming that empty lots' values can be derived by subtracting mobilehomes' blue book values, and
$6,000.00 in rough set up costs, from the sales prices of any park's already in place mobilehomes that
are sold with their lots. The fatal fallacy to this method is that the figurF.s simply don't add up. One
reason for this a person who purchases an empty lot cannot achieve a livable and sellable mobilehome
for the cost of a mobilehome's blue book value and $6,000.00 in set up (costs. One very clear reason for
this is that the full cost to completely set up a mobilehome is, on the awe rage from $25,000.00 to
$45,000.00, not just the $6,000.00 in "rough" set up costs that the PGP ;:ppraisal uses. The PGP
appraisers are certainly aware of this so their appraisal is a sham. I am claclosing the sworn declaration
of the manager of a mobileholne dealership that testifies to the true cost., of fully setting up a
mobilehome. Further, in addition to the full initial set up costs, that are ,xplaitied in Ms. Mecham's
Declaration, almost all mobilehome owners also later perform significant renovations on their
mobilehomes that add to their mobilehomes' values.
What this means, is that a buyer who is looking at an in-place mobilehome and lot combination
that sells for, as an example, $150,000, and then pays $60,000 to $70,000.00 for the exact equal value
empty lot next-door, is not going to be able to achieve that same mobilehome/lot combination value by
simply purchasing an equal blue book value mobilehome (i.e., for$30,00) and then spending only
$6,000.00 in rough set up costs in placing it. Instead,they will have to spend the full sat up costs, of
$25,000 to $45,000.00, in completing the set up and onsite construction and improvements to that
mobilehome,plus $5,000.00 and up to the dealer,plus the costs of whaiave:r additional later renovations
that his neighbor did to that$150,000.00 mobilehome/lot compination. It is ludicrous to claim that this
can all be achieved for$6,000.00,
William W. Wynder c& City of Palm Springs
June 3, 2003
page 4 2
This is one of the reasons that if you look at the PGP's lot values derived from their residue
method and then look at the actual sales prices from the actual sales of m;ighboring empty lots those
figures do not match.
Looking at the Park owner's appraisal's residue calculations and .lata from one of its comparison
mobilehome parks that it used (Palm Desert Greens) demonstrates the fa:al flaw in the PCP's residue
method that undervalues the value of a fully set up and improved mobile 4ome, as I will show below.
The Park owner's appraisal lists only one empty lot sold in 2002 u Palm Desert Greens (73736
Desert Greens for$75,000 on 3121102) and two additional lots in 1999-2001 (39403 Ciega Creek Drive
for $47,700 on 4127199 and 39286 Manzanita Drive for $78,000 on 9/2Z "00).
Thus, the average price that these empty lots actually sold for, as shown in the in the Park owner's own
appraisal is $66,900. However, the Park owner's residue method claims that the average empty lot
should sell for nearly twice this amount at$120,000.00, Even if we look at only the highest of the
three actual sales (39286 Manzanita Drive for $78,000 on 9122100) the park owner's residue method's
average lot price still exceeds it by 54%.
Even more telling is the more direct comparison of the lot values that the park owner's residue
method claims for the sales of the homes in Pahn Desert Greens that are the nearest in proximity to the
above$78,000 actual lot (39286Manzanita Drive) sale. The park own%:is residue method claims that
these four neighboring lots, all located at Manzanita, have an empty lot �ralue of$124,000, even though
their neighboring empty lot at 39286 Manzanita Drive only was able to actually sell for$46,000.00
under that amount at $78,000.00 even when it was the, rare and highly valued, only empty lot that was
available for purchase that year. Thus, the park owner's residue approa,:h has overpriced price those
four lots, on, average, by more than 58%.
Further, the Brabant appraisal lists an additional empty lot sellinl; in 2002 in Palm Desert Greens
(72957 Cabazon Peak that had been listed for $97,500 but only sold for $88,000 on 8102) which it
describes as an oversized mernium lot because it is a 5,662 square foot:of that can accommodate a
triple wide mobile home with a garage and because it is located on a en-de-sac backing to a green belt
area. In comparison, the Park owner's residual method not only claim:, that the average price of a lot
should be $120,000 in Palm Desert Greens but also that the comparable lot price of near by home-sale,
that occurred a few doors down (at 73461 Cabazon) should be $113,00 0 and that premium lots (of the
top 20%most expensive home sales in Palm Desert Greens) should sell for an average lot price of
$171,000. Thus, the park owner's residue appraisal falls apart when it .s compared to the real world
where even a premium oversized lot in Palm Desert Greens, in 2002, is only able to be sold for
$88,000.00 even though it is not only an extremely desirable "oversized premium" lot but was also the
only empty lot that was available for sale in the entire park at that time.
Thus, the PGP appraisal is clearly a sham.
Yours very truly,
4
William. Constantine
c: clients
1 1, Vickie Mechem, hereby, declare as follows:
2 1. 1 have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration except as to
3 those facts stated upon in.formatioti and belief and, as to tnosc,. matters. I believe them to be
4 true. If called 'upon,to testify, 1 could and -a ould tesdf.v to the matters contained herein,
5 2. 1 am a licensed local manufactured homes sales agent and I am employed by
6 Evans and O'Brien Manufactured Homes where I manage their Soquel, California office,
7 3. Most of my employment involves he placement, set up, and resale of new
S manufactured homes (i.e.,mobilehomes) on mobilehome lots. Over the past ten years 1
9 have supervised the placement, setup and resale of hundreds of such new Manufactured
10 homes so Tani very familiar with the actual costs of transporting and setting up a
l l mobilehome on a mobilehome lot and the cost of the additional on site construction, and
12 related costs, that is then needed to bring such abase mobilehome into a sellable and
13 habitable condition.
14 4. 1 have been told that an appraisal prepared by PGP Valuation Inc. has used a
15 "setup" cost figure of$6,000.00 which it then adds to the "book value" of a mobilehome to
16 calculate the value of an already ln.place mobilehome for determining the residue value of
17 that mobilehonre's lot after the mobilehotne's value is subtracted from it. 1 have been asked
18 to offer my opinion as to whether or not a $6.000.00 set up cost - Figure accurately reflects
19 the true complete costs of the set up and additional on site construction costs of setting up a
20 base mobilehome•and preparing them into sellable and habitable condition. Based on my
21 experience in placing and setting up several hundred su.,b mobileho nes, the PGP Valuation
22 Inc.'s $6,000.00 estimate of the set up and onsite, construction costs of a base mobilehome
23 are grossly understated.
24 5. The primary reason for this is that the."set up" cost of a mobilehome, whieb
25 'usually run $6,000.00 to $7,000.00. is only a small fraction of the $25,000,00 to $45,000.00
26 in total transportation, set up and on site constriction and improvement expenses that are
27 required to place, set up, and do the nccessary construction of other improvements to a base
28 mobilehome that are, at minimu.... required to make it sellable and inhabitable in its
Declaration of Vickie M'eebe I
1 mobileliorne space,
2 6. In our industry, the $6,000.00 "set up" costs, that the PGP appraisal must be
9 referring to, only includes the rough setup of a rnobile.home (aka a manufactured home)
4 onto its space wb.ich includes only the fast phase of its setup. However, to fully bring a
5 mobilehome into a sellable and inhabitable condition, regt.ires additional substantial on-site
6 construction and other related expenditures. Tlxese include transportation of the base
7 mobilehome to its lot($1,400 to 8 to 9 thousand dollars),the construction of the
8 mobilehome's decks, steps, awning and.augers ($6,000.00 015,000.00), interior tape and
9 texturing ($1000.00 to $2 ,500,00) painting, tile grouting,and in a and finishing ($2000.00
10 to $4000.00), carpeting ($500.00 to$1,500.00)7 lot cleanup ($1,000.00 to $4,000.00),
11 landscaping ($1,000.00 to $4.000.00), gutters ($500.00), the construction of the
12 mobilehome's sheds and related structures ($500.00 to S2,000.00), the construction of the
13 mobilehome's driveway($1,000 to $2,000), the construction of the mobilehome's carport or
14 garage ($1,500 to $15,00.00), and goverrnnent and escro,vfees ($300.00 to $1,000.00),
15 sales tax ($3,000 to $4,000.00) . Thus, in addition to the base cost or book value cost of a
16 mobilehome, a homeowner would also be required to expend these substantial construction
17 and related costs to place that mobilehome on an empty lot and brine it up to the same.
18 habitable condition as an equivalent, already in-place, mobilehome, such as those that form
19 the database of the PGP appraisal.
2.0 7. Additionally, it is almost unheard-of that a mobilehome owner will
21 independently purchase a mobilehome wholesale from a factory and set it up themselves.
22 Instead, mobilehome owners,purchase their mobilehomes from mobilehome dealers who
23 r gust make a profit from the sale and installation of these mobilehomes and that profit
24 margin is charged to the.homeowner. This additional charge.ranges from $5,000,00 to
25 $25,000. Thus, excluding the cost of thee empty lot, a mobilehome with a dealer's base cost,
26 or whole sale cost, of S50,000.00 will cost the mobilehome owner the additional cost of
27 S257000.00 to $45,000.00 in additional on-site construction and related costs to complete its
28 installation and a minimurn dealer's profit of 5.000.00 and up. This means that if a buyer is
I comparing the purchase of an already in- place mobilehome/lot combination O,c. with a fair
2 rncn'ker value of$150,U00,00 for that lotl'n2ubilelzonre corrzbiruttiara and a bouk value of
3 555,000.00 on the inobdehoniq) ta'itb the purchase of an equivalent enipry lot, in which they
4 want to place a mobilehome of equal value,they are only going to be willing to pay
5 $60,000.00 to $75,000.00 for the empty lot because it is going to cost them an additional
6 $25,000.00 to $45,000.00, in addition to the$35,000.00 book value of the mobilehorne., to
7 have the complete installation of that mobilehome finished. For this reason, all of the
8 residual lot values in the PGP appraisal have been over stated because they calculate only a
9 small fraction of the true set up and ensite constnwtion costs of a mobilehome.
10 1 declaree under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct and is executed
11 on in_ ; California..
12
Vickie Zvlechern
13
14
15
16
17
X8
19
20
21
22
23
24
21
26
27
28
Declaration of Vin2-i- M h n
JWN 02 2000 11 : 38AM 831 -409-9612 F. 1
6 A qLO 3
Law Office of William J. Constantine
303 Potrero, Building 429, Suite!
,1U8
Santa Cruz,California 9506
(831)420-1238 rUY
Fax: (831) 480-5934
June 2, 2003
William W. Wynder & City of Palm Springs Sent via fax to: 949-223-1180
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Tower 17, 18881 Von Karmen Ave, Suite 400
Irvine, California 92612
i
Re: The Failure To Disclose the Market Rents
Dear Mr. Wynder:
I am writing in reply to Mr. Colbert's May 29, 2003 —response to my May 23, 2003 —letter
to you on the above issue. Mr. Colbert's May 29, 2003-letter is incorrect.
First, Mr. Colbert continues to falsely insist that a homeowner has the unconditional
freedom to get out of the Sales Contracts that the park owner sent out with the Conditional
Public Report. This is simply not true. A homeowner can!only get out of one of these Sales
Contracts only if their dissatisfaction with the Final Public Report is based on a material
change in it from the material terms of the Conditional Public Report. If there is no
material change then they cannot get out of it without suffering the penalty of losing all the
money that they advanced the parkowner. Mr. Colbert has very selectively cited only one
paragraph of the Sales Contracts that gives a homeowner 15 days to review various
documents and to terminate their sales contract if the homeowner disapproves of the
documents (para. #2(iii) of Sale 's Contract). However, he selectively fails to mention that
a homeowner can only receive their deposit, and any other monies that they have advanced,
back if they terminate the sales contract based on a material change in the Final Public
Report, as paragraph B of the Sales Contract (in large hold letters on the front page of the
Sales Contract) clearly states:
"13. IF UPON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL PUBLIC REPORT, THERE IS A
MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE SETUP OF THE OFFERING, THEN YOU
ARE ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF ANY DEPOSIT FUNDS YOU HAVE
PROVIDED."
Paragraph C on page 3 of the Conditional Subdivision PublicReport also clearly
states this:
"PROVISION IS MADE IN THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT/ CO1`1TRACT AND
JUN 02 2000 11 : 30AM 891 -469-9612 p . 2
William W. Wynder & City of Palm Springs
June 1, 2003
Page ' 2
ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE RETURN!TO YOU OF THE ENTIRE
SUM OF MONEY PAID OR ADVANCED BY YOU IF YOU ARE
DISSATISFIED WITH THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PUBLIC REPORT
BECAUSE OF A MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE SET UP OF THE
OFFERING (REFER TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION
11012).
The Receipt for Public Report or California Permit (copy also attached) that the park owner
distributed along with the Conditional Public Report and t!le Sales Contract also clearly
states this in its third paragraph:
" In the case of a conditional public report or permit, delivery of legal title or other
interest contracted for will not take place until issuance of a final public report or
permit. Provision is made in the sales agreement and escrow instructions for the
return to you of the entire sum of money paid or advanced by you if you are
dissatisfied with the final public report or permit b&cause of a material change."
Further, the last paragraph on page 3 of the Conditional Nblic Report also clearly warns
buyers that it allows the subdivider to enter into binding contracts with them:
"THIS IS A CONDITIONAL PUBLIC REPORT (WHICH ALLOWS THE
SUBDIVIDER TO ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT WITH YOU,
SUBJECT TO YOUR RECEIPT, EXAMINATIOIy, AND ACCEPTANCE OF A
FINAL REPORT WITHIN THE TIME INDICATED IN YOUR PURCHASE
AGREEMENT/CONTRACT."
Thus, the Sales Contracts, that the park owner issued under the Conditional Public Report,
are very similar to other real estate contracts in that they aue binding absent certain
conditions (here, the only condition being a material I change jn the Final Public Report from
the Conditional Report) and the remedy for the seller is the same, that they get to keep all
monies advanced by the buyer under the Sales Contract if the buyer decides to terminate
their agreement without first demonstrating that their termination is based on their being a
material change in the Final Public Report.
More importantly, Mr. Colbert is also wrong on the law. �tthough I will not repeat my full
argument from my May 23, 2003-letter again here, the Court of Appeal's Decision in El
Dorado Palm Springs vs. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 made it very
clear that lot prices and proposed market rents had to be disclosed together to enable a
homeowner to make a rational choice to buy or to rent and that the lot prices had to be
disclosed prior to the filing of the Notice of Intention to S611 with the DRE (Id. at 1180).
JUN 02 2000 11 : 39FM 931 -469-9612 p . 3
William W. Wynder & City of Palm Springs
June 1, 2003
page 4 3
Any voluntary agreement by the Park owner. to not raise the rents until 50 lots are sold,
does not change this because the park owner is still required to disclose the proposed
market rents at the same time he discloses the lot prices so' the homeowners have this
information to make their rational choices to buy or continue to rent at this earlier time
when they are asked to enter into binding contracts to purchase their lots.
Since Government Code Section 66427.5 requires the park owner to set the proposed rents
through an "appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional
appraisal standards." the park owner cannot go forward with this conversion unless he now
discloses proposed market rents that are so based on such a qualified appraisal.
Accordingly, Mr. Colbert has not refuted anything in my N4ay 23, 2003-letter and the park
owner should be required to now comply with the law by disclosing proposed rents that are
based on a legitimate appraisal. His refusal to do so is another indication that this is really
a sham conversion.
Accordingly, the City should not approve the Final Map unless the park owner complies
with the condition that the proposed rents be disclosed since he now has a Public Report
from the DRE that allows him to enter into binding contrasts with the residents of El
Dorado for the purchase of their lots.
Yours very truly,
Williamitstntiney.+!' F'
c: clients
enclosures
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCILOFTHE CITYOF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL MAP NO. 28087
CONVERTING THE EL DORADO MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB
TO CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP, LOCATED AT 6000 E.
PALM CANYON DRIVE, IN SECTION 29, T 4 S, R 5 E
WHEREAS the Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 10, 2000, recommended
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 requested by Calvada Surveying, Inc.,
representing El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, for the above
described property, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS the City Council at its meeting of August 2, 2000, approved Tentative Tract Map
No. 28087 subject to conditions, which was subsequently reconsidered by the City Council
on September 4, 2002, pursuant to direction given by the Court of Appeals.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs as
follows:
1. That Final Map No. 28087 is in substantial conformance with approved Tentative
Tract Map No. 28087; and
2. That requisite conditions associated with Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 relating to
approval of a Final Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 have been satisfied;and
3. That Final Map No. 28087 is in conformance with the General Plan; and
4. That Final Map No. 28087 conforms to all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act
of the State of California; and
5. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement with the subdivider and to accept subdivision improvement security in
conformance with the requirements therein for setting of map monumentation; and
6. That Final Map No. 28087 is hereby approved for purposes therein defined.
ADOPTED this day of , 20
AYES,
NOES.
ABSENT-
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED &APPROVED AS TO FORM.
{L IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COUNTY OF RIVfRS'I0E STATE OF GUF➢RNIA SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
TRACT MAP NO. 28087
BEING A SUBDAISr0N OF= IQ d JI AND PORM7I W LOM !f d JZ
IN SECTION 29. rJS.. REf,, $➢.➢AM AS SHOWN ON MAP OF PAW VA(LCY
COLONY LARDS, ON RZE IN HOOK /+PACE 632 A'£COROS O/
DAN O1((q CIDUNTY, VrATE Or GIIR]RNM
[iAvu of Ef�weLoe CALVAOA SURVEYING INC., OECEMBER 2002
DER1KD mom IM,[AST LIML OF SECTION 29 AS 70M ON FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES Fu 2.1P
ACCORD or 111(9.1)Y6/SY TAUN AS NOMYbo"-L TAMM L S 1J//Ov 1➢G� ya-
0 200 RISC 400 50C 600 PER 25 56�"R M£. G1P. F ry
F EERFL9�T� _ ^• SEC 29, r./S, S£. ¢® IN01(Y.IE$FWNO PON11mENi5/5 NOTED SCALE" 1' - 200' Fp$:1?'h'EH GVS AEr l0.lQ �'4•y`J
0 NO fA1CD ECi 1'IRON PIPE x11111A311t ttuG DiAMPEO aDBW GFF ACnwvAL L1H E' C
RCE 3OAA6 FIa6H UN1,E550MER1rv5E NOIEO OM. a20'"NOr ALY ="AS
M vIrfr L0G nlw ^
(1 xDWIS 11MR0 DATA ' CORNER Ly Lor/fl nTs uN£ j h h A
TOTAL[MSS ARIA 5069 ACRES AAWN Ip dW➢/ RCPLnfLO 1 a?" `�+ Z12 v
5tiE 20 1 FOR EASNENT DCSCRIPTIDNS WN 1'LP&FEUC STANP£D ,/ ;� -
BOLERO 0- ROAD RCEJCB46 .E-y
J_Tw__!A'69Yr})"W IM6_T/'_RE Ml/ )' —=57--1 -�. NBs5nJ0'N lJ$JJ' (N%•Ao•1 'w y, y
T - r / a d -IJZS-0G'RS Sn/EyJ
i' C 8ja2z,(0JRQO R£56/U) --i9T� �j
' l !L_5o (99R 66'RS Sd/5YJ
F➢ Z"BRCWZ£d5X STAMP£➢(ROT 1994) �ARCJVEO FlBy NOTpw
f.A-5-Fa 12DARCPS nR PER NS £STASV DSANCEASLCPCY✓ i /Qd SS•
in &Y.WAL PG la O' /1/ZfAr R, I I'RFD M DISTANCE MflWJl
AOfWALN ON.ASO'fYW C 1/4 LCW., FIN/NO NCiWN£Nu - - �'Fr !/6ROr k,5 y6p5J1
P(R RE 56�5.f MR a161R-RT I fA J/I (P. rACrl➢
F,1 LEAD J TAB-LSAT]/"M=S002) y ,y_ '/'- --J- N Rff IuU2 AN O20
P£R RE 561r5
../ I!B 21-LAsrA6CN�0LIANC E L,J w l PvO G/L "
_ /n J/-- rAF-
H ... _ &aT➢'Naew wACntu 5 1 �RCC lldll ON 015'
a LYYE LI�PAATYL I.M OM// .yJ _ RW]OZ]"W /h" 1 RuR BE M1,5
Ca (OFC TOOT/,RrACFO Wn/ 7,
NSI RGE.FAAME^CI AT J I,
A 2,�.` SIR CLl{:PHPCLY!
IJ ILJI
J.J,, O E5, r r oErnlL 'H" w„ a I�
� �JJ 17 � t
; N&JZJ`11"_u• 6 4R � N ly V y5n -,
r• 4F/J2T9Y ��� .T o � I I I
I�Ir�II / I
�� TqT I For II�
W K
JONES ROAd I 1 so so.lcrrrs 3 r
(mesas}T-W lJaEJS;RD,w/E,%
N[TZ,YarIV (NB6"16 vZw/J2d'l PMB ILklr'J9-99 r l _ N IJ�� U _ �•ir{ w
-- ---
,var rysTor PNe' W e av +n=�- _ _ ram _
(SST fi'PM.9 1 tt
FA JI"IP TA= FO ZA, /✓O rA6 rM IDS Ad-99) / '1 Y N j 6 �1 IL
LSI!{B FCVJ/NO REF. 'Lf 0`2 4
ACCFPIFO AS EW C.14. TAGGED L:n}I}B(IM'A5o'J PER �v, I PMB I -99 i y0 r N 5
LOrZ RE 36AS, CI(/9O 5£ TAC N � / t� O R � qp j D
N k.CE JOIN6" 1 _I• Tj a Y4 ; u 9 u} y9
y �I W j DETAIL ""- J T 1 y?y
STAMPED
$N �l V n $ 3 .° J r_—�-�
xy .I� �q '�' nln'C� vi N
ESC FA VA'AIr9_f w LIN 0.`ll
S M1' 1 R lP !Z LW IN NCIL F
PER l' r2-Dv,ilIN h
a� til� ?J JV J2
��� ai L�ErAIL n_ a�� �'•"qTF%ram �� � 1 IIL� x�v`; 1 ! 1 ` i� � �„'�
rc 1 81 Sc.I.e• .�_ �sd, •E. "NrJ'�r..'$+'�°�y r t~ •��-"III—u' y� "+"' 1 !D• j� q
O JI
oAe.�a`�@�d'�$ r`'�.Gr_
/ + r• I Yl `�
Na,
�m �; +'Ila J3. l;yrr. � II 4r'�•;�a•�R1 s'J.` ��( � W i � ". pETAIL 7' ; �qz
Pa 7///�+�A PLIPPSI SI R�•O£➢IG n0N /NSSJI
S IV Cpa NB9s13YE ,y Frl.£RsrOE COUNrf PFR 19Af14 LOT'A" 1 I)n' 89 23
�mT]a IA6T Aa }6122 REr➢S blP Acn66 7 / P
_ _Al s. x a••P' �7'
(iJ]r Sc_RS JY/.-tiJ ..rp •4 nxu _ ,0=or' _
IJ31] (A9ASA'R MIMijl ~Qa
OLTiIIL 2_ ..•� 11EF6OY '�'
� rJST]Y p (r]]uC Rs 56/S.S) ___ q64�
NB951JY (N69'ES0R'F 556112' RE 55/SS) C/pl. 602"1P LV OF ZF%. 32 rOq y4
SfARdI/,p fiX/M1p NOIHINC JI"I# M.iE[L MW $EAR(llf0 F0.1JN➢N01Hm /U FI.•a h
EYTABLJSYF➢OY wDWCECRW PER PRO.JB/B6-0 ESTABLIAI£O Sr MIENSEM N
l ❑LWE TAE,E
1/M LWbn, pµMm. {mf /fALTN REARMOLuti vE' TwB/-£
F NSiA MIND 1 TIIM SC0155TW N NOD yln'fow[ NRf RAOws .we4f, o/Nu' /e!at/: .w4C LCN6ll
" 1695] SOOHO'10'E PS IIPW Auvn,iT, I ]000o SCIlo00" 10172 9 11650 MULES 6,Y"
y ARNa 2 MIR o/ T42JG 119.9T 10 I3000 MU525" 789E
] 41660 595'AO'IBF TL IEibl 309]0 0 I�
'F` 1 ] 3J1601 JHS]T IA9.9P 11 a300 ]l5l'09' TJBI \El
/ay 1160 EX7557-W Tl no JSPHP5Rr
/ 0A00 MHS JO- 8556 IS I500 LOC�Si 1600
J30 NBOHO'IBW--Ti- 1,v61 ,C"P]n nF
6 19500 5007-- T 5 w'9v9.PY[ A 16113 JISa S/- 9161 IJ i3.W' TTiW'O6- 4l0 '
IRP al An l a1i00' SW]33TN S1 R NA'u 6 IRS l9 lOV9T5 556P' W 9A00'
a P B lSl nT SOOY55lW JI IJOR W9w u' l 116.50 ]OG9Ti 61]4 IS 9A00
m PAL N py a NNAH �N1 9 IDS 30' S50'f0'!OF Tl ,J9/0 M9'J9J6> '
A_o JOG,T3- 61 JS'
H N l0 ISW SQOH01aF u zSr W A ,;,/w ry DETAIL 7"
L If 12A06 56875Z0T JI "" N0931J7 v
p $ CFRA1,0 FORD OR n la 122.a 590^5W-£ JS I29.6 S07J52-W 6Gtf1 I Sao lk3T LrNF O`1!/F FAST]0 ACFFS
3 @ I 1 LA}I/COPAL U T11M 1J,723O7 J6 1SS07 N59G6 TW (F tou 0a J2 OER RS
t IY
p ,16W x55']l]0-v Sl IISI] N29'S22O7 Ue LOrm,
�+' SrTr% ° ftl F.RO nA / CITM Z IS r,54 ASfITJO'11 M 11T6 NB9GOSIW FE 56�5 (" ALRE6
RdLY 1tl 12d5o x00v0'W'E ]9 ITA11 NSOY6'16Z u1�fR s99yl'IOE
GHIDy y k} r) 111m NOO'f0'OOT 10 JI 00 NOoea'Jre
ioCx1-2' U tl5)ti SB951 J11V IB710 ' I
TReLIIry M¢R ,P w o'm'rome a floc soove a]F m uuoD' "
1 / li�Pryw "' ril:o NBJfI'JlZ NB951 S12 002 B}' 111
I n is 22 D"O 'uP]o l — �cnm'JJ" BJ,/T'rp JW 1
� - C(lk LO)]I 501/n/ClN£SECTION a$ L4£, R5E
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN
PORTIONS OF LOTS 7 AND 8 OF TRACT
NO. 17642-1 IN THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of the City of
Palm Springs, California, that a Lot Line Adjustment between portions of Lots 7 and 8 of
Tract No. 17642-1 in the City of Palm Springs, owned by the Community Redevelopment
Agency, in a form acceptable to the Agency Counsel, is approved.
ADOPTED this day of June 2003.
AYES:
NOES.
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By
Assistant Secretary Chairman
REVIEWED AND APPROVED