The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Resolution _6318- Case 5.1282 5.1283RESOLUTION NO, 6318 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES THAT THE APPELLANTS' USES AT 1590 EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE AND 1425 VIA SOLEDAD ARE NOT HOTELS, BUT RATHER ARE SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY CENTERS / ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES. WHEREAS, on April 12, 2012, the applicanttappellant was notified in writing by the Department of Building and Safety / Code Enforcement that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required at two facilities owned and operated by the applicant, and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2012 the applicant/appellant was served a Courtesy Notice by certified mail notifying them that they were in violation of the City's Municipal Code by operating the substance abuse recovery centers / assisted living facilities at the subject addresses without approval of Conditional Use Permits. WHEREAS, on June 24, 2012, the applicant/appellant submitted CUP applications for both properties requesting approval to operate them as substance abuse recovery centers / assisted living facilities, and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012, the City received correspondence from the appellant's attorney notifying the City that the applicant was withdrawing their CUP applications and asserting that the two properties were being operated as hotels, not substance abuse recovery centers / assisted living facilities, and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2012, the Planning Director made a determination pursuant to section 91.00.08 (B) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) that the appellant's current uses at 1590 East Palm Canyon Drive and 1425 Via Soledad are not hotels, but rather are substance abuse recovery centers / assisted living facilities and require approval of Conditional Use Permits from the Planning Commission in order to continue to operate, and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2012, the appellant, Ken Seeley of Intervention 911, filed an appeal of the Planning Director's determination; and WHEREAS, Sections 91.00.08 (B) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code allows decisions by the Director of Planning Services to be appealed to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public review of the appeal request, including all of the evidence presented in connection with the matter, including, but not limited to, the staff report prepared on the matter, and all Resolution No. 6318 February 13, 2013 Case No. 5.1282 / 5.1283 0 written and oral testimony presented, and whereas the matter was continued to a date certain of January 23, 2013, at which time it was again continued to a date certain of February 13, 2013, and WHEREAS, at it regularly scheduled meeting of February 13, 2013, the Planning Commission considered all of the evidence in connection with the matter, including, but not limited to, the staff report prepared on the matter, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the determination by the Director of Planning was justified based on the following: The Planning Director's determinations were based on many factors, including the applicant 1 appellant's conditional use permit application, marketing brochures, information on the appellant's website, and meetings with the appellant at the time they received their Building Department I Code Compliance Courtesy Notice. The appellants' marketing materials describe a facility for customers to seek treatment from substance abuse, and to learn various life skills to aid in re-entering the workplace, among other things. The determination was supported by review of facts, and the legal authority of the Planning Director to make such determinations is established in the City's Zoning Code. 2. The Director's determination did not violate state or federal fair housing law nor was his decision in conflict with the City's General Plan. The City permits assisted living facilities in many zones subject to a conditional use permit. Furthermore, pursuant to the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) Section 92.03.01 and 92.04.01(Uses Permitted in the R-2 and R-3 zones) the city also allows hotels with less than 10% of the rooms having cooking facilities to be permitted "by right" in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Furthermore, hotels in which more than 10% of the rooms contain kitchens (which are the case for both of these properties) are permitted in both zones subject to a CUP. The Planning Commission has determined that no fair housing laws were violated by the Planning Director in making his determination. 3. The General Plan land use designation for both parcels is Tourist Resort Commercial. This land use designation notes that the primary use should be that of hotel and tourist -related uses. Residential uses are to be a secondary use ancillary to the hotel uses. Both hotels with more than 10% of the rooms containing kitchens and assisted living facilities are conditionally permitted in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Thus, the Planning Director's determination was not in conflict with the City's General Plan. 0 Resolution No. 6318 Case No. 5.128215.1283 February 13, 2013 4. The Planning Director determination was not discriminatory nor was it bad social policy. The Planning Director's determination was based upon review of all the information available at the time, that the proposed use was not a hotel, but rather a substance abuse recovery center 1 assisted living facility. These facilities are permitted in many multiple family residential zones throughout the City of Palm Springs subject to a CUP. Sober living facilities are not defined in the PSZC nor are they listed as a permitted use in any zone in Palm Springs. The State of California regulations protect the establishment of sober living facilities of six beds or less in residential zones and encourages cities and counties to permit operators to establish such facilities as a means of integrating this population back into the community at large. Neither of the subject properties fall under the regulatory guidelines of the State for sober living facilities of six beds or less: the Palm Tee facility is proposed to have 32 patient beds and the Alexander is proposed to have 17 patient beds. 5. The director identified appropriate sections of the zoning code in making his determination. PSZC Section 91.00.08(B) "Conflicting or Ambiguous Provisions". This section states that "where there may be conflicting or ambiguous provisions within this zoning code, the director of planning and building, or his authorized representative, shall determine the applicability of such provisions." The appellant has asserted that their proposed use at the two sites are "hotels", however based on the material presented by the appellant, the director has determined them to be substance abuse recovery centers, which are classified in Palm Springs as "assisted living facilities". The Planning Commission believes this is an appropriate application of the relevant provisions of the Zoning Code. 6. The uses at the two sites are not hotels. The appellants' CUP application, states, "We would like the CUP application to allow for and include the following. Onsite therapy (individual and group), Life Skills classes, 92-step meetings, nursing or doctor assisted medication management and services that would be found at a drug and alcohol treatment center". From these statements, the Planning Commission has concluded that assisted living services are indeed being offered, thus the facilities are not being operated as "hotels". 7. Financial burden was not a factor that the director used in making the determination that the proposed uses are not "hotels". The "financial burden" or conducting due diligence of the viability of a "business model" or of adapting any site to a particular proposed use, is solely the responsibility of applicants and business owners. "Financial viability" is not a finding or requirement of approval, nor was it a factor used in the Planning Directors' determination that the uses at the two sites are not hotels. Resolution No. 6318 February 13, 2013 Case No. 5.1282 / 5.1283 0 8. The subject properties are not providing affordable housing for the community. The appellant's brochure notes that the monthly rate for a "shared occupancy room" is $2,800 per month per patient. Thus a typical room with two beds may rent for roughly $5,600 per month. Pursuant to Table 3-8 of the City's Housing Element in the General Plan (which was updated in 2010); maximum affordable rents for extremely low to moderate income households is between $500 and $1,860 per month in Palm Springs. The monthly rate for the subject properties well exceeds the typical monthly rental for affordable housing. In comparison, the average rate for a monthly hotel stay in Palm Springs is roughly $116 per night or about $3,480 per month; thus the subject properties also generate income greater than the average 30-day hotel stay in Palm Springs. The Commission does not believe the subject properties are providing affordable housing for the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby rejects the appeal and upholds the determination of the Director of Planning Services that the appellant's uses at 1590 East Palm Canyon Drive and 1425 Via Soledad are not hotels, but rather are substance abuse recovery centers / assisted living facilities requiring the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission to operate. ADOPTED this 13" day of February 2013. AYES: 6, Roberts, Weremiuk, Munger, Klatchko, Vice Chair Hudson and Chair Donenfeld NOES: 1, Calerdine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: i� Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA X