HomeMy WebLinkAbout23320 RESOLUTION NO. 23320
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL
OF KEN SEELEY OF INTERVENTION 911 AND
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO UPHOLD A DETERMINATION MADE BY
THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES THAT USES
AT 1590 EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE AND 1425 VIA
SOLEDAD ARE NOT HOTELS. (CASES 5.1282 / 5.1283)
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2012, the applicant/appellant 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
Resolution No. 23320
Page 2
connection with the matter, including, but not limited to, the staff report prepared on the
matter, and all written and oral testimony presented, and whereas the matter was
continued to a date certain of January 23, 2013; and
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the decision by the Planning Commission to uphold the
determination of Director of Planning was justified based on the following:
1. The Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Planning Director's
determinations were based on many factors, including the applicant / 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 / 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 Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Planning Director's
determination did not violate state or federal fair housing law nor was their
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 is the case for both of these properties) are
permitted in both zones subject to a CUP. The City Council upholds the
Planning Commission's determination 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 Commission's decision upholding the
Planning Director's determination was not in conflict with the City's General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Planning Director's
determination was not discriminatory nor was it bad social policy. The Planning
Resolution No. 23320
Page 3
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 / 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, including 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 its proposed use at the two
sites are "hotels;" however, based on the material presented by the appellant,
the director has determined the uses to be substance abuse recovery centers,
which are classified in Palm Springs as "assisted living facilities". The City
Council upholds the decision of the Planning Commission in determining that the
Director made 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, 12-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 City Council
upholds the decision of the Planning Commission in concluding that the facilities
are not being operated as "hotels".
7. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's determination that 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.23320
Page 4
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 $115 per
night or about $3,450 per month; thus the subject properties also generate
income greater than the average 30-day hotel stay in Palm Springs. The City
Council does not believe the subject properties are providing affordable housing
for the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City
Council of the City of Palm Springs, California hereby rejects the appeal and upholds
the decision of the Planning Commission in upholding 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 3rd day of April, 2013.
AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Lewin, Mayor Pro Tem Mills, and
Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Hutcheson.
ABSTAIN: None.
-zFi
David H. Ready, City M er
ATTEST.
mes Thompson, City Clerk
Resolution No. 23320
Page 5
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that Resolution No. 23320 is a full, true, and correct copy, and was
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on April 3, 2013, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Lewin, Mayor Pro Tem Mills, and
Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Hutcheson.
ABSTAIN: None.
es Thompson, City Clerk d,41t61galf-
ity of Palm Springs, California