Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission - January 13

Public Comments

Russ Martin reminded us that the Coachella Valley Coalition in opposition to LADWP's Green Path North will be meeting on Thursday, January 22 at 6 PM in the Carl May. Yes, if you forget that meeting you'll have Russ Martin to answer to.

Housing Element

A Mr. Castaneda came to the lectern to deliver a lengthy oratory on the subject of the housing element of the general plan. This is why we need video of the Planning Commission meetings, as I'm not able to adequately describe his poesy. I'm sure that many citizens of DHS would like to have a video record of this so that they could enjoy it over and over with their families.

He explained several charts (a handout was made available to the public) that described many of the factors that go into determining housing needs. After that we looked at several tables of numbers about income and housing. I include here the income chart which is relevant because it is for 2008 and Riverside County. These are not some outdated or generic national figures.

Mr. Castaneda then proceeded to describe the process by which the amount of housing needed statewide (prepared in Sacramento using those crystal balls that the commercial real estate people don't have) is divvied up over the different regions of the state, our region being that served by SCAG (Ventura, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Imperial Counties - but not San Diego). SCAG, in turn, hands out the numbers by county. Riverside County got the number "174,705." That's the "Housing Construction Need" for 2006-2014 for households in all income categories - the number is further broken down by household income category. Riverside County breaks that number down, assigning shares to the two government associations. The Western Riverside Council of Governments gets 131,133 and our own CVAG gets 43,572. Finally, we come to [drumroll please] Desert Hot Springs's share, which is 9,923. That is 22.8% of all of CVAG.

Broken down into income categories, our share looks like this:

Extremely Low	1,190
Very Low	970
Low	1,570
Moderate	1,871
Above Moderate	4,322

Again, those are housing construction needs for 2006-2014. Mr. Castaneda explained that cities are permitted to provide for less than the needed amount. After all, cities have to live in the real world where need is only one of the elements in play. However, there must, I would think, be some teeth in this whole process. A city must be required to do something to attempt to provide needed housing. Otherwise, the very poor of Indian Wells (for example) would never find a home there.

Mr. Castaneda probably continued to explain more of the process, but it was at about this point I went into a meditative zone as I mentally inventoried the contents of my refrigerator at home.

Commissioner Stewart highlighted a point made by Mr. Castaneda early in his presentation that a census shows Desert Hot Springs has 75 homeless people, and the city is not obligated to provide housing for them. Mr. Stewart said that regardless of what the state requires, the city should consider itself obligated to assure that there are 75 beds for our 75 homeless. He referred to the multi-service center for the homeless being constructed in the western valley, and asked if that would assure sufficent beds for our 75. Interim City Planner Mark Staples answered that he was not aware of this multi-service center for the homeless. Oh, dear. A brief conference needs be scheduled betweeen Mr. Staples and City Councilmember Karl Baker. Rudy Acosta clarified that how much the city would be contributing to that multi-service center is a decision still very much in process.

Commissioner King asked the question that must be on everyone's mind: can the abundance of low-priced, empty homes in Desert Hot Springs be taken into account to fulfill some of the housing needs for the low income. He cited an example of a $100,000 house bought with 20% down, resulting in a monthly mortgage payment in the range of, or lower than, the rents paid by people living in our standard conception of "low-income housing." Mr. Castaneda's response was that "the process is not dynamic." That sounds like "no crystal balls were used, so suck it up," but I think he just meant no, maybe next time. Rudy Acosta explained further that the load of foreclosures is unrelated to the low income housing issue, as being discussed. I believe he said this issue would be discussed in context at the city council study session scheduled for Tuesday, January 27 at 6 PM.

The Planning Commission did vote to adopt the resolution (yes, there was a resolution connected with this!) to recommend to the city council to update the city's housing element appropriately.

Brisas de Paz

This concerns a proposal by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition to build a low-income residential development on the southwest corner of Flora and West. Perhaps they should revise their description to "housing for the law-abiding low-income family," as Michael Walsh (land acquisition specialist for the coalition) explained their rigorous process of background checks to assure that their residents are of the highest caliber.

They needed approval of two major things before they could proceed with their project as envisioned. First, zoning needed to be changed from medium-density residential to high-density residential. Medium allows for 8 units per acre; high allows for 14. The housing coalition's plans called for slightly less than 14 per acre. Second, they needed a reduction in the parking requirement. The rules in DHS would normally require either 143 or 131 (depending on who you quote) parking spaces for the number of units they planned. The housing coalition wanted to provide only 77 parking spaces, or about 1¼ per housing unit. The housing coalition's research and experience with other Desert Hot Springs low-income residential developments show that poor people have fewer cars, and that seniors may even have no car at all. Parking spaces would be assigned in this development.

Rents at this development will range from $307 for a 1-bedroom to $759 for a 3-bedroom. Construction is planned to begin in the last half of 2009. I think every commissioner who spoke and every member of the public who commented praised the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition for the good, successful residential developments they've built before, including the highly praised Arroyo de Paz on Two Bunch Palms in Desert Hot Springs. A list of their rental developments can be seen here. So, I will dispense with listing all those glowing remarks for the sake of brevity (or maybe just a bit less length).

The real stumbling block for the Brisas de Paz proposal was that it was an incomplete submission. Commissioner King asked why the commissioners didn't have a grading plan, a roof plan and unit cross-sections. He also asked about a note indicating the outer perimeter would have tubular fencing. There were no plans or elevations for the fencing. Mr. Walsh said all of that had been provided to the city and he didn't know why it hadn't reached the commissioners. Attention was directed to Mr. Staples who, indeed, did have the grading plan. Somehow it hadn't gotten from him to the commissioners. However, he confirmed he had not received a roof plan, unit cross-sections, or any perimeter fencing elevations.

Commissioner King also said that more parking needed to be provided. He went up to the site plan that was being projected on the screen to try to illustrate how things might be arranged to provide both more parking and better open green space. He described the arrangement of some of the buildings as "cordwood stacking" and said the space between buildings there was only 17 feet, creating a no-man's land. Apparently, these were issues raised earlier in the Design Review Committee which is made up of Commissioner King, alternate Commissioner McCroskery and City Councilmember Al Schmidt. Later during public comments, Mr. Schmidt said that the DRC had raised these issues of open space and parking with the housing coalition, but that the DRC acts only in an advisory capacity, and that decisions up or down on a site design had to be made by the planning commission.

Mr. Walsh defended the parking design, saying that no unit would be more than 150 feet from a parking space, which is the city's own standard. Commissioner King also asked if there were a lighting plan, and Mr. Walsh said it was currently being worked on.

Commissioner Stewart said he wanted to see all of the design problems worked out before a proposal came to the planning commission. Alternate Commissioner McCroskery agreed, basically. Rudy Acosta said that there were plans in process to try to formalize the process so that re-design wouldn't have to take place at a planning commmission meeting.

Mr. McCroskery also asked if there shouldn't be more 3-bedroom units, if this development was to be intended for families. Mr. Walsh responded that their financing required 30% of the units to be 3-bedroom, so that's what they designed for. Further, he explained that the average family size in Desert Hot Springs is between 3 and 4. If your impression is otherwise, as is mine, I would guess it's just that those families of 5, 6, 7 or more are just a lot noisier.

In public comment, Hank Hohenstein made the excellent point that facilities for solid waste recycling should be required in this development and all future multi-family developments, or our city would never reach the required 50% minimum for recycling. Mr. Walsh answered that solid waste recycling bins will be provided in the Brisas de Paz development.

Finally, Commissioner King moved that the request be continued due to the incomplete submission. Chairman Gerardi seconded, and it was approved 4-0. Commissioner Aguilar had recused himself because he is the multi-family director for the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition.

Latinos Meat Market Alcohol License Upgrade

Latinos, on Palm Drive across the street from Stater Bros., already has a license for beer and wine sales and wants also to be able to sell liquor. Ravi Singh, the applicant, rose to say that he wanted his place to be known for its good food and he wanted to be able to provide one-stop shopping for his customers. He has resided in Desert Hot Springs since 2000 and bought Latinos in 2005. He estimated that currently less than 10% of his sales are alcohol, and that he did not expect that to increase much if he got a liquor license.

Commissioner King observed that Latinos has the best tacos in Desert Hot Springs. In public comment, Ted Mayrhofen rose to say he eats occasionally at Latinos and that the food is great and he has seen the owner deal with any problems very well, and that he had no objections to a liquor license for them.

I have made no attempt to grasp California laws on alcohol licenses. California government is complex enough without considering that. If someone tells me there's a Southern California District Of Alcohol Administration or something like that, my brain will simply explode. I just hope some DHS retailer will decide to sell the better quality box wines, so I don't have to drive across the 10 for my wine shopping needs.

With that in mind, I toss out these facts we heard: the particular area where Latinos is located is limited to 3 establishments with liquor licenses. Currently there are 6. How we got to 6 could not be fully explained, but apparently having more than the limit in an area is not illegal. So why do they call it a limit? The city as a whole, however, is at (or above) its overall limit on alcohol licenses. And that seems to be a limit that actually limits, so if the city were to approve Mr. Singh's request, his current beer/wine license would have to go to an establishment outside of DHS. I assume a liquor license such as Mr. Singh was seeking includes beer and wine.

Commissioner Aguilar said he would oppose any requests by any facility that would increase the amount of liquor available in Desert Hot Springs. Commissioner King moved to approve the request; Chairman Gerardi seconded. The motion was defeated 2-3. If Commissioners Stewart and Gustafson had explained their opposition, I missed it entirely. After the vote, I think it was Commissioner Gustafson who asked to have it clarified that the applicant could still take the request to the city council for a vote.

Cell Towers On Pierson

It's tempting to want to tell you the exciting conclusion to the discussion of this proposal to modify the conditional use permit for the cell antenna towers site that is almost across the street from Sidewinders, but I'll drag you through the whole shebang first. Commissioner King recused himself for having received a campaign contribution once from some party involved. I bet by the end, the other commissioners were wishing they had thought of reasons to recuse themselves as well.

These are the cell phone towers that used to be owned by Sprint and Nextel that used to have one of those godawful fake palm tree decorations attached to it. You may recall meetings some time ago when neighbor Nick Sargent produced evidence of the 8-foot metal "palm fronds" that had fallen on his property. Even though these palms are supposedly designed to handle very strong winds, our little breezes brought terrible destruction. One wonders how this is dealt with in Florida where, as I understand it, they have very breezy hurricanes. Maybe they've sensibly outlawed cell tower decorations statewide.

The issue on the table at this meeting, however, was simply to deal with the provision in the CUP that was granted in August 2007 that provided for a 1-year trial period for two simple monopoles that replaced the "palm tree."

Present was a representative from the company that bought the towers from Sprint/Nextel: Towerco. They bought 3,080 towers from them for $670 million in September of 2008. He said he had come from North Carolina for this meeting, but I hope he had other business (or pleasure) out here to justify that long trip.

Commissioner Aguilar said he didn't like the look of the two plain poles, and that he thought they should have some design augmentation. He never said "palm fronds" but I imagine that's the picture that popped into all our heads.

Ted Mayrhofen got up to to say he thought these monopoles were perhaps the most attractive poles in all of the Coachella Valley. I don't think he's usually sarcastic, so I'm not sure exactly how he meant that to be taken. He said that they did maintain a clean, attractive site, but he wondered how this could work with the upcoming downtown redevelopment. He said that the plans he had seen of downtown development didn't show any cell phone towers, and he reminded us that the mold-ridden building on the northeast corner of Pierson and Palm is still standing because it has a Verizon antenna on top of it.

Doug Jones, a resident of Palm Springs and the actual owner of the site, said his location is the cleanest property on Pierson and that he checks it frequently.

Don Sholty said he thought the poles are kind of strange looking and that when any plans come up that the commission could turn down, they should turn 'em down.

Neighbor Nick Sargent got up and reminded the commissioners of his experience with the "palm fronds" He said he doesn't want to see anything attached to those monopoles, and that he had gotten used to their appearance and didn't even notice them any more. He went on to list some of the unsightly abominations that the city has been allowing to exist along Pierson Boulevard, like an old truck full of used tires that has been there for four years.

Alternate Commissioner McCroskery rhetorically asked his fellow commissioners, if they thought these two monopoles were so offensive, how did they deal with the horrific sight of the hundreds of telephone poles in the city.

Then when it appeared to be time for a motion and a vote, Attorney Davtyan got involved. I believe she may have been suggesting the form that the motion should take, but that was not entirely clear. What ensued was a back and forth between Chairman Gerardi (and sometimes other commissioners) and Attorney Davtyan as they attempted to clarify what the issue was. Obviously, the full commission was mystified by what Ms. Davtyan was trying to say. We of the public were just as mystified, but at least we were free to openly enjoy the bizarre show. Ms. Davtyan would utter sentences containing understandable English words strung together in an apparently grammatical sequence, yet somehow the sentences were totally devoid of meaning. I got the impression (and I do so hope I am wrong) that her first priority was covering her own legal ass. The process reminded me of my days back in Social Security where I didn't even work with attorneys, but just a bunch of GS-11s and GS-12s.

One of the attorney's replies was clear. Commissioner Gustafson asked how a conditional use permit could be terminated. Attorney Davtyan's answer was that she couldn't say. Perhaps she meant that she preferred not to speculate on the case at hand, but that's not what she said. Or, maybe she meant that a full discussion of that issue would be so lengthy that she needed substantial time to prepare. But, again, that's not what she said.

This went on for several exchanges until it was eked out that perhaps the 1-year trial period was not legally defensible. The commissioners pounced on this for further explanation. Ms. Davtyan could not say how that 1-year trail period had been written in and approved, but in her opinion it may have had no force. Boiling that down (lots of boiling) Chairman Gerardi summarized that no matter whether the commission approved, disapproved, ignored or continued the modification request, the results would all be the same: nothing. Commissioner Stewart, ever the optimist, said that one of those choices must be better than the others. Finally, Commissioner Gustafson moved the question (if it was a question), Commissioner Stewart seconded, and it passed 3-1 with Commissioner Aguilar the lone dissenter. but you could just as well say it was unanimous.

So, to wrap it up, in the final 90 seconds of this discussion which included a representative coming from North Carolina, a slide show, comments on the design and appearance, a discussion of downtown redevelopment, the real issue was only cleaning up a very small technical legal point that, in any case, had expired months ago and maybe never mattered at all. It would have been so much more efficient if the very unimportance of this issue had been pointed out in the agenda or at the beginning of the discussion. I wonder why this even had to go through the planning commission, since it involved no planning and really only requires a vote of the city council to approve the technical change.

I think there were Commissioner comments after that, but we of the public were too busy trying to recover from the cell antenna ordeal to take note. Nonetheless, a good time was had by all.