Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

They even make anymore. There's been so many changes. This whole Genesis thing I I still don't know what I know it's a luxury car. Genesis is Toyota's luxury. Lexus is a Toyota. Lexus is a Toyota. See, I see. I don't pay. I don't know. when the clock went back. This 2024 doesn't do that. Scroll back.

I just thought it was going to automatically do it. Mine doesn't even have a separate hour just well thankfully I'm just going like

but it is a transmission car a base model I'll take it short it's got turbo those you didn't make it The event in the amphitheater last night was fabulous. Were you there? Yeah, they did a great job. It was the kickoff for Palm Springs Pride that the city is doing. Okay, Charlie, we are ready. Thank you. I now call the November 5th, 2025 planning commission meeting to order. May we have a roll call.

Commissioner Baddard here. Commissioner Malikoff present. Commissioner McFale here. Vice Chair Me here. Chair Lee present. Present in three. Thank you. Um please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge aliance to the flag of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God. Indivisible indivisible justice for all. Uh next item is agenda finalization. Do we have changes to the published agenda?

Staff does have some changes. Chair. Yes, chair. We are uh in light of our microphone and audio um uh limitations. We recommend that you have the public hearing item on item 3A for the ADU ordinance, but for items under item four that we move those to the next meeting of November 18th. Um, and then just keep the remainder of the Thank you. [clears throat] No, November 17th. 19. Oh, 19. I'm sorry. When is the next meeting? So the next meeting uh because the chambers will not be available on November 19th, we uh are going to meet on the 18th.

18th. Okay. Thank you. Um moving on to item two on the agenda, approval of minutes. Uh Charlie, we do need to do the public comments. Is that missing from Okay, I'll read the statement.

Yes. This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California law, the commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment and may request that a matter be agendaized for a future meeting. Public comments will be limited to three minutes. And chair, we do not have any members present, but if we do have some that do arrive, I would suggest maybe offering a little more time and we have to ask them to repeat any part of their statement. Okay. Thank you. And we have none and I did not receive any requests to speak for us.

Um, so now we do move to item two, approval of minutes. Approval of the September 3rd, 2025 and October 15th, 2025 planning commission minutes. Do we have any corrections or additions to the minutes? Yes. Um, the tenure say that you called the meeting into order at 5:00 p.m. and it was 6 p.m. and I will make that correction. Um, any [clears throat] other items for correction? Um, do we have any um members of the public wishing to speak? We have an end chair.

Um, do I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes? Motion to approve both sets of minutes. I will second. Thank you. And may we have a roll call? We'll go ahead and use the the system. So, we have a motion by and a second by Sheremy. They vote. And motion carries. All

moving to item three on the agenda, public hearing items. Uh item A, zoning ordinance amendment 25005, an amendment to chapter 9.114, accessory dwelling units of title 9, planning and zoning of the Cathedral City Municipal Code for consistency with new state regul new new state legislation regulating accessory dwelling units. Could I have a presentation, please?

Yes. Good evening. members of planning commissioning. This uh my name is Dom Camps, associate planner, and this evening I'm presenting a zoning ordinance amendment to update the city's ADU regulations for consistency with new state legislation. Um because there are audio issues, if you can't hear me, just wave for something and I'll speak up. So, the city's ADU ordinance was first adopted in September of 2022. It was subsequently amended in December of 2023 for consistency with legislative updates that took place that year or became effective that year. The zoning ordinance amendment being presented today is again updating the ADU regulations for consistency with legislative updates, specifically Assembly Bill 2533 and Senate Bill 1211, both of which became effective on January 1st of 2025. On September 3rd of this year, the proposed ordinance amendment was brought before the planning commission as a discussion item. Uh in that discussion, the planning commission uh directed staff to proceed with amending the ADU ordinance uh for consistency with state laws. Um and since this presentation, uh staff uh reformatted the draft ordinance for improved clarity. Um, it was also revised based on a public comment letter that was received uh from the California Housing Defense Fund that was received right before um the discussion meeting. That letter expressed support for the proposed amendments, but suggested that additional changes should be made um to be consistent with state law. After reviewing these requests, staff found that indeed um the the issues that were identified were inconsistent with state law and those changes have been incorporated into the draft ordinance uh that's being presented today. For some additional context, uh this table shows the number of building

permits that have been issued and final for accessory dwelling units over the past 5 years. So far this year, 26 building permits have been issued for accessory dwelling units, including seven permits using the city's pre-approved ADU plans. Uh none of the ADUs using the pre-approved plans have been final yet. So in my previous presentation at the discussion meeting, I went over the two bills um that are driving the changes in ADU regulation, but I will provide a quick refresher in this presentation. So, Assembly Bill 2533 uh prohibits local agencies from denying permits for unpermitted ADUs and Jedus that were constructed before January 1st, 2020 unless they are deemed substandard. These unpermitted units can't be denied due to zoning unconformities or violations of building code unless based on a building inspection uh the unit is substandard as defined in the California's health and safety code. Senate Bill 1211 prohibits local agencies from requiring the replacement of off- streetet parking spaces if an uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. It also provides a new definition for livable space which is a term used in the regulations for u multif family or ADUs on multif family lots. The bill also changes the number of detached ADUs that are authorized on multif family lots. And most uh notably, Senate Bill 1211 amends government code section 66323 to establish specific types of ADUs that are exempt from any local objective development or development standards. Uh as mentioned um in the introduction uh the draft ordinance has also been

reorganized for increased clarity and ease of navigation. Um significantly the development standards were reorganized to be based on the type of ADU that's being proposed. So, this table shows the types of ADUs that are permitted in Cathedral City. On lots with a single family dwelling. Um, permitted ADUs are an ADU that's constructed within or attached to an existing or proposed single family dwelling or an accessory structure, a junior accessory dwelling unit, a detached ADU that is no larger than 800 square ft, and a detached ADU that is larger than 800 square ft. And note that the the number of ADUs that are permitted on single family lots is not changing. This is just to clarify the the types that are allowed. And on multif family lots, um ADUs can be constructed within non-livable portions of an existing multif family dwelling. Um or uh detached ADUs can be constructed on a lot with an existing or proposed multif family building. So, Senate Bill 1211 amends government code section 66323 to establish these types of ADUs that are exempt from local development standards. The five categories of ADUs that are highlighted on this slide are the units that are subject to this exemption. these five categories of ADUs. Uh so on single family lots that would be attached or conversion ADUs, junior accessory dwelling units as well as detached ADUs that are no larger than 800 square ft. These units uh would not be uh subject to any local development standards except those explicitly stated in state law. So namely that would be um

building height consistent with the standards in our existing code as well as standbacks as shown on this slide. So mostly that is a 4 foot side rear setback um with setting standards for attached adus and use and I'll also note that while Jedus are covered by this state law um they're also they continue to be subject to the junior accessory dwelling unit standards that are stated in our existing ADU regulations and that are um existing in state law as well. So that includes things like a maximum unit size of 500 square feet and uh deed restrictions prohibiting individual sale of junior accessory dwelling units. Uh however, the units the the types of ADUs shown on this slide, they will no longer be subject to other development standards that were previously required by our ADU regulations. So they won't be required to match the architectural style of the primary unit or to provide landscaping that matches the landscaping around the primary unit. They will not be subject to the front setback or to the lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. They will not be prohibited from being located in front of the primary dwelling. And they will not be required to provide offscreen parking. So, the only type of ADU that is permitted in Cathedral City, but that is not subject to this new state law are ADUs on single family lots that are larger, sorry, detached ADUs on single family lots that are larger than 800 square ft. These units will continue to be subject to the same development standards as provided in our existing ADU regulations. So that's a maximum unit size of 8 850 square ft uh for studio and onebedroom units 4,000 ft² for two-bedroom units. Brontyard

setbacks and lot coverage for the underlying zoning district. Uh they must match the architecture and landscaping of the primary dwelling. They're prohibited from being in the front yard and they must provide an off street parking space. Another notable change uh resulting from SC1211 is the number of detached ADUs that are permitted on multif family lots. So currently on multif family lot two ADUs are two detached ADUs are permitted regardless of whether the multif family dwelling is existing or proposed. In accordance with state law, the amended code would allow up to eight detached ADUs on a multif family lot with an ex with an existing multif family building, but no more than the number of units. So, if a four unit complex is existing, then no more than four unit ADUs can be built. On lots with a proposed multif family dwelling, two detached ADUs would be the maximum. And that's consistent with our our grant. Two other amendments are being proposed uh to the definition section and these also pertain to ADUs on multif family lots. So one is that in accordance with SB1211 a definition of livable space was added. So in an existing multif family building only portions of the building that are not used as livable space can be converted to an accessory dwelling unit. A definition is also being proposed um that would be specifically for the purposes of the ADU regulations. A multif family dwelling is defined as two or more units. And this uh staff is recommending this clarification because in the main definition section of the zoning ordinance u multif family is

defined as three or more units but consistent with uh state ADU regulations multif family is two or more. Um two changes to the administration and approval section. The first one I already touched on. Um, in accordance with Assembly Bill 2533, a section is being proposed uh to the administration section that the city cannot uh deny a permit for a previously unpermitted ADU or Jedu that was constructed before January 1st of 2020 unless it is deemed substandard. Um, and um associated provisions were added um for the the processing of these unmitted ADUs. We are also proposing to delete a portion of the approval section uh which states that ADUs that don't conform with the city's standards may be approved through a conditional use permit. So this was removed um sort of based on the recommendation in the uh California housing defense fund letter which noted that ADUs must be reviewed ministerially and this provision which which touches on conditions. It was not the primary approval process for ADUs. is intended to provide flexibility but to ensure that we are clearly in compliance with state laws. Um status are that uh the last amendment that I'll touch on in this presentation. This is not one that was included in the staff report or in the attachments for the staff report. Um so it's uh with respect to uh setbacks for attached and conversion ADUs on single family lots. um language from the existing code was carry carried over which states that no setbacks are required for an existing legally permitted living area or accessory structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit. Uh this

language does not encompass attached ADUs uh including those that are constructed as additions to uh existing single family dwellings or that are constructed on a proposed single family dwelling. So staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the proposed uh resolution with the change to section 9.114601 um that it should read setbacks no setback shall be required except as required by the building code for fire and safety purposes and that's consistent um with the state law. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment uh will be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Common Sense Exemption. And the proposed ordinance amendment uh was uh publicly noticed um at least 20 days before this public hearing um as required for zoning ordinance amendments that have the potential to change permitted uses of real property. So, with that, uh, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending city council recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance to amend chapter 9.114 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code for consistency with state legislation regulating ADUs and incorporating the amendment to section 9.114601 as recommended in this presentation. And thank you, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you. [clears throat] Um before I open the public hearing, uh I'd like to check that commissioners have any questions on the presentation. Um start with uh Commissioner Farel.

Just one tiny one. Um I think it was on page two of the report and it was in relation to um ADUs constructed within portions of a multifamily that are not used as livable space. Mr. What's an examp where where would you have an ADU in that particular example? What's a non-livable space where you can include one? I think in in the state law it includes examples like um boiler rooms or maybe common areas or anything that's that's not uh currently a unit that can be lived in. Thanks. That's maybe boiler room is not a great example. [laughter] Nice chair.

None for me. Thanks. Any questions? I'm good. I have comments when we get to it. Okay. And Commissioner Bard, I'm good. Thanks. All right. And I have nothing for you. Thank you. Um so now, um I'll open the public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Lee, we did not receive any comments from the record and we have no comments currently.

Very good. Then I will close the public hearing and return to discussion. Um could we uh in order to open discussion on this item uh have a a motion and a second to accept the recommendation? Motion to approve the resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance amending chapter 9.114 of title 9 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code for consistency with new state legislation regulating accessory dwelling units and incorporating the amendment to section 9.114.060 060 sub [clears throat] one as recommended in this presentation.

Thank you. And do I have a second? I'd like to second. Thank you. So, we have a motion um proposed and seconded. I'll move to discussion of that. And um I'll uh clearly you have some questions.

I I don't have questions. Um, it's like it's interesting that, you know, this makes me mad and we have to talk it out today. Um, but [clears throat] you know, I understand that we need to be consistent with state law, but you know, the legislature is constantly chipping away at the local police power, which I think is really wrong. Um, and they're taking away little by little our authority over latest matters. Um the second unit ordinance has been around for years. It used to be a little bit more difficult to use and some cities especially like a fluid cities made it very difficult for people to use them and you know at first it was just to make it easier for everybody to have them and and then they just started getting a little bit ridiculous. And the thing I have a problem with in this, and again, I know it's not staff, and it's the legislature just not knowing what they're doing. I I just think it's horrendous that you could build an ADU less than 800 square ft, 4t from the front yard, front front property line. And I think that that really um violates what we try to do with front yards and a streetscape to, you know, and luckily we don't have as many ADUs as some cities do. I did plant check for National City and um they had like two or three a week. Um, so obviously we don't have the volume that they have, but um, I [clears throat] think having something 4 ft from the property line, a structure that could go up to 800 square ft, I I just think that's ridiculous. And I know

that we have to do it. Um, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Um, so I just wanted to go on the record that of course I'll I'll vote to approve this whole ordinance, but I just think, you know, ruining our streetscapes is not a good move. And it's it's not just Cathedral City, it's ruining streetscapes all over California. Thank you, Commissioner Bard. Anything? No, I'm good. Thank you. Fail. No, just that this is something we have to do whether we as you say whether we like it or not. I mean I think some of the

uh proposals are very much one one sizefits all and I wish they they would think about different environments where these go but it is what it is. So question

um I not specifically about this but I think I brought this up the last time this was a agenda item and in light of the development code update and I'm not sure when it would be appropriate to bring this up in the development code update but I'm guessing that we may need to update some of our uh standards in the development code if we're going to potentially have structures that are 4T from the street and there was only going to be a 4ft side setback back. I know we had a long conversation at last night's steering meeting about side setbacks and how small is too small. So, I'm just thinking about the trash cans and other things like that. So, but just a comment to remember that we need to

Yes. And the development of objective design standards that is part of the scope of work. So, we will be undertaking that.

Right. I was I was just going to respond that um you know I agree with you but I I think they I Dom can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that other than I I I don't think that they have to comply with the objective development standards that we have. So they could, you know, this is like an outrageous example, but they they could do a Craftsman ADU um in front of a Queen and Victorian. Now, I know only people that know historic preservation would think that's outrageous, but but but it would be wrong and you could do that now. So you could have a h au that doesn't match at all and the state legislature just doesn't seem to understand that that's not going to solve the housing crisis. Um but as as Commissioner McFale said and I said at the beginning of my rant um you know there's nothing we can do.

Okay. Um I have sympathy for all the comments that I've heard. I mean, I I think I share the frustration that that um the intent in Sacramento, I think, is to improve the quantity and quality of housing, particularly for lower income people, and none of the measures they're taking actually do that. Uh what they do is to increase property values and encourage things like we see right now which are ADUs um added to every single property in a planned unit development which will never actually be rented out. So so yeah I understand but

putting a craftsman in front of a queen and Victorian I don't know that there are too many queen ants around here really but anyway off the point. Um, so, uh, unless there are further comments, um, I will move to a vote. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner, um, Commissioner Malikov and a second by Commissioner Bedard. Get that open for you. Please vote. ing to vote at the minimize cylind.

Would you like to verbalize your vote, Commissioner Malikov?

Thank and motion carries. All eyes. Thank you. And um since we've adjusted tonight's agenda, we're moving on to item five, commissioner's comments. And uh let me start with the vice chair for a change.

Oh, I did have one comment. Uh I appreciated that the minutes were more detailed, whoever's doing the minutes, that they are much more detailed, the last two that we got for approval today than they have been in the past. And I think that that gives a much better understanding to the public of what was discussed. And it actually helped me remember the discussion that we had to ensure that they were correct. Um, so I just wanted to say thank you for that. Commissioner McFale, I'll say okay,

I just it's not planning, but I just want to commend the city on how it's just been so great about acknowledging disparit communities within the community. And the kickoff last night was just great for the Pride Festival. a really wonderful job was done and it was a fun event and uh I'm just so proud to live in a city that acknowledges all the different communities that we have and just as a public thank you for that. Commissioner,

um I just want to um let staff know that I appreciate the change in the findings over the past few weeks. that past few weeks over time that the findings are much stronger than they used to be which is good for any legal challenge. So um I commend staff on having such you know good strong findings in the staff reports which is important. So thank you for for doing that. I'll um I'll raise one eye. Oh yeah,

excuse me chair if I may. Um, Commissioner Malikoff, you had requested a uh presentation by the code enforcement manager and I just wanted to bring that up and then just confirm that at least two members of the commission are in agreement that we would bring that back pursuant to the policy that was established. Yeah, I requested that because I just think it's important to know what each part of the department does and the challenges that they face and just to be able to appreciate that in code enforcement why some things take so long and what happens if people don't do what they're supposed to do and what the options are. And I I think it's good that we just understand what they do.

And do other members of the commission agree?

Sure. Okay, we have more than two. Um, okay. And I I was going to bring something up in more detail. I'll I'll do it very briefly here. Um, it's probably about a year ago. It was after um I think it was actually after SB9 passed. Um we had a very good um update presentation on uh legislation that had come out um of Sacramento. And in looking at tonight's agenda item, I was going through some of the legislation, I found at least 10 bills that may or may not actually relate to Cathedral City at some point because they're treasured. We know things like SB79 is not going to relate to us unless we get on and build a railway station, which we all want. Um, but some of these do. So, I'll send this list over to you and uh perhaps uh we could ask for a presentation at that at some point and make that an annual event that after legislation is approved in Sacramento and that they've closed their session and the governor has signed orders that then we get a presentation to this uh body. Right. Okay. Um,

city attorney comments. Do we need a Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I can't go off just doing that on myself. I agree. I agree also. Oh, good. Okay. I passed the test. Um, city attorney's comments and no comments tonight. Thank you. Star comments. No comments.

I do have just one comment. Um, just a reminder that we're going to be meeting on the 18th. I think we talked about that already. And you do have the um, attendance record and the future agenda items and work plan. So, I'll update that. That was reformatted too. You can see on our work plan that we've got through uh, quite a bit and so we're happy to add what was added this evening and anything that the commission thinks of over the next few meetings. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Um in which case uh no other business we are adjourned.

See we don't have sound then cameras. I need to finish my bottle of water. [laughter] I just barely started. I didn't have to ask for a pee break. him.