HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1MFrom:Kate Castle
To:City Clerk; Kate Castle
Cc:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Grace Garner; Lisa Middleton
Subject:July 25 Consent Calendar Item “M”
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 10:41:27 AM
Attachments:St Helena-Pacaso Settlement-NO Expansion.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links
or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
July 22,2024
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor ProTem DeHarte, Council Members Holstege, Garner and Middleton-
RE: Item M on July 25 2024 Agenda pertaining to changing our laws and policy governing co-
owned homes in residential neighborhoods.
It is my understanding that a firm; Pacaso, has sought a change in policy that would expand their
footprint in Palm Springs from 5 homes purchased during the pandemic that were grandfathered in
once our community became aware of their existence in 2023 to as many as additional 30 homes.
From this understanding, I reiterate my position that Palm Springs benefits from recognizing the
Pacaso business model of Co-Ownership/Timeshares/TIC-Tenants in Common does not enhance the
character of our residential neighborhoods, and therefore should not be allowed to expand their
presence beyond what they were allowed in your 2023 position.
Were you aware of the settled in February 2024 lawsuit that Pacaso brought against the City of St
Helena in Napa County whereby it was settled that their city DID NOT allow an expansion beyond
the original four homes, citing the importance of preserving the character of the city’s residential
neighborhood?
I understand in doing a google search no California city has allowed Pacaso to expand their footprint
once city became aware of these homes that had been purchased during the pandemic. So, Pacaso
coming to our city in this way, seeking to have the rules governing their business and hoping to
change our minds during the summer lull will likely be used by them to have other resort cities adopt
similar expansions because Palm Springs did.
As my career is in real estate, I am keenly aware of the use of property tax monies by city,county
and state. The LLC ownership of these properties uses the umbrella of the LLC and shifts ownership
with each new party of 6-8 parties. However the tax bases remain at the original purchase price level,
and is not reassessed as the “owner” had not changed.
I believe there is a situation that may be considered by some as a legal slippery slope that deserves a
more detailed and serious review. With multiple owners, should one of them be the cause of
revoking a “permit” the other 5 - 7 owners may elect to sue not only the perpetrating owner, but the
city, that put their investment at risk.
This is a major shift the council is taking by reviewing this proposal at this time. The members of
OnePS took a strong stance against Pacaso in 2023, and I believe they should be allowed to be a part
of deciding the issue of Pacaso expanding their footprint into our neighborhoods.
I respectfully ask the council to remove item M from the Consent Calendar, table the issue and have
their representative discuss it and seek input with OnePS prior to making such an impactful change.
Respectfully submitted.
Sincerely,
Kate Castle
Palm Springs resident
Attached St.Helena Official Statement
Sent from my iPad
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
TODAY’S DATE: February 8, 2024
RELEASE DATE: Immediate
TITLE: City of St. Helena Reaches Settlement with Pacaso
(PRESS RELEASE 2024-05)
CONTACT: Andrew Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager
(707) 968-2635 direct, abradley@cityofsthelena.org
St. Helena, CA – The City of St. Helena, by unanimous vote of the City Council, has reached a legal settlement with
Pacaso, Inc. The resolution concludes the litigation filed against the City by Pacaso in April 2021 challenging the City’s
authority to enforce its timeshare ordinance against Pacaso’s operation of co-owned homes in the City. The settlement
ensures that under our current timeshare ordinance Pacaso cannot expand its operations in the City beyond Pacaso’s
existing four homes. Moreover, the City will continue to enforce its timeshare ordinance to preserve the character of the
City’s residential neighborhoods.
The settlement agreement provides that neither Pacaso nor any parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of Pacaso will
market, sell, or use any single-family home that is or is intended to be fractionally owned in the City with the exception
of the four existing Pacaso homes, which will be considered legal nonconforming uses under the City’s Zoning Code.
“This agreement, along with our updated timeshare ordinance, demonstrates our commitment to preserving the
character of our vibrant and unique neighborhoods,” said Mayor Paul Dohring. “The City Council believes this settlement
agreement reflects a good compromise that protects the City from the further expansion of timeshares in its residential
areas, while limiting the ongoing cost, risk, and uncertainty associated with protracted litigation.”
The City maintains an open-door policy with all businesses operating in the City, and in the spirit of that policy the
settlement agreement allows Pacaso to initiate conversations with the City over the next 18 months to discuss its
operations within the City, the allowable number of Pacaso homes in the City, and potential revenue streams relating to
its operations in the City. It is important to note that any conversations with Pacaso that involve the City Council as a
whole would only occur at a noticed public meeting in conformance with the Brown Act, and the public would have the
opportunity to comment on those discussions as part of that meeting. Additionally, any attempted expansion of
operations by Pacaso in the City would require an amendment of the City’s timeshare ordinance, requiring noticed
public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. No action could be taken that would allow
Pacaso to sell or market new timeshares in the City without City Council action, following extensive public input.
City Manager Anil Comelo expressed satisfaction with the settlement, stating, “We are pleased to have reached a
resolution with Pacaso that protects against the expansion of timeshare uses in our residential neighborhoods. The City
of St. Helena is committed to the well-being of our residents and intends to vigorously enforce our timeshare ordinance
and other rules enacted by our Council to preserve the unique small-town character of our City.”
###
PRESS RELEASE
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Charles Mara
To:City Clerk
Cc:Charles Mara
Subject:Remove "M"
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 2:42:37 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Please remove “M” on the City planning. This is not right for our neighborhoods?
Regards,
Charles F. Mara
PS Colony
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Jeffrey Bernstein
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 2:39:38 PM
Jeffrey Bernstein
Mayor
City of Palm Springs
cell: 442-305-9942
Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov
From: Sailing Weather <ltnochairperson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 2:38 PM
To: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>; Ron deHarte
<Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>; Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>; Christy
Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>; Lisa Middleton
<Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Alyssa Chavez <Alyssa.Chavez@palmspringsca.gov>; Dennis Woods
<dennis.l.woods@gmail.com>; Denise Goolsby <Denise.Goolsby@palmspringsca.gov>; Denise
Hoetker <swans32@earthlink.net>; Marda Zimring <mardazimring@gmail.com>; David Anderson
<davidanderson323@gmail.com>; Lee Bottorff <lee@leebottorff.com>; Rebecca M. Hendrickson
<RMHendrickson1@aol.com>
Subject: Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization joins other ONE-
PS neighborhood organizations rejecting co-ownership housing in the City of Palm Springs.
We agree with the City Attorney and City Council's initial conclusions that co-ownership
housing like Pacaso are timeshares and should be treated and regulated as such.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
Groups like Pacaso are bad for our neighborhood and Palm Springs. We believe it is damaging
to the integrity of the neighborhood and negatively impacts the single owner residents. In
addition, regulations established to safeguard neighborhoods and towns are circumvented; For
example avoiding the transient occupancy tax, a fee that is specifically designed to address the
inherent costs to the city brought by high-turnover accommodations such as hotels and rentals.
In addition, at a time when high real estate values are making it difficult to keep vital members
of our community in Palm Springs and – in the worst case – forcing some people onto the
street - we can not afford initiatives which make that problem worse. Proposals that exacerbate
a lack of affordable housing and avoid paying taxes which could help to address such
problems should be prevented.
Our neighborhood urges the council to ignore the lobbyists and special interests with no ties to
Palm Springs. Do not allow them to influence your decision. We believe in Palm Springs and
our tourist economy, however the co-ownership model does not support our values.
Sincerely
On behalf of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Chris Bedford, Chairman
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Bryan Beak
To:City Clerk
Cc:Byron Hancock; Kevin Comer; Joe Vassallo; Patsy Marino; Leda Potente; Gustav Swanson; Kermit Ferrer; Robert
Gottlieb; Jeffrey Bernstein
Subject:Please Remove Item M from Consent Calendar on 7/25 and Seek ONE PS Input
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 2:39:30 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor ProTem DeHarte, Council Members Holstege, Garner and Middleton
I am writing as a resident of Vista Las Palmas, to respectfully ask you to pull Item M from the
consent calendar this Thursday, table the issue and have city council representatives seek input from
ONE PS.
A change of this magnitude should be carefully considered, not rushed through with almost no prior
notice during the peak of the slow season when many residents are traveling. It’s quite telling that
supporters of Item M are either Pacaso executives who will benefit, or residential service companies
like landscaping/pool/pest control hoping for future business.
This change would sextuple the number of time share or co-ownership homes in Palm Springs. Per
the City Attorney the cap would not apply to the current 2 per neighborhood cap so Vista Las Palmas
could have 7 time share homes in total. This change would degrade the unique quality of life and
character of our neighborhoods by dramatically increasing the transient tourist population. The city
of St. Helena in Napa Valley did not allow an expansion beyond the original four homes, and I urge
Palm Springs to do the same to avoid the continued hollowing out of our residential neighborhoods.
In addition, residents will be forced to police the behavior of the time share owners, and handle the
noise and trash issues that are more frequent with time share properties. Finally, if violations persist
how will the city force Pacaso to unwind the co-ownership model? Will Pacaso be forced to sell the
home to a single owner? I believe no California city has allowed time share ownership to be
expanded beyond the pandemic purchased homes, and Palm Springs should not be the first.
I respectfully ask the council to remove item M from the Consent Calendar, table the issue and have
their representative discuss it and seek input with OnePS prior to making such an impactful change.
Sincerely,
Bryan Beak
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Kevin Comer
To:Bryan Beak
Cc:City Clerk; Byron Hancock; Joe Vassallo; Patsy Marino; Leda Potente; Gustav Swanson; Kermit Ferrer; Robert
Gottlieb; Jeffrey Bernstein
Subject:Re: Please Remove Item M from Consent Calendar on 7/25 and Seek ONE PS Input
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 3:14:32 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
good except for one comment, I would definitely add in "and the neighborhood organizations,
including my own Vista Las Palmas Neighbors Foundation", otherwise we are putting our
faith in an organization we don't control taking a strong stand in opposition, thus far our
experience with ONE PS is that they are ineffective and weak, I also think this is good for
neighbors to send, but the letter from our organization should be more strongly worded
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:39 PM Bryan Beak <bryanbeak@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor ProTem DeHarte, Council Members Holstege, Garner and
Middleton I am writing as a resident of Vista Las Palmas, to respectfully ask you to pull Item M
from the consent calendar this Thursday, table the issue and have city council representatives seek
input from ONE PS.
A change of this magnitude should be carefully considered, not rushed through with almost no
prior notice during the peak of the slow season when many residents are traveling. It’s quite telling
that supporters of Item M are either Pacaso executives who will benefit, or residential service
companies like landscaping/pool/pest control hoping for future business.
This change would sextuple the number of time share or co-ownership homes in Palm Springs. Per
the City Attorney the cap would not apply to the current 2 per neighborhood cap so Vista Las
Palmas could have 7 time share homes in total. This change would degrade the unique quality of
life and character of our neighborhoods by dramatically increasing the transient tourist population.
The city of St. Helena in Napa Valley did not allow an expansion beyond the original four homes,
and I urge Palm Springs to do the same to avoid the continued hollowing out of our residential
neighborhoods. In addition, residents will be forced to police the behavior of the time share
owners, and handle the noise and trash issues that are more frequent with time share properties.
Finally, if violations persist how will the city force Pacaso to unwind the co-ownership model?
Will Pacaso be forced to sell the home to a single owner? I believe no California city has allowed
time share ownership to be expanded beyond the pandemic purchased homes, and Palm Springs
should not be the first.
I respectfully ask the council to remove item M from the Consent Calendar, table the issue and
have their representative discuss it and seek input with OnePS prior to making such an impactful
change.
Sincerely,
Bryan Beak
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Sharon Lock
To:City Clerk
Subject:Consent calendar
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 4:30:46 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Please remove item M from consent agenda and allow more public input.
Sharon Lock
2961 Calle Arandas
Palm Springs
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Bruce T. Bauer
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; Christy Holstege; Scott Stiles; Jeff Ballinger-C
Cc:City Clerk; Dave L. Baron
Subject:City Council Meeting July 25, 2024, Item 1M / Second Reading of Co-owned Housing Ordinance
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 4:08:21 PM
Attachments:image003.png
Baron Letter re July 25 2024 CIty Council Meeting Item 1M.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Hon. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmembers, City Manager,
City Attorney and Officials of the City of Palm Springs:
Please find enclosed Dave Baron’s letter of today’s date regarding Agenda Item No. 1M for the
July 25, 2024, City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Bruce T. Bauer
PALM SPRINGS COSTA MESA SAN DIEGO PRINCETON NEW YORK
____________________________________________
Bruce T. Bauer
Of Counsel
SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP
1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262
Phone (760) 322-2275 / Fax (760) 322-2107
https://sbemp.com/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, together with any documents, files and/or other messages attached to it,
is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by
telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, you are hereby informed that any advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
07/25/2024 Public Comment Item 1M
07/25/2024 Public Comment Item 1M
From:Jeffrey Bernstein
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 4:24:00 PM
Jeffrey Bernstein
Mayor
City of Palm Springs
cell: 442-305-9942
Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov
From: Swans <swans32@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Bernstein,
Please see the following letter LTNO has sent to you concerning the "disruptive"
practices of allowing "PASCO" to become a part of our cherished neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Denise & Tony Hoetker
LTNO
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
Date:Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:37:56 +0000
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Sailing Weather <ltnochairperson@gmail.com>
To:
CC:
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization joins other ONE-
PS neighborhood organizations rejecting co-ownership housing in the City of Palm Springs.
We agree with the City Attorney and City Council's initial conclusions that co-ownership
housing like Pacaso are timeshares and should be treated and regulated as such.
Groups like Pacaso are bad for our neighborhood and Palm Springs. We believe it is damaging
to the integrity of the neighborhood and negatively impacts the single owner residents. In
addition, regulations established to safeguard neighborhoods and towns are circumvented; For
example avoiding the transient occupancy tax, a fee that is specifically designed to address the
inherent costs to the city brought by high-turnover accommodations such as hotels and rentals.
In addition, at a time when high real estate values are making it difficult to keep vital members
of our community in Palm Springs and – in the worst case – forcing some people onto the
street - we can not afford initiatives which make that problem worse. Proposals that exacerbate
a lack of affordable housing and avoid paying taxes which could help to address such
problems should be prevented.
Our neighborhood urges the council to ignore the lobbyists and special interests with no ties to
Palm Springs. Do not allow them to influence your decision. We believe in Palm Springs and
our tourist economy, however the co-ownership model does not support our values.
Sincerely
On behalf of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Chris Bedford, Chairman
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Janet Ross
To:City Clerk
Subject:City Council Item M on July 25 Calendar
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 4:42:19 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
As a concerned resident of Palm Springs, I request the removal of Item M from the July 25 Calendar of the City
Council. Item M would ch get the fabric of our fir City and Pacaso has a history of destruction. This Item has been a
concern in the past and should have no future in Palm Springs. Thank you
Regards,
Janet Meade Ross
316 Big Canyon Dr N, 92264
Sent from my iPad
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Don Vilen
To:City Clerk
Subject:Please remove item "M" (timeshares) from consent calendar and seek input from residents and OnePS
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 4:46:03 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
To the Palm Springs City Clerk and members of the City Council:
Please remove item "M" (co-ownership and timeshares) from the consent calendar and seek input
from residents and OnePS.
This important item needs more input, discussion, and impact analysis before it opens the door for
Pacaso and other similar timeshare schemes in our neighborhoods. At least require tax assessments
to be updated on change of whole or partial ownership, but think of the impact to the neighbors as
well.
Please don’t let this slip through during the quiet of summer; give it the full public attention it
requires and let the people be fully represented..
As with other city projects, at least look at the worst case and then protect us from the greedy
future investors who may try to exploit gaps in the policy, ruining a neighborhood along the way.
Respectfully,
Don Vilen – Palm Springs year-around resident and voter
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Thomas Rounds
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item M
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 5:10:37 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
I oppose the expansion of Picasso co-ownership of homes in Palm Springs.
Thomas A Rounds
Deborah M Fischer
Matthew M Fischer
all residing at 1445 N Opuntia Road 92262
Sent from my iPhone
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Reuel Young
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item "M" on agenda for 25JULY
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 5:30:05 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please remove item “M” related to co-ownership/timeshare policy from the consent calendar. This push by Pacasa
to expand the number of homes purchased to expand their business model for co-ownership/timeshare is contrary to
the interests of Palm Springs residents and the residential character that is the bedrock of our community.
Thank you,
Reuel Young
760-219-9945
621 E. Louise Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Leslie Fleischer
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item M
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 5:34:29 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Regarding 7/25/2024 meeting- Remove item M from the consent calender and table
until further input has been received by all residents and PS One. Timeshares are not allowed in residential
neighborhoods in the city of Palm Springs regardless if some have been “grandfathered “ in.
Sincerely-
Arthur and Leslie Fleischer
Residents of Palm Springs
Sent from my iPad
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Tim Erkins
To:City Clerk
Cc:Tim Erkins
Subject:Please remove item "M" (timeshares) from consent calendar and seek input from residents and OnePS
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 5:39:33 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
To the Palm Springs City Clerk and members of the City Council:
Please remove item "M" (co-ownership and timeshares) from the consent calendar and seek input
from residents and OnePS.
This important item needs more input, discussion, and impact analysis before it opens the door for
Pacaso and other similar timeshare schemes in our neighborhoods. At least require tax assessments
to be updated on change of whole or partial ownership, but think of the impact to the neighbors as
well.
Please don’t let this slip through during the quiet of summer; give it the full public attention it
requires and let the people be fully represented..
As with other city projects, at least look at the worst case and then protect us from the greedy
future investors who may try to exploit gaps in the policy, ruining a neighborhood along the way.
Respectfully,
Tim Erkins – Palm Springs year-around resident and voter
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:pfeffere@aol.com
To:City Clerk
Subject:Remove M from consent calendar
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 5:48:46 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Pleas ask the Council to remove Item “M” from the consent calendar, and seek input from
residents and OnePS on such an important issue affecting our community, our neighborhoods.
Preserve our neighborhoods.
Get Outlook for Android
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:The Skin Man
To:City Clerk
Cc:Ron deHarte; Jeffrey Bernstein
Subject:Pacaso / Timeshares 7/22/2024
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 6:44:43 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Please ask to move this issue from the consent calendar to a discussion calendar, because there is nobody speaking
in favor of this except for the people who benefit directly from it and I think the issues raised about unmodifiable tax
base are discussion-worthy, but also when houses have to be double $ the city mean value (clarify!) it is going to put
more of the houses in neighborhoods like Las Palmas, The Movie Colony, and that is an unfair burden to these
neighborhoods just because the real estate is more valuable in those parts of town.
I am in favor of all the same rules that apply to short term rentals, but the idea that more of them should be in more
valuable neighborhoods doesn't make sense to me.
I'm also in agreement that they should not get 25 more homes but only a total of 25 in the city shouldn't pass. That
would include their new competitor, Ohana.
William Wickwire 333 E. Valmonte Norte, 92262
Most likely dictated. Please forgive spelling errors by Siri. And don’t forget your sunscreen.
Sent from my iPhone.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:William Meeder
To:City Clerk
Subject:Please remove M from the calamdar
Date:Monday, July 22, 2024 7:44:01 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
William Meeder
841 E Sunny Dunes Rd
PS CA 92264
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Ed Motznik
To:City Clerk
Subject:Opposed to Pacaso special treatment
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 6:22:59 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Mayor and City Council Members -
I am opposed to changing our laws and policies governing co-ownership homes in
Palm Springs.
This is a major shift the council is taking by reviewing this proposal at this time. The
members of OnePS took a strong stance against Pacaso in 2023, and I believe they
should be allowed to be a part of deciding the issue of Pacaso expanding their
footprint into our neighborhoods. I respectfully ask the council to remove item M from
the Consent Calendar, table the issue and have their representative discuss it and
seek input with OnePS prior to making such an impactful change.
Sincerely,
Edward Motznik
Palm Springs Homeowner
You have the Power to Donate Life: Be an Organ Donor www.donatelife.net
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Deborah Reid
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item M on 7.25.24 Agenda
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:01:19 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor ProTem DeHarte, Council Members Holstege, Garner
and Middleton
RE: Item M on July 25 2024 Agenda pertaining to changing our laws and policy
governing co-owned homes in residential neighborhoods.
It is my understanding that a firm, Pacaso, has sought a change in policy that would
expand their footprint in Palm Springs from 5 homes purchased during the pandemic
that were grandfathered in once our community became aware of their existence in
2023 to as many as additional 30 homes. From this understanding, I reiterate my
position that Palm Springs benefits from recognizing the Pacaso business model of
Co-Ownership/Timeshares/TIC-Tenants in Common does not enhance the character
of our residential neighborhoods, and therefore should not be allowed to expand their
presence beyond what they were allowed in your 2023 position.
In February of 2024, Pacaso filed a lawsuit against the City of St Helena in Napa
County whereby it was settled that their city DID NOT allow an expansion beyond the
original four homes, citing the importance of preserving the character of the city’s
residential neighborhood. My own research has shown that no California city has
allowed Pacaso to expand their footprint once the city became aware of these homes
that had been purchased during the pandemic. Pacaso coming to our city in this way -
seeking to have the rules governing their business and hoping to change our minds
during the summer lull - will likely be used by them to have other resort cities adopt
similar expansions because Palm Springs did.
The LLC ownership of these properties uses the umbrella of the LLC and shifts
ownership with each new party of 6-8 parties. However, the tax bases remain at the
original purchase price level and are not reassessed as the “owner” has not changed.
This is not a benefit to our city. In addition, there are other situations that may be risky
and deserve a more detailed and serious review. For example, with multiple owners,
should one of them be the cause of revoking a “permit” the other 5 - 7 owners may
elect to sue not only the perpetrating owner but also the city that put their investment
at risk.
This is a major shift the council is taking by reviewing this proposal at this time. The
members of the community took a strong stance against Pacaso in 2023 and it is my
belief that they should be allowed to be a part of deciding the issue of Pacaso
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
expanding their footprint into our neighborhoods. I respectfully ask the council to
remove item M from the Consent Calendar, table the issue and have their
representatives discuss it and seek input from the citizens of Palm Springs prior to
making such an impactful change.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Reid
Palm Springs Resident
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Christy Holstege
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fw: Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:08:50 PM
Christy Gilbert Holstege, Esq.
Councilmember
City of Palm Springs, District 4 Tel: (760) 323-8200
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Fax: (760) 323-8207
Palm Springs, CA 92262
www.palmspringsca.gov christy.holstege@palmspringsca.gov
From: Swans <swans32@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:43 PM
To: Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Council Member Holstege,
Please listen to the Neighborhoods who say NO to PASCO and timeshares in their residential
neighborhoods which they have worked so hard to promote family and neighbor activities to
support neighborhoods.
Thank you.
Denise & Tony Hoetker
LTNO
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization Position regarding Ordinance 2100
Date:Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:37:56 +0000
From:Sailing Weather <ltnochairperson@gmail.com>
To:
CC:
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization joins other ONE-
PS neighborhood organizations rejecting co-ownership housing in the City of Palm Springs.
We agree with the City Attorney and City Council's initial conclusions that co-ownership
housing like Pacaso are timeshares and should be treated and regulated as such.
Groups like Pacaso are bad for our neighborhood and Palm Springs. We believe it is damaging
to the integrity of the neighborhood and negatively impacts the single owner residents. In
addition, regulations established to safeguard neighborhoods and towns are circumvented; For
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
example avoiding the transient occupancy tax, a fee that is specifically designed to address the
inherent costs to the city brought by high-turnover accommodations such as hotels and rentals.
In addition, at a time when high real estate values are making it difficult to keep vital members
of our community in Palm Springs and – in the worst case – forcing some people onto the
street - we can not afford initiatives which make that problem worse. Proposals that exacerbate
a lack of affordable housing and avoid paying taxes which could help to address such
problems should be prevented.
Our neighborhood urges the council to ignore the lobbyists and special interests with no ties to
Palm Springs. Do not allow them to influence your decision. We believe in Palm Springs and
our tourist economy, however the co-ownership model does not support our values.
Sincerely
On behalf of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Chris Bedford, Chairman
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:John Nanos
To:City Clerk
Subject:Please remove item "M" (timeshares) from consent calendar and seek input from Residents and OnePS
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2024 11:12:14 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
To the Palm Springs City Clerk and members of the City Council:
Please remove item "M" (co-ownership and timeshares) from the consent calendar and
seek input from Palm Springs residents and OnePS.
This important item needs more input, discussion, and impact analysis before it opens
the door for Pacaso and other similar timeshare schemes in our neighborhoods. At
least require tax assessments to be updated on change of whole or partial ownership
and consider impact to the neighborhoods.
Please don’t let this slip through during the quiet of summer; give it the full public
attention it requires and let the people be fully represented..
As with other city projects, at least look at the worst case and then protect us from the
future investors who may try to exploit gaps in the policy, ruining a neighborhood along
the way.
Respectfully yours,
John & Ann Nanos – Palm Springs year-around residents and voters
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Kevin Comer
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Cc:Patsy Marino; Kermit Ferrer; Robert Gottlieb; Byron Hancock; Gustav Swanson; Joe Vassallo; Leda Potente;
Bryan Beak; Eve Fromberg; Mark Edelstein
Subject:Vista Las Palmas Letter re Shared Ownership Vote
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2024 10:20:35 AM
Attachments:Pacaso Letter July 2024 2.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Good morning, Attached please find a letter reiterating the opposition of the Vista Las Palmas
Neighbors Foundation and the 400 homes it represents to the proposed shared ownership
regulations. This letter now also addresses concerns regarding donations received from
several City Council members from Pacaso's lobbyist. Any elected representative who has
received donations from Pacaso or anyone affiliated with Pacaso, including their lobbyists, are
required to recuse themselves from any votes dealing with the shared ownership model. We
strongly urge you to read this letter carefully, and for those of you who have received
payments from Pacaso's lobbyists in excess of $250 to recuse yourselves from the vote this
week and from any other upcoming votes.
Sincerely,
Kevin Comer and Patsy Marino
Co-Chairs
The Vista Las Palmas Neighbors Foundation
Board Members:
Joe Vassallo
Leda Potente
Robert Gottlieb
Bryan Beake
Byron Hancock
Kermit Ferrer
Gustav Swanson
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Kate Castle
To:Cassandra Edney; City Clerk; Kate Castle
Subject:Fwd: July 25 Consent Calendar Item “M”
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:18:06 PM
Attachments:St Helena-Pacaso Settlement-NO Expansion.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hello-
Please confirm receipt for my files.
Thank you :)
Kate
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kate Castle <k8castle@yahoo.com>
Date: July 22, 2024 at 10:39:52 AM PDT
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@palmspringsca.gov>, Kate Castle
<k8castle@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>, Ron deHarte
<Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>, Christy Gilbert Holstege
<Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>, Grace Garner
<Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>, Lisa Middleton
<Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: July 25 Consent Calendar Item “M”
July 22,2024
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor ProTem DeHarte, Council Members Holstege,
Garner and Middleton-
RE: Item M on July 25 2024 Agenda pertaining to changing our laws and policy
governing co-owned homes in residential neighborhoods.
It is my understanding that a firm; Pacaso, has sought a change in policy that
would expand their footprint in Palm Springs from 5 homes purchased during the
pandemic that were grandfathered in once our community became aware of their
existence in 2023 to as many as additional 30 homes.
From this understanding, I reiterate my position that Palm Springs benefits from
recognizing the Pacaso business model of Co-Ownership/Timeshares/TIC-
Tenants in Common does not enhance the character of our residential
neighborhoods, and therefore should not be allowed to expand their presence
beyond what they were allowed in your 2023 position.
Were you aware of the settled in February 2024 lawsuit that Pacaso brought
against the City of St Helena in Napa County whereby it was settled that their city
DID NOT allow an expansion beyond the original four homes, citing the
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
importance of preserving the character of the city’s residential neighborhood?
I understand in doing a google search no California city has allowed Pacaso to
expand their footprint once city became aware of these homes that had been
purchased during the pandemic. So, Pacaso coming to our city in this way,
seeking to have the rules governing their business and hoping to change our
minds during the summer lull will likely be used by them to have other resort
cities adopt similar expansions because Palm Springs did.
As my career is in real estate, I am keenly aware of the use of property tax monies
by city,county and state. The LLC ownership of these properties uses the umbrella
of the LLC and shifts ownership with each new party of 6-8 parties. However the
tax bases remain at the original purchase price level, and is not reassessed as the
“owner” had not changed.
I believe there is a situation that may be considered by some as a legal slippery
slope that deserves a more detailed and serious review. With multiple owners,
should one of them be the cause of revoking a “permit” the other 5 - 7 owners
may elect to sue not only the perpetrating owner, but the city, that put their
investment at risk.
This is a major shift the council is taking by reviewing this proposal at this time.
The members of OnePS took a strong stance against Pacaso in 2023, and I believe
they should be allowed to be a part of deciding the issue of Pacaso expanding
their footprint into our neighborhoods.
I respectfully ask the council to remove item M from the Consent Calendar, table
the issue and have their representative discuss it and seek input with OnePS prior
to making such an impactful change.
Respectfully submitted.
Sincerely,
Kate Castle
Palm Springs resident
Attached St.Helena Official Statement
Sent from my iPad
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
TODAY’S DATE: February 8, 2024
RELEASE DATE: Immediate
TITLE: City of St. Helena Reaches Settlement with Pacaso
(PRESS RELEASE 2024-05)
CONTACT: Andrew Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager
(707) 968-2635 direct, abradley@cityofsthelena.org
St. Helena, CA – The City of St. Helena, by unanimous vote of the City Council, has reached a legal settlement with
Pacaso, Inc. The resolution concludes the litigation filed against the City by Pacaso in April 2021 challenging the City’s
authority to enforce its timeshare ordinance against Pacaso’s operation of co-owned homes in the City. The settlement
ensures that under our current timeshare ordinance Pacaso cannot expand its operations in the City beyond Pacaso’s
existing four homes. Moreover, the City will continue to enforce its timeshare ordinance to preserve the character of the
City’s residential neighborhoods.
The settlement agreement provides that neither Pacaso nor any parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of Pacaso will
market, sell, or use any single-family home that is or is intended to be fractionally owned in the City with the exception
of the four existing Pacaso homes, which will be considered legal nonconforming uses under the City’s Zoning Code.
“This agreement, along with our updated timeshare ordinance, demonstrates our commitment to preserving the
character of our vibrant and unique neighborhoods,” said Mayor Paul Dohring. “The City Council believes this settlement
agreement reflects a good compromise that protects the City from the further expansion of timeshares in its residential
areas, while limiting the ongoing cost, risk, and uncertainty associated with protracted litigation.”
The City maintains an open-door policy with all businesses operating in the City, and in the spirit of that policy the
settlement agreement allows Pacaso to initiate conversations with the City over the next 18 months to discuss its
operations within the City, the allowable number of Pacaso homes in the City, and potential revenue streams relating to
its operations in the City. It is important to note that any conversations with Pacaso that involve the City Council as a
whole would only occur at a noticed public meeting in conformance with the Brown Act, and the public would have the
opportunity to comment on those discussions as part of that meeting. Additionally, any attempted expansion of
operations by Pacaso in the City would require an amendment of the City’s timeshare ordinance, requiring noticed
public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. No action could be taken that would allow
Pacaso to sell or market new timeshares in the City without City Council action, following extensive public input.
City Manager Anil Comelo expressed satisfaction with the settlement, stating, “We are pleased to have reached a
resolution with Pacaso that protects against the expansion of timeshare uses in our residential neighborhoods. The City
of St. Helena is committed to the well-being of our residents and intends to vigorously enforce our timeshare ordinance
and other rules enacted by our Council to preserve the unique small-town character of our City.”
###
PRESS RELEASE
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Amy Cox
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item M- seek resident input and remove from consent calendar
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:52:52 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Palm Springs City Council and Palm Springs City Clerk:
I am writing to strongly urge you to remove the co-ownership and timeshares item (item M)
from the consent calendar and proactively seek input from City residents and OnePS.
This is a very important item that is critical to our city’s neighborhoods and affects our quality
of life, thus it warrants input as well as discussion from a majority of our residents.
We do not want large timeshare companies taking over our neighborhoods as in the past with
short-term rentals. This seems to be an ongoing problem with the city, and as mentioned, it
affects us all.
At a minimum, you should require tax assessments on any change of ownership or partial
ownership.
I realize we are in the summer months when many people are away or on vacation, however,
this issue is important enough to warrant the full attention of as many Palm Springs residents
as you can get input from so that informed decisions are made before neighborhoods are
affected and/or ruined.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Amy Cox
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Kate Castle
To:City Clerk; Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Grace Garner; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Scott Stiles
Cc:Kate Castle; Chris Ruetz; Patrick Stonebraker
Subject:July 25 Council Agenda Item M on Consent Calendar
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:52:57 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
July 23, 2024
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor Pro-Tem DeHarte, Council Members Garner, Holstege, and Middleton
CC: Scott Stiles
The Board of Directors for OnePS has noted the agenda item “M” on the July 25 upcoming council meeting. As a result a vote was taken and passed unanimously, and we wish to inform the
city council of our desire to learn more about the preferred change in policy governing co-housing/Timeshares/TIC-tenants in common before any measure be voted by this council as we feel it
affects the character of our neighborhoods. Therefore we respectfully and strongly ask to have it removed from the consent calendar, so as to allow our 52 neighborhood representatives to
review and share possible input on this issue.
Respectfully,
Chris Ruetz, Chair-OnePS
Kate Castle, Vice Chair-OnePS
Sent from my iPad
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:DARLENE BILLIA
To:City Clerk
Subject:Co-owned housing
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:30:47 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
The Council wants to expand housing? This is not the way to do it. You are ruining our Palm Springs area.
Sent from my iPhone
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Bruce T. Bauer
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; Christy Holstege; Scott Stiles; Jeff Ballinger-C
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:City Council Meeting July 25, 2024, Item 1M / Second Reading of Co-owned Housing Ordinance
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 2:49:18 PM
Attachments:image003.png
Aftab Dada Letter re July 25 2024 CIty Council Meeting Item 1M.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Hon. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmembers, City Manager, City Attorney and Officials
of the City of Palm Springs:
Please find enclosed Aftab Dada’s letter of today’s date regarding Agenda Item No. 1M for the
July 25, 2024, City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Bruce T. Bauer
PALM SPRINGS COSTA MESA SAN DIEGO PRINCETON NEW YORK
____________________________________________
Bruce T. Bauer
Of Counsel
SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP
1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262
Phone (760) 322-2275 / Fax (760) 322-2107
https://sbemp.com/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, together with any documents, files and/or other messages attached to it,
is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by
telephone and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, you are hereby informed that any advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
07/25/2024 Public Comment Item 1M
From:Richard Krieg
To:City Clerk
Cc:Richard Krieg
Subject:Item M July 25, 2024 agenda
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:46:46 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Please do not allow the passage of legislation to permit Co-Ownership of Single Family
Homes. The very fact that you are considering allowing this with the provision to limit the
number of such units confirms that they are deleterious to the community, Why limit them if
they present no problem? It is bad enough having to deal with short term vacation rentals in
Palm Springs. So many neighboring jurisdictions have outlawed them. Please do not
compound the error by allowing this new business model to destroy residential life further
Sincerely
Richard Krieg
rkriegsf@gmail.com
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Myrna Chariton
To:City Clerk
Subject:Measure M
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:49:07 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Please have City Council remove Measure M from the agenda on Thursday, July 25th, 2024.
This is not the right thing to do to our neighborhoods. It is hard enough for people to purchase
a home in P.S. Now. What will it be like to have to bid against a large corporation for a home?
You should be able to see the effect of a law like this. It is bad for Palm Springs.
Myrna Chariton
2247 E. Amado Rd.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Gustav Swanson
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Item M on July 25 2024 Agenda pertaining to changing our laws and policy governing co-owned homes in
residential neighborhoods.
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 1:26:59 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Autofill created a typo in the email address below.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gustav Swanson <gustavswanson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:12 AM
Subject: Item M on July 25 2024 Agenda pertaining to changing our laws and policy
governing co-owned homes in residential neighborhoods.
To: <city.clerk@palmspringsca.gov>
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor ProTem DeHarte, Council Members Holstege, Garner and
Middleton-
I am shocked, appalled and quite disappointed that Item M regarding co-ownership of
single family homes in residential neighborhoods (aka Pacaso timeshares) is being brought
up for discussion at this Thursday's City Council Meeting.
It is my understanding that the single family home timesharting firm Pacaso has sought to
change a policy that would allow them and future corporations to expand their footprint in
Palm Springs from their current five homes purchased during the Covid pandemic to as
many as an additional THIRTY homes throughout Palm Springs. Their five homes were
allowed to be grandfathered in only after our Palm Springs community became aware of
their presence.
The optics of this are extremely poor. ONE-PS previously weighed in negatively on the
Pacaso single family home timeshare model. Now, when literally half the town is absent as
summer temperatures break records, the City Council conveniently decides to review a policy
that could dramatically impact our neighborhoods' quality of life. Really?! The mere
appearance of impropriety should have given all of you reason to pause. Sadly, I am left with
the impression that this is being pushed through at this time because no one is around to
object.
Additionally, nationwide, communities are re-evaluating the presence and impact of corporate
America (whether it be Pacaso or Blackstone) in our residential neighborhoods. Just recently,
the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors discussed such
limitations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Wj3A77G44
Furthermore, this is a major shift that the council is taking by reviewing this proposal at this
time. Two of the three city council members who supported the policy change will not be
running for re-election. Shouldn't the future City Council members be able to weigh in on this
important issue? Afterall, they will have to deal with any ramifications of your decision. Also,
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
Pacaso undoubtedly would use Palm Springs' decision to try to sway other city/town councils
to follow Palm Springs' lead. Is this the example Palm Springs wants to set?
I respectively ask the City Council to remove item M from the Consent Calendar and table the
issue until representatives (vis a vis ONE-PS) from the most dramatically impacted
neighborhoods can give their input. I strongly suspect that many of them are totally unaware
of these recent developments.
Respectively,
Gustav Swanson
Vista Las Palmas ONE-PS Representative
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:stacy weiss
To:City Clerk
Subject:Pacaso
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:19:09 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
It’s a slippery slope to allow businesses like Pacaso to rule and ruin Palm Springs neighborhoods. The practice of
buying properties during times of stress and using them to enhance your own pockets while destroying
neighborhoods should be prohibited. City Council members’ residential neighborhoods could be negatively affected
as well as other Coachella Valley cities. I guess Pacaso has been defeated in other California cities. Please add Palm
Springs to the list.
I’d be unhappy to think my votes for state elected officials were misplaced.
Thank you.
Stacy Weiss
Rancho Mirage
Sent from my iPhone
Stacy Weiss
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:David Medlin
To:City Clerk
Subject:E-Public Comment - Item M, July 25, 2024 Council Agenda
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:09:53 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
As a resident of the Los Compadres neighborhood of Palm Springs, I would like to express my
profound objection to item M on the July 25, 2024 agenda. Co-ownership does not enhance
neighborhoods - it degrades them. Please do not allow this in our city.
Thank you,
Dave Medlin
David R. Medlin
(415) 264-0872
dmedlinsf@gmail.com
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Mary Carter
To:City Clerk; Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Grace Garner; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Scott Stiles
Cc:Mark Edelstein; Eve Fromberg
Subject:Vista Las Palmas Neighbors Foundation
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 10:54:07 AM
Attachments:Ltr to City Palm Springs 7.25.24 Final.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Please find the attached letter from Attorney Mark W. Edelstein regarding the matterreferenced above.
If you have any questions about the attached document, please don't hesitate to contactour office.
Very truly yours,Mary CarterCertified Paralegal
2825 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite D-1
Palm Springs, California 92262
Phone 760-320-2804 x108
Fax 760-645-6235
Email M.Carter@FEFLaw.com
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a privatecommunication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in orattached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message,and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax
advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
July 25, 2024
SENT VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL:
The City of Palm Springs
Offices of the Palm Springs Mayor and City Council
Attn: City Clerk - CityClerk@palmspringsca.gov
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Mayor, Jeffrey Bernstein - Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov
Mayor Pro Tem, Ron deHarte - Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov
Councilmember, Grace Elena Garner - Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov
Councilmember, Christy Holstege - Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov
Councilmember, Lisa Middleton - Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov
City Manager, Scott Stiles - Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov
Dear Sirs/Madams:
Our office represents The Vista Las Palmas Neighbors Foundation (“Foundation”). The
Foundation represents the roughly 400 homes and their owners located in the Vista Las Palmas area
of Palm Springs. We are writing this letter in regard to the upcoming vote regarding the shared
ownership legislation proposed for consideration by the Palm Springs City Council (“Council”) on
Thursday, July 26, 2024.
As you may already know from prior communications, our client and its members, all
homeowners in the City of Palm Springs (“City”), stand 100% united in opposition to the shared
ownership model, and to the proposed legislative change.
The history regarding the votes on this legislation is as follows:
1.In March 2023, the Council in a vote of 5-0, voted unanimously to ban timeshare
ownership in the City.
2.In March 2023, the City Attorney wrote a cease-and-desist letter to Pacaso demanding
they stop selling timeshare interests in real estate in the City. In this letter, the City Attorney warned
that Pacaso’s model would add to “the reduction in housing stock that is available for full-time
residents … The reduction in housing stock, in turn, feeds the affordability crisis.” Ballinger also
warned of “secondary effects” like those from short-term vacation rentals, which lead to a revolving
group of people in and out of houses right next to full-time residents.
2825 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, SUITE D-1
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-6908
Email: Mark.Edelstein@FEFlaw.com
Email: Eve.Fromberg@FEFlaw.com
OFFICE: 760.320.2804
FACSIMILE: 760.645.6235
Email: Eve/
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
City of Palm Springs
July 25, 2024
Page 2 of 3
3. On March 11, 2022, the Desert Sun newspaper reported that Lisa Middleton was
opposed to Pacaso.
4. On its face, prior to a bulk of the donations Middleton, deHarte, and Holstege voiced
they were against Pacaso and timeshare ownership. But now the City’s position has drastically
changed and without explanation to Pacaso’s favor.
5. According to the political tracking site “Open Secrets,” between March 21, 2023, and
November 14, 2023, Pacaso's registered lobbyist, Brian Rix (“Rix”), gave two (2) separate donations
to Christy Holstege of $1,000.00 apiece, for a total of $2,000.00. (a true and correct copy is attached
hereto as Exhibit “1”)
6. During that same time Rix gave three (3) similar donations of $1,000.00 apiece plus
one donation of $250.00 to Middleton, for a total of $3,250.00. These donations were made between
March 21, 2023, and October 14, 2023.
7. Additionally, according to the City’s Campaign Financial Reports, deHarte took two
contributions from Rix, in the amounts of $1,000.00 and $500.00, for a total of $1,500.00. Attached
please find screenshots from Open Secrets detailing all donations from Brian Rix to council members
deHarte, Middleton and Holstege. (A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “2”)
8. It should be noted that Rix is also a real estate agent who is Executive Vice President
of the brokerage company called “The Firm,” whose President is Adam Gilbert, the husband of
Councilmember Holstege.
9. On July 9, 2024, the City Council in a 3-2 vote, changed their position and voted to
approve this legislation. The three council members who voted to approve Pacaso’s timeshare
ownership were Middleton, Holstege and deHarte after all three were given donations by Pacaso
through Brian Rix. Council members Bernstein and Garner voted against this legislation. At no time
during the vote, did deHarte, Middleton, and Holstege disclose the donations or recuse themselves
from the vote.
As a result, we believe three current City Councilpersons have a conflict of interest in regard
to this vote and voting that occurred on July 9, 2024, regarding this measure. It is the position of our
client that Councilpersons deHarte, Middleton, and Holstege, who have now voted in support of this
legislation, have a conflict of interest due to the fact that all three council members have received
recent donations from Pacaso (the proponents who have pushed this legislative measure) via their
lobbyist and agent, Rix. Payments in excess of $250 per candidate have been given to the three
campaigns of deHarte, Holstege, and Middleton. It is our understanding that the refusal of these three
members of City Council to recuse themselves is likely a violation of California Government Code
84308, also sometimes referred to as the “Pay for Play” legislation.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
City of Palm Springs
July 25, 2024
Page 3 of 3
Section 84308 is a California law aimed at preventing “pay-to-play practices,” in part, by
prohibiting parties, participants, and their respective agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit,
or other entitlement for use (collectively referenced as an “entitlement for use proceeding” or
“proceeding”) from contributing more than $250.00, to an officer of the agency the proceeding is
before during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding
is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.
Additionally, in an entitlement for use proceeding, a party—but not a participant— is required
to disclose any contributions exceeding an aggregate $250.00, that the party and their agents have
made to an officer of the agency within the preceding 12 months.
Our client and the homeowners who are members of the Foundation and are residents of the
City of Palm Springs, demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations from
anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees, contractors, agents or consultants, recuse
themselves from all votes relating to the shared ownership model, or to zoning changes or any other
changes that would enable that model. If said recusals are not made, our client intends to pursue all
legal remedies available to them against the City and any other related parties deemed responsible.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
FROMBERG EDELSTEIN & FROMBERG
MARK W. EDELSTEIN, ESQ.
MWE:me
Enclosure(s): as stated above.
cc: Client (via email only)
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
EXHIBIT “1”
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
07/25/2024 Public Comment Item 1M
EXHIBIT “2”
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Tori Arguello
To:City Clerk
Subject:RE: Item M Agenda Pacaso 7/25/24 Mtg
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 12:13:11 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear PS City Clerk,
As a past resident and Realtor in the Napa Valley/Marin/SF Bay Area, I'm fully aware of the problems related to Pacaso homes. I'm also
aware of the recent lawsuit in the area that DID NOT allow expansion of their homes. In fact, no California city has granted Pacaso
significant expansion, reflecting broader concerns about their business model.
For Pacaso to enter Palm Springs, I believe it's crucial to have an open and transparent discussion with the community to share their
experiences and insights.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the council to remove item M from the Agenda's Consent Calendar, table the issue, and seek input with
members of the community. This is extremely important prior to making such an impactful change.
Sincerely,Tori Arguello
CalDRE#01119389
Email ToriA@BDHomes.com
Mobile (415) 717-4575 | Office (760) 770-6801
71691 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:larry fechter
To:City Clerk
Subject:Measure M
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:08:02 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
As a long time city resident (22 year) I am very concerned about the development of shared ownership housing and
what it means for stability of our community. I urge the council to remove measure M from the consent calendar to
permit additional input from citizens.
Laurence Fechter
Deepwell
Sent from my iPhone
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Linda Bracken
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Subject:Who do you represent ?
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:03:20 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
You do NOT represent your constituents if you favor arrangements that reduce our
neighborhood to a business. If you do not favor those, then please ignore this message and
have a good evening. It is intended only for those snakes among you who are "on the payroll";
only those among you who care nothing for the residents of our community and only for your
own seats and pocketbooks. Do you think this is why you were given this role of significant
responsibility with regard to the community ? So that you can personally, financially prosper
? That's just sick. Downright sick. Squirm, Squirm, Squirm. Wriggle, Wriggle, Wriggle.
Do you understand ? Have you no conscience ? Are there no limits to the depths of you ?
Have you, in fact, sold your souls ?
How sad that the homeowners of Vista Las Palmas and Palm Springs are reduced to having to
say this:
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NONE OF YOUR
BUSINESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God Bless and Do The Right Thing
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Alexander Reid
To:City Clerk
Subject:ITEM M on 07/25/2024 Agenda
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2024 6:28:48 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Bernstein, Mayor ProTem DeHarte, Council Members Holstege, Garner
and Middleton
RE: Item M on July 25 2024 Agenda pertaining to changing our laws and policy
governing co-owned homes in residential neighborhoods.
It is my understanding that a firm, Pacaso, has sought a change in policy that would
expand their footprint in Palm Springs from 5 homes purchased during the pandemic
that were grandfathered in once our community became aware of their existence in
2023 to as many as additional 30 homes. From this understanding, I reiterate my
position that Palm Springs benefits from recognizing the Pacaso business model of
Co-Ownership/Timeshares/TIC-Tenants in Common does not enhance the character
of our residential neighborhoods, and therefore should not be allowed to expand their
presence beyond what they were allowed in your 2023 position.
In February of 2024, Pacaso filed a lawsuit against the City of St Helena in Napa
County whereby it was settled that their city DID NOT allow an expansion beyond the
original four homes, citing the importance of preserving the character of the city’s
residential neighborhood. My own research has shown that no California city has
allowed Pacaso to expand their footprint once the city became aware of these homes
that had been purchased during the pandemic. Pacaso coming to our city in this way -
seeking to have the rules governing their business and hoping to change our minds
during the summer lull - will likely be used by them to have other resort cities adopt
similar expansions because Palm Springs did.
The LLC ownership of these properties uses the umbrella of the LLC and shifts
ownership with each new party of 6-8 parties. However, the tax bases remain at the
original purchase price level and are not reassessed as the “owner” has not changed.
This is not a benefit to our city. In addition, there are other situations that may be risky
and deserve a more detailed and serious review. For example, with multiple owners,
should one of them be the cause of revoking a “permit” the other 5 - 7 owners may
elect to sue not only the perpetrating owner but also the city that put their investment
at risk.
This is a major shift the council is taking by reviewing this proposal at this time. The
members of the community took a strong stance against Pacaso in 2023 and it is my
belief that they should be allowed to be a part of deciding the issue of Pacaso
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
expanding their footprint into our neighborhoods. I respectfully ask the council to
remove item M from the Consent Calendar, table the issue and have their
representatives discuss it and seek input from the citizens of Palm Springs prior to
making such an impactful change.
Respectfully submitted,
Alexander Reid
1758 S Mesa Dr.
Palm Springs
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Brett Smith
To:CityManager; City Clerk
Subject:Re: Prominent neighborhood accuses Palm Springs City Council members of conflict of interest
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 11:18:08 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 8:39 PM Brett Smith <bgsmith27@gmail.com> wrote:
I would appreciate acknowledgement of receiving this email, and forwarding its contents to
the city council. Thank you.
Once again…and a repeat of what happened to Steve Poignant…council members have
taken bribes to influence their votes! In this instance, it is the selling out of Palm Springs
neighborhoods to the group Picasso. We already have too many short term rentals, major
homeless issues, and now we’re going to add another facet of transient activity. Shame on
these 3 council members for accepting these bribes!
I already have a major beef with one current council member, who is using her position to
move up the political ladder to State Assembly. It is common knowledge in this city that this
individual has never been transparent in her decisions or motives!
Shame on this Brian Rix! Once again it’s all about money and personal gain over integrity
and quality of life in Palm Springs
Brett Smith
Palm Springs
Prominent neighborhood accuses Palm Springs City Council members of conflict of interest
https://kesq.com/news/2024/07/24/prominent-neighborhood-accuses-palm-springs-city-
council-members-of-conflict-of-interest/
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:City of Palm Springs
To:City Clerk
Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 10:19:05 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Submission #:3360630
IP Address:173.196.215.3
Submission Date:07/25/2024 10:18
Survey Time:13 minutes, 23 seconds
You have a new online form submission.
Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.
Full Name/Nombre
Howard Cummings
City of Residence/Ciudad de residencia
Palm Springs,
Phone (optional) /Teléfono (opcional)
Email (optional/opcional)
arthowcum@aol.com
Your Comments/Sus comentarios
I am strongly opposed to the proposed expansion of Pacaso shared home ownership into the Vista Las Palmas
neighborhood as it will further change the character of the neighborhood which ,since Covid ,has become more and
more transformed by vacation rentals. In the last 3 years I have lost ALL the full time residents ( 6 in total have left)
that surround my home and the homes a cross the street. Instead every weekend is a new crop of people. The life I
hoped to live in retirement has essentially disappeared as it no longer feels like a neighborhood...it essentially has
become a motor hotel. Please allow me and my neighbors the opportunity to weigh in on this and at least postpone
the process . Doing this in the dead of summer when people are generally away seems incredibly unfair. It
essentially takes our voices out of the process.
Thank you,
City of Palm Springs
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:City of Palm Springs
To:City Clerk
Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 9:09:37 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Submission #:3360374
IP Address:98.223.143.182
Submission Date:07/25/2024 9:09
Survey Time:7 minutes, 33 seconds
You have a new online form submission.
Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.
Full Name/Nombre
Susan Missner
City of Residence/Ciudad de residencia
Palm Springs,
Phone (optional) /Teléfono (opcional)
(312) 543-5933
Email (optional/opcional)
susanmissner@gmail.com
Your Comments/Sus comentarios
I am opposed to shared home ownership in Vista Las Palmas. One of the reasons I purposely chose VLP when I
bought my home over 20 years ago because VLP is single family unit housing. Any change in zoning that would
accommodate shared ownership will forever change the nature of this legacy neighborhood. A change like that
should only be voted by homeowners in VLP, not by the Council. Additionally, it has come to my attention that 3
Council members have received campaign donations from Pacaso's lobbyist and have not recused themselves from
voting on this zoning change. This is a clear conflict of interest. I ask all Council members to do the job they were
elected to do - govern responsibly and honorably. To recuse themselves when conflicted and in this particular case,
allow neighborhood homeowners to vote as to whether changing current zoning from single family only to shared
family is something they want to do. Thank you.
Thank you,
City of Palm Springs
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Christy Holstege
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Vista las Palmas
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 8:38:42 AM
Christy Gilbert Holstege, Esq.
Councilmember
District 4
City of Palm Springs
Begin forwarded message:
From: MaryJo Ohlin <mjohlin@mchsi.com>
Date: July 25, 2024 at 7:10:41 AM PDT
To: Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Vista las Palmas
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO
NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
We, along with our board, ARE 100% in opposition to the shared ownership
model, not as proposed, and not as exists. We do NOT want the model in our
neighborhood, or in our city, not in any format.
We demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations from
anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees,contractors, agents or
consultants, recuse themselves from all votes relating to the shared ownership
model, or to zoning changes that would enable that model.
Regards,
Mary Jo and Tom Ohlin
Vista las Palmas residents
Sent from my iPhone
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Christy Holstege
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Please vote "No" on shared ownership expansion
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 8:37:51 AM
Christy Gilbert Holstege, Esq.
Councilmember
District 4
City of Palm Springs
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Higgins <jimhiggins333@gmail.com>
Date: July 25, 2024 at 5:53:44 AM PDT
To: Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Please vote 'No' on shared ownership expansion
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Ms. Holstege,
To reiterate key concerns from the Vista Las Palmas Neighborhood Foundation's Board, "...on behalf
of the roughly 400 homes in the Vista Las Palmas Neighborhood regarding the shared ownership
legislation proposed for consideration by City Council this week. We want to be perfectly clear that
we stand 100% united in opposition to the shared ownership model, and to the proposed legislative
change. We have previously shared our view that 1. it is unseemly at best to cram through this
legislation in the dead of summer, 2. That no one has been able to
explain how the quality of life of the residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than
further ERODED, by upzoning the entire city, and 3. If the City wants to include shared
ownership homes then you can do this by allowing the NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED
to vote themselves, OR by adding NEW districts that encompass ALL of the upzoned
uses including shared ownership in all of its forms, multifamily, hotels, timeshares,
vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses..."
My husband and I are part-time residents of VLP, surrounded already by three vacation rentals either
touching or diagonally opposite our home. There is more than enough hollowing out of the peace we
should be able to expect during the time we spend there, and given our plan to retire full time to
Palm Springs within five years, are forward-looking in that concern. As our Board noted, "...no one
has been able to explain how the quality of life of the residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather
than further ERODED", and until the City Council can demonstrate how the new law would benefit
Palm Springers, that change should not be made.
Very truly yours,
Adam Esser & Jim Higgins
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
James M. Higgins, CFA
2301 Connecticut Avenue NW #2A
Washington, DC 20008
(201) 412-4696 mobile
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Christy Holstege
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Pacaso
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 8:37:21 AM
Christy Gilbert Holstege, Esq.
Councilmember
District 4
City of Palm Springs
Begin forwarded message:
From: Daniel Bourgoise <gobodan2@gmail.com>
Date: July 25, 2024 at 3:02:54 AM PDT
To: Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Kelley Ryan <kelleypie19@gmail.com>
Subject: Pacaso
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
WE ARE 100% in opposition to the shared ownership
model, not as proposed, and not as exists. We do NOT
want the model in our neighborhood, or in our city, not in
any format.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Dan and Kelley Bourgoise
1200 Vista Vespero
Palm Springs, CA 92262
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Scott Arnovitz
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Cc:Vista Las Palmas Neighboorhood Organization
Subject:Opposition to Shared Ownership Model/Legislative Change
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 7:20:26 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
As a Vista Las Palmas Homeowner, I am in opposition to the shared
ownership model and to the proposed legislative change.
Rental home proliferation challenged the fabric of our community. This
would make the situation even worse.
- It is unseemly at best to cram through this legislation in the dead
of summer,
- No one has been able to explain how the quality of life of the
residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than further ERODED, by
upzoning the entire city
- If the City wants to include shared ownership homes then you can do
this by allowing the NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED to vote themselves, OR by
adding NEW districts that encompass ALL of the upzoned uses including
shared ownership in all of its forms, multifamily, hotels, timeshares,
vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses. As the city expands simply
adopt new zoning for the expanded areas. In that manner people
investing in those neighborhoods are making that decision knowing from
the outset the higher density of their neighborhoods.
Additionally, it has been brought to my attention that the three
members of City Council voting in support of this legislation all
accepted donations from Pacaso via their lobbyist: Brian Rix. As we
all know, cash is fungible, and cash paid to Rix for lobbying is
indistinguishable from cash paid to him from other sources. That cash
gets pooled in an account, and has worked its way to the three
campaigns of Ron deHarte, Christy Holstege, and Lisa Middleton.
It is my understanding that the refusal of these three members of City
Council to recuse themselves might be a violation of California
Government Code 84301, known as the Pay to Play law. Further, it
appears as though in turn the City of Palm Springs has retained Burke
Rix Communications to “message” zoning law to the residents of the
City of Palm Springs, closing the loop on that circle of political
donations, City Council votes, and awarding business. And in one final
piece of head spinning conflict, I have also been informed that Mr.
Rix is affiliated - as a licensed real estate agent - with The Firm,
the real estate brokerage company owned by Adam Gilbert, the husband
of Councilwoman Holstege.
I expect more from my elected representatives.
Once again, reiterating, I am 100% in opposition to the shared
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
ownership model, not as proposed, and not as exists. I do NOT want the
model in my neighborhood, or in my city, not in any format.
I demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations
from anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees,contractors,
agents or consultants, recuse themselves from all votes relating to
the shared ownership model, or to zoning changes that would enable
that model.
Best regards,
Scott Arnovitz
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Scott Arnovitz
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Cc:Vista Las Palmas Neighboorhood Organization
Subject:Opposition to Shared Ownership Model/Legislative Change
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 7:20:26 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
As a Vista Las Palmas Homeowner, I am in opposition to the shared
ownership model and to the proposed legislative change.
Rental home proliferation challenged the fabric of our community. This
would make the situation even worse.
- It is unseemly at best to cram through this legislation in the dead
of summer,
- No one has been able to explain how the quality of life of the
residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than further ERODED, by
upzoning the entire city
- If the City wants to include shared ownership homes then you can do
this by allowing the NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED to vote themselves, OR by
adding NEW districts that encompass ALL of the upzoned uses including
shared ownership in all of its forms, multifamily, hotels, timeshares,
vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses. As the city expands simply
adopt new zoning for the expanded areas. In that manner people
investing in those neighborhoods are making that decision knowing from
the outset the higher density of their neighborhoods.
Additionally, it has been brought to my attention that the three
members of City Council voting in support of this legislation all
accepted donations from Pacaso via their lobbyist: Brian Rix. As we
all know, cash is fungible, and cash paid to Rix for lobbying is
indistinguishable from cash paid to him from other sources. That cash
gets pooled in an account, and has worked its way to the three
campaigns of Ron deHarte, Christy Holstege, and Lisa Middleton.
It is my understanding that the refusal of these three members of City
Council to recuse themselves might be a violation of California
Government Code 84301, known as the Pay to Play law. Further, it
appears as though in turn the City of Palm Springs has retained Burke
Rix Communications to “message” zoning law to the residents of the
City of Palm Springs, closing the loop on that circle of political
donations, City Council votes, and awarding business. And in one final
piece of head spinning conflict, I have also been informed that Mr.
Rix is affiliated - as a licensed real estate agent - with The Firm,
the real estate brokerage company owned by Adam Gilbert, the husband
of Councilwoman Holstege.
I expect more from my elected representatives.
Once again, reiterating, I am 100% in opposition to the shared
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
ownership model, not as proposed, and not as exists. I do NOT want the
model in my neighborhood, or in my city, not in any format.
I demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations
from anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees,contractors,
agents or consultants, recuse themselves from all votes relating to
the shared ownership model, or to zoning changes that would enable
that model.
Best regards,
Scott Arnovitz
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:City of Palm Springs
To:City Clerk
Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 7:03:10 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Submission #:3359966
IP Address:72.132.214.126
Submission Date:07/25/2024 7:03
Survey Time:8 minutes, 39 seconds
You have a new online form submission.
Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.
Full Name/Nombre
Harry Domicone
City of Residence/Ciudad de residencia
Palm Springs,
Phone (optional) /Teléfono (opcional)
(805) 338-3838
Email (optional/opcional)
domicone@callutheran.edu
Your Comments/Sus comentarios
In my opinion, the approval of shared housing in Palm Springs was rushed through the process at a time, "the dead
of summer," when many owners of the most directly affected neighborhood were not in town. For this and many
other reasons, the city council is encouraged to reverse the decision and pause to more fully examine the proposal
as well as require all council members to reveal any other relationships that they or their political campaigns may
have with parties that are in favor of the proposal. As the Washington Post proclaims in its tagline, "Democracy Dies
in Darkness." A thorough vetting of the vote, its participants, and all parties involved is required for many reasons,
including the serious allegations of political impropriety that are swirling around this decision.
Thank you,
City of Palm Springs
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:MaryJo Ohlin
To:City Clerk
Subject:Vista las Palmas
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 7:02:17 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
We, along with our board, ARE 100% in opposition to the shared ownership model, not as proposed, and not as
exists. We do NOT want the model in our neighborhood, or in our city, not in any format.
We demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations from anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its
owners, employees,contractors, agents or consultants, recuse themselves from all votes relating to the shared
ownership model, or to zoning changes that would enable that model.
Regards,
Tom and Mary Jo Ohlin
Vista Las Palmas residents
Sent from my iPhone
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:James Higgins
To:City Clerk
Subject:"No" on shared ownership expansion
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 5:55:18 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
To reiterate key concerns from the Vista Las Palmas Neighborhood Foundation's Board, "...on behalf of the roughly
400 homes in the Vista Las Palmas Neighborhood regarding the shared ownership legislation proposed for
consideration by City Council this week. We want to be perfectly clear that we stand 100% united in opposition to
the shared ownership model, and to the proposed legislative change. We have previously shared our view that 1. it is
unseemly at best to cram through this legislation in the dead of summer, 2. That no one has been able to
explain how the quality of life of the residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than
further ERODED, by upzoning the entire city, and 3. If the City wants to include shared
ownership homes then you can do this by allowing the NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED
to vote themselves, OR by adding NEW districts that encompass ALL of the upzoned
uses including shared ownership in all of its forms, multifamily, hotels, timeshares,
vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses..."
My husband and I are part-time residents of VLP, surrounded already by three vacation rentals either touching or
diagonally opposite our home. There is more than enough hollowing out of the peace we should be able to expect
during the time we spend there, and given our plan to retire full time to Palm Springs within five years, are forward-
looking in that concern. As our Board noted, "...no one has been able to explain how the quality of life of the
residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than further ERODED", and until the City Council can demonstrate how
the new law would benefit Palm Springers, that change should not be made.
Very truly yours,
Adam Esser & Jim Higgins
James M. Higgins, CFA
2301 Connecticut Avenue NW #2A
Washington, DC 20008
(201) 412-4696 mobile
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Daniel Bourgoise
To:City Clerk
Cc:Kelley Ryan
Subject:Pacaso
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 3:04:17 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
WE ARE 100% in opposition to the shared ownership model, not as
proposed, and not as exists. We do NOT want the model in our
neighborhood, or in our city, not in any format.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Dan and Kelley Bourgoise
1200 Vista Vespero
Palm Springs, CA 92262
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Martin Patterson
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Cc:John Hamilton
Subject:Registering Opposition to the Shared Ownership Model in Vista Las Palmas
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:06:11 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
City Council Members,
We want to be perfectly clear that we stand 100% united in opposition to the shared ownership
model, and to the proposed legislative change. This will damage the character of the
neighborhood.
Furthermore, it has been brought to our attention that the three members of City Council
voting in support of this legislation all accepted donations from Pacaso via their lobbyist:
Brian Rix which calls into question the methods used here.
We demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations from anyone
affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, contractors, agents or consultants recuse themselves from
all votes relating to the share d ownership model or zoning changes that this would enable.
Sincerely,
Martin Patterson & John Hamilton,
893 N Fair Circle,
Palm Springs, CA 92262
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Doug Yates
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Subject:No Shared Ownership!
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 7:30:58 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
As a Vista Las Palmas Homeowner, I am in opposition to the shared
ownership model and to the proposed legislative change.
Rental home proliferation challenged the fabric of our community. This
would make the situation even worse.
- It is unseemly at best to cram through this legislation in the dead
of summer,
- No one has been able to explain how the quality of life of the
residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than further ERODED, by
upzoning the entire city
- If the City wants to include shared ownership homes then you can do
this by allowing the NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED to vote themselves, OR by
adding NEW districts that encompass ALL of the upzoned uses including
shared ownership in all of its forms, multifamily, hotels, timeshares,
vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses. As the city expands simply
adopt new zoning for the expanded areas. In that manner people
investing in those neighborhoods are making that decision knowing from
the outset the higher density of their neighborhoods.
Additionally, it has been brought to my attention that the three
members of City Council voting in support of this legislation all
accepted donations from Pacaso via their lobbyist: Brian Rix. As we
all know, cash is fungible, and cash paid to Rix for lobbying is
indistinguishable from cash paid to him from other sources. That cash
gets pooled in an account, and has worked its way to the three
campaigns of Ron deHarte, Christy Holstege, and Lisa Middleton.
It is my understanding that the refusal of these three members of City
Council to recuse themselves might be a violation of California
Government Code 84301, known as the Pay to Play law. Further, it
appears as though in turn the City of Palm Springs has retained Burke
Rix Communications to “message” zoning law to the residents of the
City of Palm Springs, closing the loop on that circle of political
donations, City Council votes, and awarding business. And in one final
piece of head spinning conflict, I have also been informed that Mr.
Rix is affiliated - as a licensed real estate agent - with The Firm,
the real estate brokerage company owned by Adam Gilbert, the husband
of Councilwoman Holstege.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
I expect more from my elected representatives.
Once again, reiterating, I am 100% in opposition to the shared
ownership model, not as proposed, and not as exists. I do NOT want the
model in my neighborhood, or in my city, not in any format.
I demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations
from anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees,contractors,
agents or consultants, recuse themselves from all votes relating to
the shared ownership model, or to zoning changes that would enable
that model.
Best regards,
Doug Yates
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:City of Palm Springs
To:City Clerk
Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 7:54:54 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Submission #:3360111
IP Address:64.38.149.84
Submission Date:07/25/2024 7:54
Survey Time:3 minutes, 35 seconds
You have a new online form submission.
Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.
Full Name/Nombre
Jim Gray
City of Residence/Ciudad de residencia
Palm Springs,
Phone (optional) /Teléfono (opcional)
Email (optional/opcional)
jmgray@gmail.com
Your Comments/Sus comentarios
As there are open issues related to conflicts of interest and co-owned housing units policy changes for Palm Springs
code, I feel a decision on the policy change should be tabled until such time these open items are resolved
satisfactorily.
Thank you,
City of Palm Springs
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Kevin Comer
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Ron deHarte; Grace Garner; City Clerk;
jeff.ballinger@bbklaw.com; Scott Stiles
Cc:Eve Fromberg; Mark Edelstein; Patsy Marino; Kermit Ferrer; Joe Vassallo; Leda Potente; Byron Hancock; Bryan
Beak; Robert Gottlieb; Gustav Swanson; chris.ruetz
Subject:VLP Response to City Attorney
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 12:03:36 PM
Attachments:Ballinger VLP Response 7 25 24.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Good morning Mr. Ballinger, Please see attached for the response of the Vista Las Palmas
Neighbors Foundation to your letter. We are hopeful that once you have carefully considered
this letter you will join us in demanding that the three City Council members recuse
themselves from the vote this evening.
Sincerely,
Kevin Comer and Patsy Marino
Co-Chairs
The Vista Las Palmas Neighbors Foundation
Board Members:
Joe Vassallo
Leda Potente
Robert Gottlieb
Bryan Beake
Byron Hancock
Kermit Ferrer
Gustav Swanson
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
July 25, 2024
To:
The City of Palm Springs,
Offices of the Palm Springs Mayor and City Council,
City Attorney Jeff Ballinger
Mayor Jeffrey Bernstein
Mayor Pro Tem Ron deHarte
Councilmember Grace Elena Garner,
Councilmember Christy Holstege,
Councilmember Lisa Middleton,
City Manager Scott Stiles
and ONE-PS:
Good morning Mr. Ballinger:
We are in receipt of your letter and have given it careful consideration. Eventually these
matters will be left up to the courts to determine. However, we have two comments.
First, regarding your specific commentary on the timing of the donations received by Mr.
deHarte, you are focused on the strict interpretation of the letter of the law, while we are
focused on its spirit. Whether Mr. deHarte received his donations within 12 months, or
in 12 months and two days, has no bearing on whether the spirit of Pay to Play
legislation has been violated.
Second, the substance of your argument is that the City of Palm Springs is not taking a
position to benefit one company, but is carefully crafting an overall position without
naming Pacaso. That is based on one very simple fallacy, you have assumed there is
more than one player in the shared ownership space in the City of Palm Springs, and
there is not. In fact, there is barely more than one player in the shared ownership space
in the entire country. It is our strong belief that a court will consider the fact that if there
is only one beneficiary of proposed legislation, whether that company is named or not,
then that legislation will be considered to have been written with that one beneficiary in
mind. We are certain that once you have carefully considered the ramifications of that
view you will join us considering at least the possibility that a court will take that view,
and for the sake of prudence you will join us in requiring the three City Council members
who have accepted donations from Pacaso's lobbyist to recuse themselves.
We would also like to clarify the timeline. Vista Las Palmas sent an initial letter of
opposition on May 3, 2023. Vista Las Palmas and Old Las Palmas met with Pacaso
and their lobbyists on June 7, 2023 and expressed our opposition. Vista Las Palmas
and Old Las Palmas met with Councilmember deHarte June 14, 2023 and expressed
our opposition. Since then there has been 13 months of silence during which the
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
neighborhoods in Palm Springs believed this issue was resolved until Councilmember
deHarte’s email on July 8, 2024.
Sincerely,
Kevin Comer and Patsy Marino
Co-Chairs
The Vista Las Palmas Neighbors Foundation
Board Members:
Joe Vassallo
Leda Potente
Bryan Beak
Robert Gottlieb
Byron Hancock
Kermit Ferrer
Gustav Swanson
cc: Fromberg Edelstein & Fromberg
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Christy Holstege
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Opposition to Shared Ownership Model/Legislative Change
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 8:39:06 AM
Christy Gilbert Holstege, Esq.
Councilmember
District 4
City of Palm Springs
Begin forwarded message:
From: Scott Arnovitz <sarnovitz@gmail.com>
Date: July 25, 2024 at 7:20:26 AM PDT
To: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>, Ron deHarte
<Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>, Christy Holstege
<Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>, Lisa Middleton
<Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>, Grace Garner
<Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>, City Clerk
<CityClerk@palmspringsca.gov>, Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Vista Las Palmas Neighboorhood Organization <vlpno@yahoo.com>
Subject: Opposition to Shared Ownership Model/Legislative Change
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO
NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
As a Vista Las Palmas Homeowner, I am in opposition to the shared
ownership model and to the proposed legislative change.
Rental home proliferation challenged the fabric of our community. This
would make the situation even worse.
- It is unseemly at best to cram through this legislation in the dead
of summer,
- No one has been able to explain how the quality of life of the
residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than further ERODED, by
upzoning the entire city
- If the City wants to include shared ownership homes then you can do
this by allowing the NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED to vote themselves, OR by
adding NEW districts that encompass ALL of the upzoned uses including
shared ownership in all of its forms, multifamily, hotels, timeshares,
vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses. As the city expands simply
adopt new zoning for the expanded areas. In that manner people
investing in those neighborhoods are making that decision knowing from
the outset the higher density of their neighborhoods.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
Additionally, it has been brought to my attention that the three
members of City Council voting in support of this legislation all
accepted donations from Pacaso via their lobbyist: Brian Rix. As we
all know, cash is fungible, and cash paid to Rix for lobbying is
indistinguishable from cash paid to him from other sources. That cash
gets pooled in an account, and has worked its way to the three
campaigns of Ron deHarte, Christy Holstege, and Lisa Middleton.
It is my understanding that the refusal of these three members of City
Council to recuse themselves might be a violation of California
Government Code 84301, known as the Pay to Play law. Further, it
appears as though in turn the City of Palm Springs has retained Burke
Rix Communications to “message” zoning law to the residents of the
City of Palm Springs, closing the loop on that circle of political
donations, City Council votes, and awarding business. And in one final
piece of head spinning conflict, I have also been informed that Mr.
Rix is affiliated - as a licensed real estate agent - with The Firm,
the real estate brokerage company owned by Adam Gilbert, the husband
of Councilwoman Holstege.
I expect more from my elected representatives.
Once again, reiterating, I am 100% in opposition to the shared
ownership model, not as proposed, and not as exists. I do NOT want the
model in my neighborhood, or in my city, not in any format.
I demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations
from anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees,contractors,
agents or consultants, recuse themselves from all votes relating to
the shared ownership model, or to zoning changes that would enable
that model.
Best regards,
Scott Arnovitz
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:RL B
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Subject:Proposed Legislative Change - Shared Ownership Model Expansion
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 8:40:11 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Members of the City Council,
We are writing to you today as the concerned homeowners of 1300 Granito Circle in the Vista Las Palmas
neighborhood regarding the shared ownership legislation proposed for today’s City Council meeting at 5:30pm. We
want you to be aware that we vehemently oppose expansion of the shared ownership model, and the proposed
legislative change both as a matter of process and on the merits of the proposed legislation.
We do not believe enough time has been given to obtain public comment and input on these significant, city-wide
changes to the zoning laws. We fail to understand the rush to pass this legislation with so little input from the
neighborhoods that will be affected by the proposed changes, and while so many residents are out of town enjoying
their summer holidays. We have also heard allegations that some members of the city council may have conflicts of
interest that could impact their objectivity regarding a vote on the proposed legislation. We insist on full
transparency of any and all potential conflicts of interest, and at a minimum that a vote on the proposed legislation
be postponed until any and all potential conflicts are fully disclosed and evaluated.
On the merits of the proposed legislation, we would like to understand what benefits the changes to the code would
provide residents of the impacted neighborhoods. We purchased our single-family home in February of 2020, and
like many of our neighbors have spent significant sums of money to restore our home to its original condition. What
attracted us to Palm Springs, and specifically the Vista Las Palmas neighborhood, versus other options such as
Scottsdale, AZ or Las Vegas, NV, was the fantastic mid-century architecture. Close behind was the relative smaller
scale, slower pace, and the peace and tranquility of Palm Springs and the wider valley. Those were the attractive
characteristics that we bargained for when we chose Palm Springs. Changes to the zoning code, like those proposed
in the shared ownership model, threaten those cherished characteristics that make Palm Springs so attractive. We all
know that under the shared model the potential number of users and visits of the shared homes will potentially swell
beyond the eight owners. At a minimum, further subdividing of time allotments to extended family and friends will
swell the number of visits and people using the homes. The transient nature of these visits will turn these homes into
defacto hotels, inconsistent with the long-standing, single family designation and character of our neighborhood.
The likelihood of current owners ever getting to know our new “shared model” neighbors is extremely low. In short,
the shared ownership model is a ruse. It does nothing to address housing affordability in Palm Springs. It will
exacerbate the problem, with the benefits accruing to a few privileged permit holders at the expense of the many.
We implore you to reject this legislation. At a minimum, we ask that a vote be postponed until the impacted
neighborhoods have more time to digest the proposed changes and the potential impacts to our communities.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our concerns.
Respectfully,
Ray Banks and Eric Erickson
1300 N Granito Circle, Palm Springs, CA
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Jim G
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item M on July 25 2024 Agenda pertaining to changing our laws and policy governing co-owned homes in
residential neighborhoods.
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 8:52:15 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Bernstein, And City Council,
I am firmly against increasing permits for 30 additional “timeshare” style businesses
proposed by Pacaso. The decision to increase Pacaso’s presence in our city is not
based on the will or demand of the community but catering directly to this business
and its local public relations engine. I am also concerned that the public was not
made aware of this vote until it occurred and conveniently during the summer when
many residents are taking a break from the heat.
We have just passed strong ordinances and limits to our vacation rental market, even
though Pacaso will have to follow the STR guidelines and limits, it does open
Pandoras box on a new industry, soon 30 will grow to 90 along with competition that
will challenge our laws. To argue that we are dependent on this revenue source is
simply wrong and misleading. We have more short term rentals, hotel rooms and
future hotel rooms than we ever have had in Palm Springs' history.
Please respect our neighborhoods and remember the people make the city.
Thank you
Jim Gazan
Resident
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Tim James
To:City Clerk
Subject:Co-owned Housing Units - Item 1M - 7/25/24 Agenda
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 10:15:44 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Councilmembers, as critical components of healthy neighborhoods grocers support full
utilization of all housing types, including secondary homes. Grocery store sustainability is a
difficult balance which requires a consistent volume of sales due to our low profit margins,
traditionally 3 percent or less. By allowing Co-owned Housing food retailers will experience
more reliable sales patterns helping to secure our place in the community and potentially
leading to additional investments. We encourage you to move forward with ordinance No.
2100 in support of healthy neighborhoods and the grocers that serve them. Thank you for
consideration. Tim
Timothy James
Director, Local Government and Enterprise Risk
California Grocers Association
916-448-3545
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Tim Denmark
To:Jeffrey Bernstein
Cc:Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Subject:A Vista Las Palmas Homeowner in opposition to the shared ownership model
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 10:07:59 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
This letter is in agreement with the roughly 400 homes in the Vista Las Palmas
Neighborhood regarding the shared ownership legislation proposed for the meeting
this evening. We want to be perfectly clear that we stand 100% united in
opposition to the shared ownership model, and to the proposed legislative
change. We have three considerations that we want to share with you.
First, There is simply no time to adequately consider and debate the proposed
changes. As far as the neighborhoods in our city were concerned, this was put to bed
last summer when the city council issued its moratorium, and allowed the five homes
to remain. We had zero knowledge that any change in policy was being
considered. There has been zero input from ONE PS. At a minimum, the vote for this
legislation needs to be postponed for a minimum of one year. Our residents largely
don't return until October. It can then be calendared for assessment in January, a
couple months for feedback, and then re-consideration in the Spring of 2025. It is
unseemly for an upzoning to an entire city to be noticed in four days and then voted
upon in the dead of the summer months.
Second, we ask you to consider one simple question when contemplating putting in
place any legislation: "How is the quality of life for my voting residents positively
impacted by this change?" If the answer is that it isn't, or even worse that it is
negatively impacted, then you should vote "no". It is baffling to all of us how any
resident in our city has their quality of life improved by losing a neighbor and having it
replaced with 8 different families who all come and go at different times, all using the
home as a vacation getaway rather than a "home". The concept that once again
policing a shared ownership home is left up to the residents is one of the reasons why
we all have witnessed so many of our friends moving to other cities in the valley, and
not once in the other direction seeing anyone moving to Palm Springs from another
valley city. Palm Springs is being hollowed out, becoming one big tourist zone.
And third, if you want a solution to this question, then it's simple: give that power to
the people, as our City Hall and Council Chamber signage suggests: The People Are
the City. This is an upzoning to our entire city, and with any upzoning there is a
"taking". Our residents have purchased homes in single-family neighborhoods. That's
a pact that the city has made with its residents. If we had wanted to live in a mixed-
use district, then we would have bought homes in one. But we didn't. Zoning law all
over the country has existed for centuries: it has worked in the past, and it works now.
If Palm Springs wants to allow shared home ownership, which is really just another
form of multifamily, along with timeshares, hotels, apartments, and any other form,
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
then it should allow the neighborhoods to vote on whether or not they want to change
their zoning from single family residential to mixed use multifamily. Nothing short of
that ability to vote themselves by neighborhood is fair to the people of our city.
Once again, reiterating, WE ARE 100% in opposition to the shared ownership model,
not as proposed, and not as exists. We do NOT want the model in our
neighborhood, or in our city, not in any format.
We have never said this to you before, but we’re saying it now: This is an issue upon
which our residents will base their votes for who represents us on City Council.
Sincerely,
Tim Denmark & Hank Madey
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
July 24, 2024
To:
The City of Palm Springs,
Offices of the Palm Springs Mayor and City Council,
Mayor Jeffrey Bernstein
Mayor Pro Tem Ron deHarte
Councilmember Grace Elena Garner,
Councilmember Christy Holstege,
Councilmember Lisa Middleton,
City Manager Scott Stiles
and ONE-PS:
Good day City Council Members.
This letter is written once again on behalf of the roughly 400 homes in the Vista Las
Palmas Neighborhood regarding the shared ownership legislation proposed for
consideration by City Council this week. We want to be perfectly clear that we stand
100% united in opposition to the shared ownership model, and to the proposed
legislative change. We have previously shared our view that 1. it is unseemly at best
to cram through this legislation in the dead of summer, 2. That no one has been able to
explain how the quality of life of the residents of our city is IMPROVED, rather than
further ERODED, by upzoning the entire city, and 3. If the City wants to include shared
ownership homes then you can do this by allowing the NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED
to vote themselves, OR by adding NEW districts that encompass ALL of the upzoned
uses including shared ownership in all of its forms, multifamily, hotels, timeshares,
vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses. As the city expands simply adopt new
zoning for the expanded areas. In that manner people investing in those neighborhoods
are making that decision knowing from the outset the higher density of their
neighborhoods.
More importantly, it has been brought to our attention that the three members of City
Council voting in support of this legislation all accepted donations from Pacaso via their
lobbyist: Brian Rix. As we all know, cash is fungible, and cash paid to Rix for lobbying is
indistinguishable from cash paid to him from other sources. That cash gets pooled in an
account, and has worked its way to the three campaigns of Ron deHarte, Christy
Holstege, and Lisa Middleton. It is our understanding that the refusal of these three
members of City Council to recuse themselves might be a violation of California
Government Code 84301, known as the Pay to Play law. Further, it appears as though
in turn the City of Palm Springs has retained Burke Rix Communications to “message”
zoning law to the residents of the City of Palm Springs, closing the loop on that circle of
political donations, City Council votes, and awarding business. And in one final piece of
head spinning conflict, we have also been informed that Mr. Rix is affiliated - as a
licensed real estate agent - with The Firm, the real estate brokerage company owned by
Adam Gilbert, the husband of Councilwoman Holstege.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 2D
We expect more from our elected representatives.
Once again, reiterating, WE ARE 100% in opposition to the shared ownership model,
not as proposed, and not as exists. We do NOT want the model in our
neighborhood, or in our city, not in any format.
We demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations from
anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees,contractors, agents or consultants,
recuse themselves from all votes relating to the shared ownership model, or to zoning
changes that would enable that model.
We have never said this to you before, but we’re saying it now: This is an issue upon
which our residents will base their votes for who represents us on City Council.
Sincerely,
Kevin Comer and Patsy Marino
Co-Chairs
The Vista Las Palmas Neighbors Foundation
Board Members:
Joe Vassallo
Leda Potente
Bryan Beak
Robert Gottlieb
Byron Hancock
Kermit Ferrer
Gustav Swanson
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 2D
From:Jeffrey Bernstein
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Co-owned housing
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 9:12:43 AM
Importance:High
Thank you!
Jeffrey
Jeffrey Bernstein
Mayor
City of Palm Springs
442-305-9942
Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Domicone, Harry" <domicone@callutheran.edu>
Subject: Co-owned housing
Date: July 25, 2024 at 6:51:47 AM PDT
To: "Jeffrey (Jeff) BERNSTEIN" <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Good Morning:
I remain strongly opposed to co-owned housing in Palm Springs for all
of the reasons that many others have expressed. While disappointed
with the recent vote granting limited approval, it was rewarding to see
that you voted against the measure.
Unaware of the potential “conflict of interest” matters involve that
others allege, I will tell you this: It is my intention to follow (or ask the
media to follow) the campaign finances of two of our council colleagues
who are seeking other elected offices in the upcoming elections.
Co-owned housing would be a devastating blow to this community and
its unique composition. If there is any legal way to reverse this vote or
otherwise put a halt to that sort of corporate leviathan, I surely hope
that you and others will find a way to permanently halt its intrusion into
our way of existence.
Respectfully,
Harry D.
Harry Domicone
Palm Springs, California
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Bradley Dworkin
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Subject:Picaso
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 12:36:16 PM
Attachments:Outlook-hnwhgnub.png
Outlook-zimj35ws.png
Outlook-xuovtoer.png
Outlook-dc2en2ab.png
Outlook-oh4nfel4.png
Outlook-h5njshuc.png
Outlook-o2xiccao.png
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Council members,
I live in Vista Las Palmas and am disheartened to hear even though our neighborhood is
against the expansion of Picaso you don't seem to care. Furthermore I am concerned
you have taken donations in violation of Califorina's pay to play law. I am going contact
the Dessert Sun and recommend to our neighborhood organization that a lawsuit be
filed against you for violating the pay to play law. I would ask you slow down listen to
your constituents and reject this degradation of our neighborhoods. What is most
shocking you went from considering banning them, received a monetary donation and
then reversed course and almost doubled the licenses.
Bradley Dworkin
Managing Partner
P: 312-857-7777
F: 312-264-5624
E: BDworkin@HammerJustice.com
O: 134 N LaSalle St, Ste 650, Chicago, IL 60602
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Hancock, Byron
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Cc:Len Handeland
Subject:A Vista Las Palmas Homeowner in opposition to the shared ownership model
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 2:20:54 PM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image002.png
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
In addition to comments you’ve already received which I echo including the below, I
write to let you know my husband and I purchased a single-family home in the mostly
single-family neighborhood of Vista Las Palmas. Intrusions from existing VRBO
properties already impact us, to the extent that (1) immediate neighbor recorded (2)
complaints by our calls and then sold the property prior to a 3rd complaint after visiting
the property before housekeeping and found the drug & alcohol residue to such a
magnitude he was concerned someone would die in his property -- so he sold to avoid
that liability.
I am predominantly in the securities business which as you might guess is highly
regulated, to the extent if I am contributing to a local or state sitting govt official, such
as yourselves, OR a candidate for local or state office, I must have such contribution
approved by my affiliate LPL Financial, PRIOR to that donation – this is done to
prevent “Pay to Play” for securities professionals seeking municipal bond or Treasury
business. Pay to Play lacks ethics & integrity.
To the extent sitting council members have received (any) past campaign
contributions from Pacaso and are creating new legislation to accommodate their
business model, this would suggest a similar lack of ethics and integrity. I’ve seen a
long letter from the City Attorney with a lot of legalese of why such laws do not pertain
to this situation and councilmembers need not recuse themselves on tonight’s votes.
But beware --- if a rotten banana smells like a rotten banana, then guess what – it
likely is a rotten banana!
Further, in the long list of “Controls” someone created to try to make this seem
palatable I note the following –
·Revoke the permit if violations persist. If revoked, they can not
operate as co-owned housing. I wrote earlier but am still absent a reply to
my question how the City would enforce this -- forcing a sale of the property
and refund to LLC Members? Sounds like litigation to me. I offer that question
as clearly that “control” has not been well thought out, just like the entire
legislation. And when the well-funded Pacaso, with its singular-focus
business model, may not be around in the future, how does this control get
enforced?
As your passion should be making life better for the RESIDENTS of Palm Springs,
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
HOW DOES THIS MAKE OUR LIFE BETTER? That has been asked before but
never answered by Council. Why is that?
I personally attended your meeting on a Tuesday night a couple of weeks ago; no one
in favor of this legislation except representatives from Pacaso, housekeeping, pool
cleaners etc. Guess what – WITHOUT PACASO those houses are still there so they
still have gainful employment! This is not creating new employment though they tried
to make it seem so. That night I also personally asked Council Members who had
accepted contributions from Pacaso et all to recuse themselves. None did, that had
received such money. Is this NOT “Pay to Play”? You should be concerned about
the “appearance” even if the City Attorney attempts to make a legal argument that it is
not violating the law. Again, does a rotten banana smell like a rotten banana?
I am saddened that (2) candidates (Ms. Holstege, Ms. Middleton) for whom my
husband and I recently spent a hot Saturday morning in La Quinta completing door-
to-door canvassing (fbo Will Rollins as well) are a part of this quagmire.
And lastly, I am Past President of a 95-member ROTARY club in Sonoma, CA.
BELOW is the Four Way Test of Rotary International which I think you may find
helpful in evaluating your positions. In my opinion a YES vote would conflict with 3 of
the 4 tests below and any 5th grader can do that arithmetic and know what the right
thing is to do.
Please click HERE to read my GOOGLE REVIEWS
Click here for your 2024 Key Financial Data including Federal Tax Rates
Byron W. Hancock, CFP®, AIF®
CA Insurance #0736452
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
HANCOCK PARTNERS
Wealth Management | Life & Legacy Planning
777 E Tahquitz Canyon WaySuite 200-58Palm Springs, CA 92262
P (760) 314-3700 x1 Voice/TextP (707) 996-8100 x1 VoiceF (877) 268-9344byron@hancock-partners.com www.hancock-partners.com
Book Time with Byron Hancock
Client Services Specialist Cathy Cripps for Appointment Calendar | General Questionscathy@hancock-partners.com - (760) 314-3700 x2 9:30AM PT – 2:30PM PT MON, WED & THU
Account Operations Specialist Amie Parker for LPL Financial Mattersamie@hancock-partners.com - (760) 314-3700 x3 5:00AM PT – 1:30PM PT MON - FRI
Byron Hancock is an LPL Registered Principal with, and securities and Advisory Services offeredthrough LPL Financial, a Registered Investment Advisor. Member FINRA/SIPC.
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Center for Financial Planning, Inc. owns and licenses
the certification mark CFP®, in the United States to Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards,Inc., which authorizes individuals who successfully complete the organization’s initial and ongoingcertification requirements to use the certification mark.
The information contained in this email message is being transmitted to and is intended for the use ofonly the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message isstrictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tim Denmark <timdenmark@me.com>
Subject: A Vista Las Palmas Homeowner in opposition to the shared ownership
model
Date: July 25, 2024 at 10:07:39 AM PDT
To: Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov
Cc: Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov, Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov,
Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov, Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov,
CityClerk@palmspringsca.gov, Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
This letter is in agreement with the roughly 400 homes in the Vista Las
Palmas Neighborhood regarding the shared ownership legislation
proposed for the meeting this evening. We want to be perfectly clear
that we stand 100% united in opposition to the shared ownership
model, and to the proposed legislative change. We have three
considerations that we want to share with you.
First, There is simply no time to adequately consider and debate the
proposed changes. As far as the neighborhoods in our city were
concerned, this was put to bed last summer when the city council
issued its moratorium, and allowed the five homes to remain. We had
zero knowledge that any change in policy was being
considered. There has been zero input from ONE PS. At a minimum,
the vote for this legislation needs to be postponed for a minimum of one
year. Our residents largely don't return until October. It can then be
calendared for assessment in January, a couple months for feedback,
and then re-consideration in the Spring of 2025. It is unseemly for an
upzoning to an entire city to be noticed in four days and then voted
upon in the dead of the summer months.
Second, we ask you to consider one simple question when
contemplating putting in place any legislation: "How is the quality of life
for my voting residents positively impacted by this change?" If the
answer is that it isn't, or even worse that it is negatively impacted, then
you should vote "no". It is baffling to all of us how any resident in our
city has their quality of life improved by losing a neighbor and having it
replaced with 8 different families who all come and go at different times,
all using the home as a vacation getaway rather than a "home". The
concept that once again policing a shared ownership home is left up to
the residents is one of the reasons why we all have witnessed so many
of our friends moving to other cities in the valley, and not once in the
other direction seeing anyone moving to Palm Springs from another
valley city. Palm Springs is being hollowed out, becoming one big tourist
zone.
And third, if you want a solution to this question, then it's simple: give
that power to the people, as our City Hall and Council Chamber signage
suggests: The People Are the City. This is an upzoning to our entire
city, and with any upzoning there is a
"taking". Our residents have purchased homes in single-family
neighborhoods. That's a pact that the city has made with its residents. If
we had wanted to live in a mixed-use district, then we would have
bought homes in one. But we didn't. Zoning law all over the country has
existed for centuries: it has worked in the past, and it works now. If
Palm Springs wants to allow shared home ownership, which is really
just another form of multifamily, along with timeshares, hotels,
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
apartments, and any other form, then it should allow the neighborhoods
to vote on whether or not they want to change their zoning from single
family residential to mixed use multifamily. Nothing short of that ability to
vote themselves by neighborhood is fair to the people of our city.
Once again, reiterating, WE ARE 100% in opposition to the shared
ownership model, not as proposed, and not as exists. We do NOT want
the model in our neighborhood, or in our city, not in any format.
We have never said this to you before, but we’re saying it now: This is
an issue upon which our residents will base their votes for who
represents us on City Council.
Sincerely,
Tim Denmark & Hank Madey
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Wayne Browning
To:City Clerk
Subject:Shared Home Model in Vista Las Palmas
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 12:17:16 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
This letter is written once again on behalf of the roughly 400 homes in the Vista Las
Palmas Neighborhood regarding the shared ownership legislation proposed for
consideration by City Council this week. We want to be perfectly clear that we
stand 100% united in opposition to the shared ownership model, and to the
proposed legislative change. We have previously shared our view that 1. it is
unseemly at best to cram through this legislation in the dead of summer, 2. That no
one has been able to explain how the quality of life of the residents of our city is
IMPROVED, rather than further ERODED, by upzoning the entire city, and 3. If the
City wants to include shared ownership homes then you can do this by allowing the
NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED to vote themselves, OR by adding NEW districts that
encompass ALL of the upzoned uses including shared ownership in all of its forms,
multifamily, hotels, timeshares, vacation rentals, and SB9 and SB10 uses. As the city
expands simply adopt new zoning for the expanded areas. In that manner people
investing in those neighborhoods are making that decision knowing from the outset
the higher density of their neighborhoods.
More importantly, it has been brought to our attention that the three members of City
Council voting in support of this legislation all accepted donations from Pacaso via
their lobbyist: Brian Rix. As we all know, cash is fungible, and cash paid to Rix for
lobbying is indistinguishable from cash paid to him from other sources. That cash gets
pooled in an account, and has worked its way to the three campaigns of Ron deHarte,
Christy Holstege, and Lisa Middleton. It is our understanding that the refusal of these
three members of City Council to recuse themselves might be a violation of California
Government Code 84301, known as the Pay to Play law. Further, it appears as
though in turn the City of Palm Springs has retained Burke Rix Communications to
“message” zoning law to the residents of the City of Palm Springs, closing the loop on
that circle of political donations, City Council votes, and awarding business. And in
one final piece of head spinning conflict, we have also been informed that Mr. Rix is
affiliated - as a licensed real estate agent - with The Firm, the real estate brokerage
company owned by Adam Gilbert, the husband of Councilwoman Holstege.
We expect more from our elected representatives.
Once again, reiterating, WE ARE 100% in opposition to the shared ownership model,
not as proposed, and not as exists. We do NOT want the model in our
neighborhood, or in our city, not in any format.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
We demand that the members of City Council who have accepted donations from
anyone affiliated with Pacaso, its owners, employees,contractors, agents or
consultants, recuse themselves from all votes relating to the shared ownership model,
or to zoning changes that would enable that model.
We have never said this to you before, but we’re saying it now: This is an issue upon
which our residents will base their votes for who represents us on City Council.
If you accepted a "donation" and did not recuse yourself, you are guilty of the Pay to
Play Law and we will take all necessary action against you and to make the entire
City aware of your actions.
Sincerely,
Wayne Browning
1189 N Rose Ave, Palm Springs
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:City of Palm Springs
To:City Clerk
Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 3:51:27 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs
Submission #:3361728
IP Address:75.85.222.123
Submission Date:07/25/2024 3:51
Survey Time:1 minute, 8 seconds
You have a new online form submission.
Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.
Full Name/Nombre
Scott Connelly
City of Residence/Ciudad de residencia
Palm Springs,
Phone (optional) /Teléfono (opcional)
Email (optional/opcional)
scottdesert@gmail.com
Your Comments/Sus comentarios
Item 1M Pacaso properties is disruptive to neighborhoods, creating increased noise and affecting parking. It will be
difficult to enforce vacation rental regulations and to cancel a repeat violator. It cheapens the value of ownership
and affects the integrity and the enjoyment of a neighborhood that the residents rightfully expect. It reduces the
inventory of available properties making affordable housing less available. Are you opening the door for other
similar business models to invade our neighborhoods?
Thank you,
City of Palm Springs
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Roberta Conroy
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Subject:Shared Ownership Approval
Date:Tuesday, July 30, 2024 8:18:49 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
City Council,
I am horrified by the process recently undertaken by the City Council in connection with the
shared ownership model. This is definitely a controversial issue as it is the "step sister" of the
vacation rental model which has been so hotly debated in our City. Here, once the cat was out
of the bag (many rental properties), the City Council spent much time regulating them in order
to protect the same "quality of life" issues which are present with shared ownership. So why
is this cat being let out of the bag? How did it get out of the bag in the first place?
I live two doors down from the Pacaso property on Stevens and Monte Vista. There was at least
one occasion where the "partying" was extremely disruptive – I did not know what to do. It is
not a rental. They are my neighbors. They have no incentive to act like nice neighbors....just
passing through...! Maybe they were renters of the owners. Is this permitted?
What is in it for the CIty? (will a special tax be paid similar to a TOT)
Were the Brian Rix donations personal, or to benefit Pacaso?
What is in it for the residents?
Nothing good here on shared rentals. This is a big issue and needs to be further studied and
debated.
Thank you,
Roberta Conroy
538 W. Stevens
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M
From:Lacey Dintzer
To:Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Grace Garner; City Clerk; Scott Stiles
Cc:vlpnf@138343373.mailchimpapp.com
Subject:RE: Shared ownership model, and to the proposed legislative change
Date:Friday, July 26, 2024 1:09:16 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Dear Members of the Palm Springs City Council,
In addition to the July 24, 2024, letter to the Council from the Vista Las Palmas
Neighbors Foundation, relative to the captioned proposed legislation, as a 50 year
homeowner in Vista Las Palmas, it is clear to me, as a licensed California Attorney,
that the number of conflicts of interest set forth in that correspondence would and
should preclude any involvement by the parties listed as having financial or other
biased reasons for partaking in any vote on this proposed ordinance.
Clearly, such involvement would produce substantial litigation against not only the city
and the City Council, but the individual offending Council Members.
Very Truly Yours,
Daniel L. Dintzer
Attorney at Law
1102 N. Rose Ave.
Palm Springs
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 1M