HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/15/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 3.A. A.�*yALM$.
iy
V ,n
o...t CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
'4teFoa %PN
DATE: February 15, 2017 LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 1907 REFERENDUM PETITION RELATING TO
VACATION RENTALS
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Kathleen D. Hart, Interim City Clerk
Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Receive and file the attached Certificate of Sufficiency for a petition entitled
"Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council — Ordinance No. 1907;
and
2. Direct staff to prepare necessary documents for further consideration of the City
Council.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On December 14, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1907, entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND
RESTATING CHAPTER 5.25 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO VACATION RENTALS." On January 12, 2017, a referendum petition was
submitted, REFERENDUM AGAINST AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1907. This petition requests the reconsideration and
repeal of Ordinance No. 1907 or that Ordinance No 1907 be submitted to the voters at
the next regular municipal election, which is scheduled for November 8, 2017.
The referendum petition has been examined and the requisite 100% signature
verification/examination was performed. The number of valid signatures required to
qualify the referendum petition is 2,540 and the number of valid signatures on said
petition was 2,880. City Council action to receive and file the Certification is required.
As provided for in Elections Codes section 9237 and 9241, the City Council can at a
future meeting:
1. Reconsider and repeal Ordinance No. 1907;
2. Place Ordinance No. 1907 on the ballot for the Regular Municipal Election
to be held on November 8, 2017.
Ordinance No. 1907 is suspended and will remain unenforceable until the voters
approve it.
Il'EM NO. 3• A•
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017—Page 2
Ordinance No. 1907 Referendum Petition
Although the total number of valid signatures was more than 10% of the City's voters,
the total number was less that 15% of such voters and therefore the Council is not
required to submit the Ordinance to the voters at a special election. Nevertheless, the
Council has the discretion, but not the obligation, to submit the matter to the voters at a
special election.
Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to place the possible actions as identified
above on a future City Council meeting agenda with appropriate implementing
resolutions and/or ordinance.
Kathleen D. Hart, MMC David H. Ready, Esq.,
Interim City 9Lerk City Manager
l
Douglai Holland
City Attorney
Attachment:
Certificate of Sufficiency
02 I
J WO� �WOI% ;N.....g.�- A�
0
-2
CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY
State of California
County of Riverside ) ss.
City of Palm Springs )
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Article 2, of Chapter 3, of Division 9, of the California
Elections Code, on January 12, 2017, Brady Sandahl, a qualified registered voter of
I the City of Palm Springs submitted a petition for the Referendum of
Ordinance No. 1907:
REFERENDUM AGAINST AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1907
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 5.25 OF THE PALM
J� SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS
WHEREAS, Election Code § 9240 requires the election official to examine the
petition and certify the results.
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Palms Springs, Section 501(g),
designates the City Clerk as the election official for the City of Palm Springs.
WHEREAS, I examined and/or caused the counting and examination by
yL means of a 100% verification process of the signatures on said petition or until the
sufficient number of requisite signatures are checked.
WHEREAS, the number of valid signatures required to qualify said petition is
2,540 and the number of valid signatures on said petition was 2,880.
NOW THEREFORE, 1, Kathleen D. Hart, Interim City Clerk of the
City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify the petition for the Referendum of
Ordinance No. 1907 is declared sufficient.
WO
PALM Dated this 10" day of February, 2017.
KATHLEEN D. HART, MMC
Interim City Clerk
Al
7 1
3
r�A OF Riot
o *
Y m
REBECCA SPENCER -` ART TINOCO
Registrar of Voters * Assistant Registrar of Voters
4yq �9
y3
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
c
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS e
o r+i a
Co m
State of California ) J nm
ss. r7 �--
County of Riverside
{ vc
r: 5^ a,
I,REBECCA SPENCER, Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside,State of California,do hereby dMify
that on January 18, 2017, the "City of Palm Springs Referendum Petition, Ordinance No. 1907" was
delivered to my office for the purpose of verifying that the signatures thereon were registered within the
defined area.
I further certify that the signatures on said petition were counted and examined by means of a 100%
verification process, and that the results of said examination are as follows:
That the total number of signatures submitted for said petition was............. 3,645
The total number of signatures checked was............................................... 3,271
The total number of sufficient signatures on said petition is.........................2,880
The total number of insufficient signatures on said petition is.........................391
1 further certify that the number of valid signatures required to qualify said petition is 2,540 and that because
the number of valid signatures on said petition was 2,880, the petition is hereby declared sufficient.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Rachel Rathbone at(951)486-7318.
Sincerely,
REBECCA SPENCER
Registrar of Voters
By: QX-ap�
Rachel Rathbone
Chief Deputy
2724 Gateway Drive I Riverside, CA 92507-0918 04
(951)486-7200 I TTY(951) 697-8966 1 FAX (951) 486-7272
www.voteinfo.net
Judy Deertrack
1333 South Belardo Road,Apt 510
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
SUPPLEMENTALSTATEMENT
VACATION RENTAL HOUSING IMPACTS /SMALL LOT R-1 DEVELOPMENT
SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 14, 2017
To the City Council
Palm Springs, California
3.A. ORDINANCE NO. 1907 REFERENDUM PETITION RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS:
3.13. RESCIND ORDINANCE NO. 1907, ADOPT INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS
(415THS VOTE REQUIRED), AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS:
To the Honorable City Council,
I made a presentation on February 13, 2017, during Public Commentary to the Ad Hoc Committee that is studying the
Planned Development District Permit (PDD), for recommendations to the City Council. During those comments, I
referenced the long-term impact of abusing the PDD process. A PDD is a development permit for commercial
development that allows the City to achieve minor modifications and alter the development zoning standards where
needed for flexibility and enhanced design --always in the public interest.
Zoning standards achieve what might be called, "building within the box" or "drawing within the lines" to avoid overuse
of an individual lot. The standards address reasonable limitations on height, mass, density, setbacks, open space,
distance between buildings, parking,and type and intensity of residential housing within the district.
During the last ten years, the City has used a PDD to pervasively waive standards in almost ninety per cent (90%) of
commercial developments. The two most noticeable and prominent conversions are height waivers and changes in
residential use.
In a dramatic break from industry practices and state law, the City uses the PDD not only to waive height, setbacks, and
open space requirements - but it frequently uses the PDD to amend the General Plan, to amend Specific Plans, and to
amend underlying ordinances - to put a "pig in a poke" - or to allow the developer to add a use or combination of uses
that was never legally intended or allowed in the General Plan.
How does this apply to the short-term vacation rental ordinance? The Dakota Project next to Tahquitz Mesa Villas (a
Wessman Project) behind SteinMart converted a General Plan requirement for multi-family housing (R-3) and common
open space requirements (45-60%) to R-1 uses instead - without a General Plan Amendment, and without a Change of
Zone. The PDD was the mechanism to amend- and PDD's do not amend!
Now, the Dakota Project qualifies for vacation rentals at 36 weekends per year, and TMV residents will be exposed to the
noise and disruption within a neighboring lot that never would have qualified for short-term rentals without abuse of the
PDD process. This is where I live. The elimination of setbacks allowed a devastating "lot squeeze" that destroyed
privacy.
With the economic windfall of short-term vacation rentals, there is going to be considerable developer pressure to
convert R-3 and R-4 zoned lands, which have been reserved for affordable housing opportunities into R-1 single-family
residences - because R-3 and R-4 multi-family zoning is exempt under this proposed Ordinance. The City has
disregarded the California Environmental Quality Act, where these outcomes would have been assessed and mitigated, if
possible. 1 urge that this proposed Ordinance be vacated, and await the public vote on the Referendum.
With regard,
Judy Deertrack �L ft9 i S
ITEM 3A
ITEM 3B
Judy Deertrack
1333 South Belardo Road, Apt 510
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
To the City Council
Palm Springs, California
3.A. ORDINANCE NO. 1907 REFERENDUM PETITION RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS: RECOMMENDATION: 1)
Receive and file the attached Certificate of Sufficiency for a petition titled "Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City
Council- Ordinance No. 1907."2) Direct staff to prepare necessary documents for further consideration of the City Council.
3.6. RESCIND ORDINANCE NO. 1907, ADOPT INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS
(4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED), AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO VACATION
RENTALS: RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt attached Ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 1907. 2) Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. , "AN INTERIM
URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 5.25
OF, AND ADDING SECTION 93.23.16 TO, THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS
(4/5ths Vote Required)."3) Introduce and refer to the Planning Commission for review and comment, Ordinance No. , "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAFER 5.25 OF, AND
ADDING SECTION 93.23.16 TO, THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION RENTALS."
To the Honorable City Council,
BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS/FAIR HEARING LAWS: I am very distressed to see every evidence of a Sub-Quorum Ad Hoc
Committee meeting privately with one side of such a disputed public issue (the industry side) in order to join forces and
draft an ordinance that supposedly represents the general welfare of Palm Springs - when the interests of this outside
industry have little or nothing to do with the public welfare. I know that they intent is to compromise, but this was
effectuated by literally going behind closed doors and cutting out one side of the negotiation - Protect Our
Neighborhoods (PONS) and other affected citizenry-who have not had equal opportunity to influence the outcome. But,
primarily, the losers are the general public who will attend a legislative matter that SHOULD have a hearing because of
the obligations to assess this under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As it is, our comments go under
"general public commentary," off the Agenda Item record of testimony and action.
An impartial administrative staff did not draft this ordinance. It may have been drafted in an atmosphere of industry
threats, from everything said in the public forum. The terms were the outcome of personal contact with the industry of
two if not three city council members who will vote on the ordinance, regardless of everyone's good intent. My
recommendation is to drop this process and let the Referendum proceed to public vote without interference.
This use of Ad Hoc Sub-Quorum, outside of public meeting context, is an extremely controversial practice; it may be a
practice that ultimately violates the Fair Hearing Laws of the State of California - because two members of the hearing
body are negotiating a solution they will then vote upon, and Ms. Foat is publicly stating she is working behind the scenes
in some unidentified manner. These comments reflect a potential serial meeting. In fact, I would like to clarify this
situation. I am asking this letter be placed under Agenda Items 3A and 3B for Wednesday, February 15, 2017, and that
the city disclose in response to a request for public records, any minutes, memoranda, agreements, deal points,
Memorandums of Agreements, emails, written communications, and other evidence of communications between the
parties representing the pending Referendum and any and all members of the City Council.
Once the list is compiled, I would like to make an appointment to come in and inspect the record. 1 would also like to
know if the parties that deliberated with the City on the make-up and nature of the Ordinance to be amended were
registered lobbyists. Further, I would like to confirm whether or not, in the course of these negotiations, there were
threats of recall on any city council members if the negotiations were not deemed "successful' by the Referendum
negotiators, or their attorneys; and if any such threats were either suggested or made outright, by whom. Any such
negotiations do not have a veil of secrecy,since there is no pending litigation,and this is not Closed Session.
,02 - I5- 2,011 AddrhPnQi madeia.[ 3"q q- "31� .
2
The state has just been through the extended controversy of the Coastal Commission where ex parte meetings with
involved parties before a hearing or deliberation were very much questioned in the manner they reflected (1) bias of the
decision-maker; (2) deliberation before the public body; (3) equal opportunity for all sides to be heard.
The City might argue that this ordinance is legislative in nature, and this "industry contact" is simply lobbying activity
that does not apply to an administrative hearing. The germane point is this; the passage of this ordinance will enhance
the economic interests of and vest entitlements in clients of these lobbyists. Therefore, the administrative hearing and
appeal rights are directly implicated in this. The ordinance is targeted to a prominent group of people waiting to secure
permit rights; and those are tied directly to this industry who appears to be "writing the ordinance" behind the scenes -
whether in compromise or not!
OVERBREADTH OF THE ORDINANCE (GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY / RE-ZONE IMPACT / INCONSISTENT WITH
RESIDENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Residential characteristics (primary residential use as habitation of a person(s) or family) is the primary thrust of the
Residential General Plan Classifications. The zoning characteristics of R-1 do include certain commercial, residential-
serving, compatible uses, such as nurseries, child care, churches, schools, parks, and recreation- but even these require a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which allows the City to regulate the frequency, location, and nature of use so closely, that
on each permit, not only is a public hearing secured, but the criteria for denial of the permit on a CUP leaves broad
discretion with the Planning Commission or City Council to DENY THE PERMIT when deemed disruptive to the
surroundings.
Home occupations are narrowly tailored to non-disruptive activities that either minimize or eliminate visits by third
parties, and allow residents some meaningful use of their homes for their own personal occupations. Vacation rentals
don't allow the owner to conduct their occupations in their own homes; vacation rentals replace home ownership with
third party short-term residency; and as the City admits, along the lines of a commercial hotel. It is a direct, and major
conversion of residential use to commercial use; it is not minor; it is not non-disruptive; it is designed with one thing in
mind- making an income from home ownership itself by converting the residential use.
And when it is allowed at 36 weekends per year - and 100% of the homes in the R-1 district qualify - it is a dramatic
conversion of a neighborhood - in fact, it undermines and destroys the residential classification rather than achieving
"minor and subsidiary enhancement." Impacts must be measured from the full permit potential, which is not unrealistic,
considering that some of the Palm Springs neighborhoods already have around 70% conversion- or at least this is what I
have heard.
The CUP procedure also leaves a case-by-case hearing that allows for the fine tailoring of cumulative impacts. Conditional
Use Permits are appropriate for uses that are interspersed within residential communities (gas stations along corridors,
churches, etc.) but the real import of using the CUP is the assumption that too much of a good thing can destroy or erode
the residential environment. So, fine tailoring is required for both frequency of use and location of use, and the burden
actually shifts to the applicant to demonstrate that the use is appropriate and not overloading the environment.
None of that protection is present with this proposed Ordinance, or its predecessor. This ordinance has both vagueness
and over-breadth. Its regulatory framework is so undefined that EVERY SINGLE HOME in an R-1 District could qualify
for commercial use until the residential designation completely disappears; and the City would STILL be defining the
permits as ancillary to residential use. This is like the snake that eats its own tail until it disappears.
Once the ordinance is in place, and the permits proceed with no disqualifying criteria - so it is not truly regulatory -
rather, it is the method by which the city is fund-raising for itself-the procedures have to do with collecting information
for collecting money down the line - then truly the residential neighbors victimized by this have lost any handhold for
claiming public nuisance.
The micro-actions of each household signing on to commercialize their home over time incrementally can destroy a
neighborhood and all its original elements - with never a stopping point. In other words, the residents are at the mercy
3
of circumstances -- perhaps it will be a few homes; perhaps rentals will become rampant. But the seeds of potential
destruction are laid within the ordinance itself and its permissiveness! The ordinance has no proper safeguards or
boundaries to protect the equities due to its own citizens and their rights to privacy, peace and quiet, and separation
from commercial activity- all the original safeguards of the American home.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS ON
RESIDENTIAL USERS
Now, with a fairly clear and accurate picture of what has driven hundreds of residents to City Hall in desperation to
protect their homesteads after many a troubled weekend and night- we have the environmental issue. I direct the City
to study the case of City of San Diego, where the City admitted CEQA was necessary at the point it added "short-term
vacation rental" to its residential zone as a newly permitted use. The City only LATER disputed a position taken by the
attorneys for "Save San Diego Neighborhoods"that CEQA was necessary when the ordinance was subsequently amended.
The City of Palm Springs has never at any point gone through an environmental process. If it had, and if impacts had
clearly been identified, particularly the disruption to public services, police, fire, EMS, permit activity, enforcement, noise
complaints, and collection of fees - perhaps the mitigation approach (viable alternatives to the over-breadth of this
ordinance) could have allowed such solutions as: (1) Minimum thirty (30) day rental; (2) strict terms placed on number
of weekends (ie: 10-12 weekends per year) - and these would have gotten more realistic consideration.
A CEQA review would have allowed for a hopefully realistic and honest evaluation under its Land Use Impacts, on
whether this Ordinance, as written, is compatible with the General Plan policies, goals, objectives, standards, and
programs- particularly in its Land Use Element and Housing Element- and the delicate balancing that separates housing
from disruptive commercial activity, and very carefully allows only that commercial activity that is neighborhood-serving
for its residential neighborhoods - leaving visitor-serving and commercial business district, with all its cacophony -
carefully and safely separated from residential function.
I have quoted from the Memorandum dated September 8, 2015, from Save San Diego Neighborhoods, that paraphrases
the legal position of its attorneys on CEQA,
"The letter advises City officials that changing the City's Municipal Code to allow short-term
vacation rentals(STVR) to operate in San Diego's residential zones represents a 'fundamental
change"to the Municipal Code. Save San Diego neighborhoods also asserts that to allow STVR
into residential zones violates the City's General Plan and adversely effects all ten elements of
the Plan, in particular, noise, housing and services and safety.
As the letter states, "The eventual adoption of an ordinance expressly allowing STVR's in single
family residential zones will have multiple, foreseeable, direct and indirect physical impacts
upon the environment and constitutes a non-exempt "project"under CEQA,"the letter states.
Save San Diego Neighborhoods'further contends that complying with CEQA and working
through the environmental impact report (EIR) process will inform the discussion regarding
the appropriateness of allowing STVR to operate in San Diego residential neighborhoods. Save
San Diego Neighborhoods believes that the results of an EIR will not support the imposition of
a new ordinance permitting STVR in residential zones in San Diego. On the contrary, the EIR
will identify significant impacts that the City will be unable to mitigate, including depleting
housing stock, noise pollution, air pollution, traffic congestion, additional and unmanageable
stress on City services, in particular first responders -fire and law enforcement, water, trash,
and parks and recreation personnel and facilities. "
1 encourage the City Council to create appropriate distance from an industry that is pursuing its own economic interest
above the comfort of the community. I encourage the City Council to forego the temptation of economic windfall over
"doing the right thing." I definitely encourage everyone concerned to start with a modicum of common sense. There
was a time when the protection of the neighborhood would have been self-evident. Now, it competes with a new
4
industry using a new technology. No one wants the thrust and outcome of that technology so deeply in their face and
their spirit that they can no longer take a breath and enjoy the marvel of our community.
With regard,
Judy Deertrack
Resident of Palm Springs
Candidate for City Council 2017
Terri Milton
From: Jim Gazan <jimgazan@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:31 PM
To: Terri Milton
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Re: Vacation Rental Compromise for 2/15 Meeting
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Gazan <iimgazan(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Public Comment Re: Vacation Rental Compromise for 2115 Meeting
Date: February 15, 2017 at 1:21:29 PM PST
To: Jay.Thompson(a)palmspringsca.gov, Robert Moon <robert.moon(a-)palmspringsca.gov>, Ginny
Foat <gfinla(amsn.com>, Ginny.Foat(c-)palmspringsca.gov, Geoff.Kors(a�.palmspringsca.gov,
jr.roberts(a)Palmspringsca.gov
Dear Council,
Based on today's press conference, I'm disappointed with further compromises that benefit the VR industry. I
doubt that today's announcement will eliminate their campaign. While debating the new terms tonight, there
should be a sunset date on owning more than one vacation rental property, maybe 2025. The owners of
multiple rental homes are generally the culprits when it comes to noise, over-occupancy and simply ignoring the
"good neighbor policy". Although, meeting renters at the door is a good policy in theory, it simply becomes
an honor code that can be easily ignored by the industry.
The ordinance that stands in limbo today is fair. There are numerous real estate agents that fear the backlash of
an outright ban, and they will come to the same conclusion. Let the voters decide in November.
Thank you,
Jim Gazan
Oa- 15- jr Ne. � . .
r