Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/7/2016 - STAFF REPORTS - 4.B.
I?A LM SAS iy u a NCO°roaaaa°aq9 F°"N,P City Council Staff Report DATE: December 7, 2016 UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE TWO-WAY CONVERSION FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Engineering Services Department SUMMARY: On October 12, 2016, the City Council Subcommittee (Foat/Roberts) for the Indian Canyon Drive Improvements reviewed alternatives for conversion of Indian Canyon Drive from one-way traffic circulation to two-way traffic circulation. The Subcommittee has recommended the City Council approve Alternative No. 1, which would preserve on-street parking and provide one lane southbound, a center turn lane, and two lanes northbound. The Subcommittee requested staff to obtain proposals from its on-call engineering consultants for preparing the required designs to implement the proposed one-way to two-way traffic conversion. This action will review the recommendation of the Subcommittee, and consider proceeding with the project. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Alternative No. 1 from the Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Study prepared by Albert Grover & Associates (September 2013) as the Preferred Alternative for conversion of Indian Canyon Drive from one-way traffic circulation to two-way traffic circulation; and 2. Provide direction to staff for further action. BACKGROUND: On February 20, 2013, the City Council approved an agreement with Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) to prepare a feasibility study to analyze the conversion of Indian Canyon Drive from one-way traffic circulation to two-way traffic circulation. Subsequently, in September 2013, AGA prepared a feasibility study called the Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Study, (the "Study"), which evaluated four different alternatives for modifying the existing one-way traffic circulation Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road. A copy of the Study is included as Attachment 1. ITEM NO. KCl__ City Council Staff Report December 7, 2016- Page 2 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion The four alternatives considered in the Study are summarized as follows: Alternative 1: This alternative would convert the existing four one-way northbound traffic lanes to two-way traffic by maintaining two northbound traffic lanes, creating a continuous two-way center turn lane, and creating one southbound traffic lane. Existing parallel parking on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive would be maintained. Alternative 1 is shown in Figure 1. JL F J F J F w m Figure 1 — Alternative No. 1 Alternative 2: This alternative would convert the existing four one-way northbound traffic lanes to two-way traffic by maintaining three northbound traffic lanes, creating a continuous two-way center turn lane, and creating one southbound traffic lane. Existing parallel parking on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive would be maintained, but existing parallel parking on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive would be eliminated (resulting in the loss of approximately 125 spaces). Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 2. b 3 h0 PAHKIKG Figure 2 — Alternative No. 2 02 City Council Staff Report December 7, 2016- Page 3 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Alternative 3: This alternative would convert the existing four one-way northbound traffic lanes to two-way traffic by maintaining three northbound traffic lanes, creating a continuous two-way center turn lane, and creating one southbound traffic lane. Existing parallel parking on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive would be eliminating, (resulting in the loss of approximately 120 spaces), but existing parallel parking on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive would be maintained. Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 3. NO PA;,IN(B — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Figure 3 — Alternative No. 3 Alternative 4: This alternative maintains the one-way northbound traffic circulation, but eliminates one of the four northbound traffic lanes to allow for new diagonal parking spaces along the west side of Indian Canyon Drive, (resulting in a net increase of approximately 24 spaces for a total of 144 spaces), and maintains the existing parallel parking on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive. Alternative 4 is shown in Figure 4. INDIAN- 1 i : _ ------------ ----------------------------- -----------------------4�---`R�y� __ _ __N i i ,, ��____________'-__-_________ate --------------- CANYON. �VVAY Figure 4 — Alternative No. 4 03 City Council Staff Report December 7, 2016- Page 4 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion As part of the Study, AGA completed traffic analyses of each of the four studied alternatives, including intersection and arterial Level of Service ("LOS") analyses for existing and future traffic volumes. As stated in the Study, the analysis results indicate that with existing and future traffic volumes, all of the studied alternatives will operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The Study also evaluate traffic speed along the Indian Canyon Drive arterial, and determined that traffic speeds for Alternative 1 will be slightly slower than the other alternatives as Alternative 1 only provides two northbound lanes while the other alternatives provide three northbound lanes. The Study determined that Alternative 2 would result in higher northbound traffic speeds than Alternative 3 and 4 because parking is not provided on the east side of the street for Alternative 2, but is provided for Alternatives 3 and 4. Since parking is not provided on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive in Alternative 3, the southbound movement for Alternative 3 would result in higher traffic speeds than Alternative 2. The Study concluded that the existing one-way traffic circulation allows for higher traffic speeds than any of the four studied alternatives. On December 4, 2013, staff presented the Study to the City Council, and the City Council considered the analysis, but deferred any action. At that time, a City Council Subcommittee was appointed consisting of Councilmember Foat and former Councilmember Hutcheson. In April 2014, the City Council Subcommittee met with staff and various stakeholders, and at that time recommended a Preferred Alternative consisting of a revised Alternative 3 eliminating on-street parking along the west side of Indian Canyon Drive and providing a Class II bike lane, one southbound traffic lane, a continuous two-way center turn lane, two northbound traffic lanes, and maintaining on-street parking on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive. On September 18, 2014, the City Council Subcommittee met to review the Preferred Alternative for the two-way conversion, and confirmed the recommendation with direction to schedule for formal City Council consideration. On October 1 , 2014, the City Council Subcommittee's recommendation was presented to the City Council for consideration, and at that time formal action was deferred, and staff was directed to consider developing further alternatives for converting Indian Canyon Drive to two-way traffic circulation in ways that would enhance commercial businesses. More recently, at the May 18, 2016, City Council meeting, Councilmember Foat requested an update of the Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Project. At that time, staff provided the Study and background information to the current City Council Subcommittee (Foat/Roberts) for further evaluation and direction to staff. 04 City Council Staff Report December 7, 2016- Page 5 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion On October 12, 2016, the City Council Subcommittee met with staff to review the Study and the four studied alternatives, and the Subcommittee determined that Alternative 1 was the Preferred Alternative, and directed staff to obtain proposals from the City's on- call engineering firms to prepare the required designs to implement the proposed one- way to two-way traffic conversion. The Subcommittee recommended that the two-way conversion extend south of Ramon Road to Camino Parocela, and also recommended that the conceptual design for Alternative 1 incorporate curb pop-outs at the intersections to improve pedestrian safety, and include some raised landscaped median islands to improve the aesthetics along Indian Canyon Drive. As directed by the City Council Subcommittee, staff solicited proposals from its on-call engineering firms, and has received three proposals. Staff has reviewed the proposals, and confirmed the scopes of work provided by each firm are consistent with the City's request. On the basis that all of these firms were previously solicited by the City through an open and competitive qualifications-based process, staff considers the proposed budget and fee, and schedule, of each of the firm's proposals in determining a recommendation for City Council consideration. A summary of the three proposals received is included in Table 1. Company Fee Project Schedule Albert A. Webb & Associates $194,850 9 Months Willdan $358,670 9.5 Months Harris & Associates $413,918 10 Months Table 1 Staff recommends that the City Council consider the recommendation from the City Council Subcommittee to identify Alternative 1 from the Study as the Preferred Alternative. If it is the direction of the City Council to proceed with engineering design of the two-way conversion, staff recommends the City Council authorize issuance of a purchase order to Albert A. Webb & Associates in the amount of $194,850 to prepare conceptual plans and construction drawings to implement Alternative 1, which includes extending the two- way conversion south of Ramon Road to Camino Parocela, curb pop-outs, and raised landscaped median islands as recommended by the City Council Subcommittee. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Section 21084 of the California Public Resources Code requires Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Guidelines are required to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources identified classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and are declared to 05 City Council Staff Report December 7, 2016- Page 6 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. In accordance with Section 15301 "Existing Facilities," Class 1 projects consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities; therefore, the Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Project, City Project No. 13-13, is considered categorically exempt from CEQA, and a Notice of Exemption will be prepared and filed with the Riverside County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council has not yet appropriated funding to implement the conversion of Indian Canyon Drive to two-way traffic circulation. The Study prepared by AGA identified a preliminary cost estimate range of $1,400,000 to $1,750,000 as shown in the following Table: Table 8: Indian Canyon DAve Two-Way Conversion Cost Estimate Con4rodiwCost Desire Total{� I Intersection and Signal Modification Costs Indian Canyon Road rd!Ramon Road 50.000 to 80.000 8,500 58,500 to 88,5 Indian Canyon Road Baristo Road 50.000 to 80-DOO 8.500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road L&Arenas Road 50.000 to 80,000 8500 58,500 to 88.50 Indian Canyon Roads La Plaza 60,000 to 90000 8,500 68.500 to 98500 Indian Canyon Road!d Tahquitz Canyon Way 60,000 to 90.000 8.500 68,500 to 985 Indian Canyon Road Andreas Road 50.000 to 80.000 9,500 58,500 to 885 Indian Canyon Road rd Amado Road 50,000 to 80.000 8.500 58,500 to 88500 Indian.Canyon Road.,&Akjo Road 100,000 to 130.000 18.500 118,500 to 149500 11 Restriping Costs 50.000 to 70.000 10.000 60,000 to 80000 III Signal Interconnect and Coordination Costs 150.000 50,000 200,000 Subtotals: 670,000 to 930,000 138,000 808,000 to 1.068.000 Admimstration/Contract Management(12%): 96,960 to 128,160 Plan Checbrig/Inspections(129a): 96,960 to 128,160 MisceLaneouslContingencies(15°6): 121.200 to 160300 Total: 1,123,120 to 1,484,520 Rounded: 1200,000 to 1,500.000 Replacing 11arbelite Poles for Eastbound&Northbound Traffic: 200,000 to 250,000 Grand Iotal: 1,400,000 to 1,750.000 06 City Council Staff Report December 7, 2016- Page 7 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion However, AGA's preliminary estimate did not include extending the two-way conversion south of Ramon Road to Camino Parocela, or the cost for curb pop-outs at each intersection, and raised landscaped median islands. In its recent request for proposals from the City's on-call engineering firms, staff requested that the firms review AGA's preliminary estimate, and provide updated estimates for budgeting purposes. The range of construction estimates is identified in the following Table. Company Estimate Albert A. Webb & Associates $2,180,720 Willdan $3,729,798 Harris & Associates $2,429,880 For budgeting purposes, staff recommends the City Council consider the average of the three estimates, approximately $2,750,000 as the cost for converting Indian Canyon Drive to two-way traffic circulation. Alternatives for funding this project are to allocate budget from General Fund reserves, or to forward to the Measure J Commission to consider as a project to be funded by the Measure J Fund. To the extent the City Council directs staff to proceed with engineering design, the City Council may consider authorizing approval of a Purchase Order in the amount of $194,850 to Albert A. Webb & Associates, with funding appropriated from General Fund reserves. SUBMITTED �il/Ar Marcus L. Fuller, M A, P.E., P.L.S. David H. Read Assistant City Manager/City Engineer City Manager Attachment: 1. Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Study 07 Attachment 1 08 I • Ii 1, �:, � ►�►� ,� � :� ��� Nor i +►InFITIVil INDIAN CANYON DRIVE . . +Y _ I TWO-WAY CONVERSION STUDY •3�fq, "i ' of 1 v r ' SUBMITTED TO CITY OF PALM SPRINGS •g SEPTEMBER 2013 K Y: I SUBMITTED BY - ALBERT ROVER & ._ LTASSOCIATES 09 Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................3 ExistingConditions..................................................................................................................................5 Alternative Street Configurations...........................................................................................................11 Traffic Volume Projections.....................................................................................................................15 Two-Way Conversion Project Year 2015..................................................................................15 FutureYear 2035......................................................................................................................15 TrafficAnalysis......................................................................................................................................20 AnalysisMethodology...............................................................................................................20 Level of Service Analysis..........................................................................................................21 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................32 Improvements Cost Estimates...............................................................................................................33 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Study Intersections........................................................................................................4 2 Existing One-Way Roadway Configuration....................................................................6 3a &3b Existing Intersection Geometrics...................................................................................7 4a &4b Existing Year 2013 Midday and PM Volumes................................................................9 5a Two-Way Alternatives for Indian Canyon Drive...........................................................12 5b Angle Parking Conversion for Indian Canyon Drive.....................................................13 6a &6b Conversion Year 2015 Midday and PM Volumes........................................................16 7a &7b Future Year 2035 Midday and PM Volumes................................................................18 `�i R� &� 10 ROVT ES34S�IATFo4 `._. Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study =` Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria...........................................................................20 2a Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013—Midday Peak...........................23 2b Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013—PM Peak.................................24 3 Arterial Level of Service for Existing Year 2013...........................................................25 4a Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015—Midday Peak.....................26 4b Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015—PM Peak ...........................27 5 Arterial Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015.....................................................28 6a Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035—Midday Peak.............................29 6b Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035—PM Peak...................................30 7 Arterial Level of Service for Future Year 2035.............................................................31 8 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Cost Estimate..........................................34 9 Indian Canyon Drive Alternative 4 Cost Estimate........................................................35 TECHNICAL APPENDICES (Separate Report) APPENDIX A Intersection Level of Service Analyses— Existing Year 2013 (Midday and PM) B Intersection Level of Service Analyses—Conversion Year 2015 (Midday and PM) C Intersection Level of Service Analyses—Future Year 2035 (Midday and PM) D Arterial Level of Service Analyses— Existing Year 2013(Midday and PM) E Arterial Level of Service Analyses—Conversion Year 2015 (Midday and PM) F Arterial Level of Service Analyses—Future Year 2035 (Midday and PM) 11 ALAW ConversionIndian Canyon 2-Way Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palm Springs has periodically been asked by Downtown business owners and/or operators to study the feasibility of converting Indian Canyon Drive from one-way to two-way operation in order to enhance access and circulation to businesses within the Downtown area. In 1998, Albert Grover& Associates (AGA), a municipal and transportation engineering consulting firm, prepared a traffic study which illustrated the feasibility of providing two-way traffic flow on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela to the south and Granvia Valmonte to the north. During the past 15 years a portion of Indian Canyon Drive (from Granvia Valmonte to Alejo Road) has actually been converted to provide two-way traffic flow. Additionally, two previously Stop controlled intersections along Indian Canyon Drive (La Plaza and Baristo Road) have been signalized. In light of the forthcoming redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade, the City has requested that AGA conduct an updated traffic engineering study to re-assess the feasibility of converting Indian Canyon Drive from one-way operation to two-way operation in the Downtown Palm Springs area. Because of available street widths, only Indian Canyon Drive is being evaluated. Palm Canyon Drive is too narrow for similar consideration. In developing the two-way alternatives, it was important to consider the immediate as well as the long-term impacts of two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive; to minimize the costs associated with the conversion; and to provide improved accessibility to downtown businesses. Professional judgment indicates that, for all two-way conversion alternatives, a two-way left turn lane should be included to enhance access to businesses; that the signals on Indian Canyon Drive need to be linked together and synchronized to reduce delays and queuing; and that the section at the south end of Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Camino Parocela be retained as a one- way street to avoid the traffic control complexities of a potential five-legged intersection of Palm Canyon Drive/Indian Canyon Drive/Camino Parocela. Additionally, since Palm Canyon Drive provides three lanes for southbound traffic, it was assumed that southbound through traffic, destined beyond downtown, would continue using Palm Canyon Drive, and that primarily traffic with a destination on Indian Canyon Drive or traffic that is circulating in the downtown area would use the additional southbound lane on Indian Canyon Drive. It was also determined that if more than one southbound lane were to be implemented, there would be inadequate capacity for the northbound traffic demand, resulting in a poor/unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) and potential diversion of traffic away from the downtown area. The following four alternatives were evaluated for Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road: Alternative l: This two-way alternative would consist of two lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. The existing parallel parking on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive will be retained for the most part. The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width allows three 12-foot travel lanes and a 12-foot two-way left turn lane with eight feet for parking on both sides of the street as exists today. Alternative 2: This two-way alternative would consist of three lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. Parallel parking would only be allowed on the west side of the street. No parking would be allowed on the east side of the street (eliminating approximately 125 spaces), thus reducing overall downtown parking availability. The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width would allow for one 12-foot southbound lane, a 10-foot two- ALBERT 12 Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study Executive Summary way left turn lane, three northbound lanes (I I'+11'+12') and an eight-foot parking lane on the west side of the street. Alternative 3: This two-way alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that parallel parking is allowed only on the east side of the street. No parking would be allowed on the west side of the street (eliminating approximately 120 spaces). The lane widths would be similar to those in Alternative 2. Alternative 4: Pursuant to the City's request, this alternative considered angle parking along Indian Canyon Drive. Various degrees of angle parking (30, 45 or 60 degree) cannot be accommodated on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive with existing one-way lanes or any two- way conversion alternative within the 64-foot curb-to-curb street width. Furthermore, with two- way conversion, angle parking cannot be provided on only one side of the street because with that option, the street width would only accommodate three travel lanes rather than the required four lanes (one southbound through, a two-way left turn lane and two northbound through). An acceptable LOS can be achieved by providing angle parking (60 degree from curb line) on one side while maintaining three standard 12-foot one-way northbound lanes with parallel parking on the other side of Indian Canyon Drive. The analysis in this report included the angle parking on the west side and maintained parallel parking on the east side in order to provide better parking access to the downtown area. The existing 120 parallel parking spaces on the west side can be increased by approximately 20% with angle parking conversion between Ramon Road and Amado Road. Traffic flow transitions north of Amado Road are not compatible with angle parking, thus those parallel spaces would remain. In order to compare the existing one-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive with the two-way operation alternatives, existing traffic volumes were redistributed on the street network based on existing and projected traffic flow patterns, revised lane geometries, access to local businesses, land-use growth potential in the area and two-way operation capacity availability. There was no diversion of traffic away from the downtown. Intersection and arterial LOS analyses were conducted for the existing one-way condition and the four alternative configurations for the existing traffic volumes, projected two-way conversion year 2015 traffic volumes, and the future 2035 traffic volumes. Intersection and arterial LOS analyses were conducted by AGA engineering staff, aided by the Synchro Program. The analyses indicated that the existing geometric condition and all four alternative configurations operate at acceptable LOS during the midday and p.m. peak periods, for Year 2013, Year 2015 and Year 2035. Further, the analyses indicated that the existing one-way configuration on Indian Canyon Drive operates with slightly less travel time than any of the four alternatives for existing, Year 2015, and Year 2035 traffic volumes. This study concludes that it is feasible to convert Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road into a two-way street (Alternatives 1, 2 or 3). Alternative 4 with three one-way lanes and angle parking on the west side and parallel parking on the east side is also a feasible alternative. Alternative 4 operates at an acceptable LOS and provides approximately 20% more parking spaces on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive. The cost to implement the conversion to two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive is estimated to be approximately $1.4 to $1.75 million. The cost estimate for Alternative 4 is in the range of $75 to $100 thousand. 13 AS0R :.. Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study - PA,,, Introduction INTRODUCTION Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road, currently function as a one-way couplet in Downtown Patin Springs, with Palm Canyon Drive serving the southbound traffic and Indian Canyon Drive serving the northbound traffic. In light of the forthcoming redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade, the City has requested that AGA conduct an updated traffic engineering study to assess the feasibility of converting Indian Canyon Drive from one-way operation to two-way operation in the Downtown Palm Springs area. Because of available street widths, only Indian Canyon Drive is being evaluated. Palm Canyon Drive is too narrow for similar consideration. AGA's previous 1998 study had shown the feasibility of two-way traffic flow on Indian Canyon Drive, between Camino Parocela on the south and Granvia Valmonte on the north, in Downtown Palm Springs. This report provides updates reflecting conditions that have changed in the past fifteen years. With several notable exceptions, the relatively minor amount of development/redevelopment that has occurred along Indian Canyon Drive since 1998 means that much of the "groundwork" previously conducted by AGA is still valid. Two major changes in the area since the 1998 study are the addition of the Downtown Parking Structure (which is located on the corner of Indian Canyon Drive and Baristo Road and provides approximately 300 parking spaces) and the conversion of one block of Indian Canyon Drive (between Granvia Valmonte and Alcjo Road) from one-way to two-way operation. Other changes include the signalization of the following intersections: • Andreas Road at Palm Canyon Drive • La Plaza at Palm Canyon Drive • La Plaza at Indian Canyon Drive • Baristo Road at Indian Canyon Drive As part of evaluating two-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road, a total of 28 intersections were identified for analysis purposes. A total of 23 intersections are located on Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, while five intersections are located on Calle Encilia. The study intersections are identified in Figure 1. It should be noted that even though the intersections of Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive at Vista Chino, and the intersections of Alejo Road, Amado Road, Tahquitz Canyon, Arenas and Ramon Road at Calle El Segundo were analyzed in the 1998 report, they are not analyzed in this report, as the previous report determined that there is no significant impact on these intersection resulting from the two-way conversion of Indian Canyon Drive. The study procedure involved evaluating the study route and the 28 study intersections for the existing configuration (2013) and for change-over to a two-way configuration for both the conversion year (assumed to be 2015) and for the future year (2035); identifying improvements needed to accommodate the two-way traffic; and preparing cost estimates. The intersection and arterial Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted using the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, N T.BERT 14 GOVER VISTA CHINO 111 z d o c i o U W Z j J d Z f U 1 13 TACHEVAH RD. 0 z Q W N > < 0 3 2 14 TAMARISK RD. GRANVIA VALMONTE 3 5 4 16 24 ALEJO RD. r a AMADO 5 17 25 W ANDREAS N 6 18 a c'o RD. ANDREAS RD. Z 19 26 w TAHQUITZ CANYON 8 20 9 21 27 ARENAS RD. BARISTO 10 RD, 22 BARISTO RD. � a W C J J H N W S N m RAMON RD. 11 23 28 12 CAMINO PAROCELA LEGEND SUNNY DUNES RD. � STUDY ROUTE a r ©X INTERSECTION NUMBER NOT TO SCALE l ---- FUTURE ALIGNMENT STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 1 15 Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study _ Existing Conditions EXISTING CONDITIONS Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela on the south and Alejo Road on the north is a one-way roadway serving the northbound traffic, while Palm Canyon Drive serves the southbound traffic, in Downtown Palm Springs. Indian Canyon Drive north of Alejo Road and Palm Canyon Drive north of Granvia Valmonte are two-way roadways with two lanes in each direction for the northbound and southbound traffic. Indian Canyon Drive has four travel lanes with parking on both sides of the street. The curb-to-curb street width on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road is 64 feet, and 60 feet between Alejo Road and Granvia Valmonte. The lanes are 12-feet wide. The existing one-way configuration for Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive is shown in Figure 2. The City of Palm Springs Bikeways map shows Indian Canyon Drive as a Class III Bike Route (trails provide for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and do not have on-street striping, but are signed) between Racquet Club Road and Ramon Road. Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, along with nine cross-streets, provide local access and circulation in the downtown area. A majority of the intersections, along with several mid- block pedestrian crossings in the study area, are signalized. The existing lane geometries for all study intersections are provided in Figures 3a and 3b. Year 2013 existing p.m. peak turning movement counts and Average Daily Traffic(ADT) counts were provided by the City. A review of the 24-hour traffic volumes indicates that the ADT on Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Tahquitz Canyon Way is approximately 13,700 vehicles per day. This is a 20% decrease from the 17,800 ADT counts collected in 1996 for the previous study. Additionally, the traffic counts indicate that the peak hour is during the midday, generally between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., but no count data was available for this period. Indian Canyon Drive carries an average of 10% more vehicles during the midday than during the "traditional" 4:00-6:00 p.m. peak period. To calculate 2013 midday peak hour turning movement volumes, a 10% increase was applied to the 2013 p.m. peak turning movement counts. The existing traffic volumes for all study intersections are provided in Figures 4a and 4b. Note that the only significant change between the 1996 and 2013 turning movement volumes at the study intersections were at the intersections of Palm Canyon/Granvia Valmonte, Palm Canyon/Alejo, Indian Canyon/Granvia Valmonte, and Indian Canyon/Alejo. This change was due to the two- way conversion of Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive between Granvia Valmonte and Alejo Road. Level of Service (LOS) analyses at the study intersections were conducted for both the midday and the p.m. peak periods. Intersection and arterial LOS were analyzed using Synchro Software. An analysis of existing LOS at the study intersections during both the midday and p.m. peak periods indicates a LOS of B or better. LOS analyses worksheets are provided in Appendix A. The existing arterial LOS for Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Tachevah Drive is LOS C. Arterial LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix D. �ROT 16 p� I i i GRAN VIA 11 VALMONTE TAHOUITZ µCANNY{ON�. WAY II 1,41 II 1 II I - •.iii Lu � > , � ED � . , olll IY 11 of II 1 11 L 11 I I j uvLOIA 11 1 ALEJO , ROAD I.I_ PARWNG LOT I I _ III III ARENAS 11 I11 ROAD II II II II II II 11 11 111 II �111 II III II II 111 I I 111 I I III II III II III I II I I I 111 II ill I I II I owr:E® 11 I p l I I i l l O II 1 Z Z II 1 Z U 11 I III 1 li U i i ii iii BARISTO ROAD _______ ________'. I 111 II III 111 II III 111 11 III J I Q 111 m I I I11 [O j ❑ ICI to 11 111 � Z jlj I11 I I I I I 1 1 1 III I I I I I lit z III AMADO ROAD 0 Oz III 111 • � �— z .I.. Q 11 1 U ii U iii II III 11 III II III 11 III II III 11 III II I11 II 111 Z I1 III G L. � III NOT TO SCALE II III 1.. III I iil I-' ili jj 111 III I11 III �11 111 _ ANDREAS III�I �ROAD RAMON ROAD vENolnc � n� w II III 111 B_iREEi I I I I11 11 111 I11 111 111 ,11 III III III III 111 =a-u..ry I.r ® I Itll A I I I11 \\P III III \\P I11 I11 \\\\\ I11 I III \\\\\ III 1 I I I \\\\ \♦1 III MATCH Lm \\�♦ CAMINO �"� x PAROCELA EXISTING ONE-WAY FIGURE 2 ROADWAY CONFIGURATION 17 1.Tachevah&Palm Canyon 2. Tamarisk&Palm Canyon 3.Gmnha Valamonle&Palm Canyon 4.Alojo 6 Palm Canyon t Z + S. Amado&Palm Canyon 6, Andreas&Palm Canyon 1. TahquiU Canyon&Palm Canyon 1,La Plan&Palm Canyon 4-J z J. Arcras&Palm Canyon 10.6arislo&Palm Canyon 11. Raman&Palm Canyon 12,Camino Paroccla&Indian Canyon f— � 1 � r A�,L r z z► htt 13.Tachevah&Indian Canyon 14.Tamarisk&Indian Canyon 15 Gianvm Vodhr,mlr K Intlian Canyon 16.Ale]o&Indian Canyon 411 L-► r �1 L . + �1 L-► � + 4-) L4 's z Signalized Existing Intersection Geometries. J— Stop controlled FIGURE 3a 18 17.Amado&Indian Canyon 19.Andreas&Indian Canyon 19.Tahquilz Canyon&Indian Canyon 20.La Plana&Indian Canyon Z F Z � J - � tttF s tttf� J J 4fft —► y 21.Arenas&Indian Canyon 22.Baristo&Indian Canyon 23.Ramon&Indian Canyon 24.Alejo&Callo Encilia L -. ff 'F J .� ttf y off t, Z' 25.Amado&Celle Encilia 26.Tahquilz Canyon&Celle Encilia 22.Arena&Gallo Encilia 29.Ramon&Calle Encilia 'fir «� � �► r '�� �L r hfrl hf, Sipalized Existing Intersection Geometries. —AL Stop controlled FIGURE 3b I9 1.Taehevah&Palm Canyon 2.Tamarisk&Palm Canyon 3. Granvia Valammde&Palm Canyon 4.Alejo&Palm Canyon Z 106196 53/48 Z 35132 L 97189 22/20 + 4 r 84177 +.j + L4 r 58152 t-+ r52148 + + L4 r 71/65 26/24 J t 916 (4 70164 J 918� a 4141 — C e 1— 119I109—► a 26124 N 1&16 35/32-7), 5.Amado&Palm Canyon 6.Andreas&Palm Canyon T.Tahqunz Canyon&Palm Canyon 8.to Plaza&Palm Canyon N a e C' F 57I52 A ze 1411128 Si M + y r 1771161 + L4 r 12AI o m r 1441131 + 4 r 64R6 53148 y 26&243 y 4914—71, 1401128—1 9.Arenas&Palm Canyon 10.Barism&Palm Canyon 11. Ramon&Palm Canyon 12.Camino Parocela&Indian Canyon e - 26124 F 57152 a �—79R2 a �— 1721156 ,$ — 9/8 F 4 r 74/G8 r 84/76 261R37 + r 114/103 18116 75168 —► 62156 —155/140 ► 414 C 66160 75168 Z 48144 Z 26N m 13.Tachevah&Intlian Canyon 14.Tamarisk Indian Canyon 15,Granvia Valamonte&Indian canyon 16.Alejo&Indian Canyon Z 105195 `26124 Z 24122 Z 1851168 ' 99N0 — v 27/20 12111 m m 1531140 26124 < r 13112 + + 4 r 18/16 +j L4 204 13112 t r4- 19/17 S 40136 J 27124=► L' �' 12111 1551141 --- 13112 � ^ 26124Z m m 12111 --:I_ Existing Year 2013 Midday PM Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 4a 20 17.Amado&Indian Canyon 1B.Andreas&Indian Canyon 19.Tahquilz Canyon&Indian Canyon W.La Plan&Indian Canyon ` 8&80 98/89 Z 1761160 ? 1021192 ? 4— 1591144 40136 J II110 J 101/ J?02 1101100J 1591145_y m 'io _ 0 198/180 y m o � 21.Arenas&Indian Canyon n.Barislo&Indian Canyon 23. Ramon&Indian Canyon 24.Alejo&Calle Encilia L 53/46 t 3261297 57/52 3OM75 1941167 r 1201109 102o93 +) t r+ 265/241 84A6 J 66160 v T 312/284 —► 4331393 •� e2 o e f m m m � 108I98 26.Amado&Call¢Encilia 26.TahquiU Canyon&Call¢Encilia 27.Arena&Calle Encilia 28.Ramon&Call¢Encilia L 6&60 o t 40136 L 42138 e t 1451132 n ,S o 50/45 h 3631330 m 19117 1 60&551 ?� r 44/40 + 4 r DIM + ry L4 r 55150 + v L r 13112 J 31128 31128 S +) 37134 S +) 4400 J h 1541140 y m f 26&244 28125—� ,`' 4371398so y 1241113-7:1, n 62/56 m 37134 Z 414 Midday/PM Existing Year 2013 Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 4b 21 'Indian Canyon 2-Way Convers I on Study a Alternative Street Configurations ALTERNATIVE STREET CONFIGURATIONS In conjunction with City staff, AGA developed various alternatives to be evaluated that would provide two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road. In developing the two-way alternatives, the following important factors were taken into consideration: • Immediate as well as the long-term impacts of two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive. • Minimizing the costs associated with the conversion. • Providing improved accessibility to downtown businesses. Based on field review observations and findings, it was determined that the alternatives being evaluated would be based on the following assumptions/conditions: 1. Currently Palm Canyon Drive provides three lanes for southbound traffic. It is assumed that southbound through traffic would continue using Palm Canyon Drive. Therefore, only one southbound lane was considered for Indian Canyon Drive, thereby maximizing the remaining available street width for northbound traffic and/or parking. Typically, only the traffic with a destination on Indian Canyon Drive or traffic that is circulating in the downtown area would use the new southbound portion of Indian Canyon Drive. 2. Due to the many driveways on Indian Canyon Drive, and for safety and circulation reasons, a continuous two-way left turn lane that provides enhanced access to the businesses is included in all two-way conversion alternatives. Standard left-turn pockets are provided at each intersection. 3. The intersection of Indian Canyon Drive/Palm Canyon Drive/Camino Parocela would require additional right-of-way and/or major reconfiguration to operate efficiently if a two-way operation is implemented on Indian Canyon Drive south of Ramon Road. Therefore, in order to avoid re-configuring the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive/Camino Parocela, the existing one- way configuration on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Ramon Road is retained for all alternatives. 4. Traffic signal coordination must be maintained on Indian Canyon Drive to reduce delays and stops. Due to the close proximity of the downtown intersections on both Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, the signals should be coordinated to provide minimum queues and delays to side street traffic as well as north-south traffic. 5. Indian Canyon Drive currently does not have striped bike lanes, meaning bicyclists share the road. The 64-foot road width does not accommodate striped bike lanes; therefore this study assumed that bicyclists will continue to share the road and any Bike Route would have to be a Class 3. The following four alternative street configurations were evaluated for Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road. The alternatives are shown on Figures 5a and 5b. GAR`. 22 b r N s r s r b T ALTERNATIVE 1 qr r . NO PFRWNG ALTERNATIVE 2 + �D PARKING - - - - - - - - - - T ALTERNATIVE 3 NOT TO SCALE TWO-WAY ALTERNATIVES FOR FIGURE 5a INDIAN CANYON DRIVE 23 U LIJ ING�IAN CA .^Y� $ �i'.. I 'C' _ ' r•1p ^.INDIAN CAMYOT7 DEYA Z O — f ...... -. __cc 7 3 ..- F2 .1.. - - -- __ __- S PiRMON ROAD - </ - AQ ISTQ PAD _ .�. VILLA E - �.I...ANGI�AN..CANYC�1 DRIB In _ _ ,_.lyplA(�I CAN O7LJNE - w SATURNINO ROADI li I ^- r ARENAS ROAD INDIAN¢ANxnN F` , - INDIAN CANYON DRIVE ' w � _ ,X7 m /,�WIIIIIZT: 1777 - y � - . ..:: /� .� .., . . T,.. . Atea TAHOUIIZ CANYON.WAY '- AN AS ROO p 9i INDIAN ON DRIVE INDIA CANYOM DRIVE — ' � rJ 0 0 i 0 Z _ ._ ___ __ - _� ] = .. ITS_ ... ... O Q I AAbO ROAD L_ M eeaT ROVER & ANGLE PARKING CONVERSION FOR INDIAN CANYON DRIVE A9O°`ATES ALTERNATIVE 4 FIGURE 5b N �P► Alternative Street Configurations Alternative 1: This two-way alternative would consist of two lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. The existing parking on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive will be retained for the most part. The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width allows three 12-foot travel lanes and a 12-foot two-way left turn lane with eight feet for parking on both sides of the street. Alternative 2: This two-way alternative would consist of three lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. Parking is allowed only on the west side of the street. No parking is allowed on the east side of the street (eliminating approximately 125 parking spaces). The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width allows for one 12-foot southbound lane, a I0-foot two-way left turn lane, three northbound lanes (11'+I1'+12') and an eight-foot parking lane on the west side of the street. Alternative 3: This two-way alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that parking is allowed only on the east side of the street. No parking is allowed on the west side of the street (eliminating approximately 120 parking spaces). The lane widths will be similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 4: Pursuant to the City's request, this alternative considered angle parking along Indian Canyon Drive. Various degrees of angle parking (30, 45 or 60 degree) cannot be accommodated on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive with existing one-way lanes or any two- way conversion alternative within the 64-foot curb-to-curb street width. Furthermore, with two- way conversion, angle parking cannot be provided on only one side of the street because with that option, the remaining street width would only accommodate three travel lanes rather than the required four lanes (one southbound through, a two-way left turn lane and two northbound through). With the existing one-way operation, providing angle parking on both sides would reduce Indian Canyon Drive to two travel lanes and increase delay due to parking maneuvers, resulting in unacceptable LOS. The reason that two lanes are inadequate with angle parking is because both lanes are impacted by parking maneuvers, while in Alternative 1 two lanes are adequate due to parking maneuvers only occurring on one side of the two lanes. An acceptable LOS can be achieved by providing angle parking (60 degree from curb line) on one side while maintaining three standard 12-foot one-way northbound lanes with parallel parking on the other side of Indian Canyon Drive. The 60 degree angle parking was selected for this alternative because it provides more parking spaces than the existing, whereas 30 or 45 degree angle parking reduces the existing parking spaces (by approximately 5 to 15%). The analysis in this report included the angle parking on the west side and maintained parallel parking on the east side in order to provide better parking access to the downtown area. The existing 120 parallel parking spaces on the west side can be increased by approximately 20% with angle parking conversion between Ramon Road and Amado Road. Traffic flow transitions north of Amado Road are not compatible with angle parking, thus those parallel spaces would remain. Safety concerns include accidents/near-accidents due to wrong-way turns into the one-way sections of both Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive. While a two-way street could potentially reduce the number of these occurrences, they would not be eliminated completely, as they also occur on normal two-way streets due to driver mistakes. It should be noted that one- way streets are typically safer than two-way streets, as they provide fewer conflicts between vehicles moving in opposite directions. It can be expected that there would be more accidents in total with two-way operations on Indian Canyon Drive than currently with one-way operations. There is no significant difference in number of accidents with angle parking versus parallel parking. ALaERT 2 5 ROVER & `" Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study Traffic Volume Projections TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS Two-Way Conversion Project Year 2015 In order to compare the existing one-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive with a two-way operation, the existing traffic volumes were redistributed based on existing and projected traffic flow patterns, revised lane geometries, access to local businesses, land-use growth potential in the area and two-way operation capacity availability. There was no diversion of traffic away from the downtown area, and in order to analyze worse case conditions the southbound volume that was allocated to Indian Canyon Drive did not get deducted from the southbound Palm Canyon Drive volumes. For analysis purposes the conversion year for two-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive was assumed to be Year 2015. A 1% growth factor was applied to existing Year 2013 traffic volumes to determine Year 2015 traffic volumes. Year 2015 two-way conversion traffic volumes are provided in Figure 6a and 6b. Due to the proposed redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade, the City requested that Andreas Road be analyzed as a two-way roadway between Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive with access to the Promenade/Belardo Road on the west side. Traffic volumes were provided by the City from the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study prepared by Endo Engineering, September 2008. Future Year 2035 Future Year 2035 traffic volumes are based on review and comparison of traffic data collected for the 1998 report and existing Year 2013 traffic data provided by the City. Considering the proposed redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade and the City's efforts in revitalizing the Palm Springs Downtown Area, a 15% growth was applied to existing traffic volumes to determine future Year 2035 traffic volumes. The Year 2035 future traffic volumes at the study intersections are provided in Figures 7a and 7b. GRMR 26 1.Tachevah&Palm Canyon 2.Tamarisk&Palm Canyon 3.Granvia Valamonle&Palm Canyon 4.Alejo&Palm Canyon Z 107197 53149 35132 Z 98189 2220 rL r 80113 +.J + 4 ,r 58153 ,Xm L4 .r 53148 + + L+ r 7M5 27,24 t 918 71JM J 9/By S C 4A C 1 1201110 27124 e f 18116 e 302 5.Amado&Palm Canyon 5.Andreas&Palm Canyon 7.Tahqunz Canyon&Palm Canyon 8. UPlaza&Palm Canyon ZS 5e52 m malos r 142,129 4 L4 r 17&162 + r 12J11 m r 1451132 4 r 8597 54149--0' 104/104—► MOO---► 4&44-1 63164—j 142,129 9.Arenas&Palm Canyon 10.Barron&Palm Canyon 11.Raman&Palm Canyon 12.Camino Parocola&Indian Canyon t 27124 m r F 053 7E e F BM3 174/150 m — % r 4 r 75168 +j m L r MR7 + w L r 2631239 +J L+ r 115/104 18116 7&69 62157--- 156A421 4141 66160 76169 Z 49144 Z 27124 m 13.Tachevah&Indian Canyon 14.Tamarisk&Indian Canyon 15.Granvia valamonle&Indian canyon 16.Alejo&Indian Canyon Z 106196 Z 27124 Z 2422 Z 186,169 ,^'=„ F 100191 m 2220 — o — f—12A 1 m F 155,141 a r27124 r 13112 +J + L4 r 18M6 4-1 + L4 r 22,20 2724 JTF 13112 - 19118 STF 90182 S 8507 2724—0, C 12,11 � Z8 1561142� e o m _ m 1v12 r 27124 'Z m 12111 Z m 18&164 Z m Midday/PM Conversion Year 2015 Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 6a 27 17.Amado&Indian Canyon 19.Andreas&Indian Canyon 19.Tahquilz Canyon&Indian Canyon 20. La Plaza&Indian Canyon Z 8&&1 Z 1207135 Z 17&162 10L93 10111 — — c F 1607146 L44/40 + L 56150 + L 66150 40136—-T- t r4 1621146 174/158 111/101_T 1611146� a 22128 1 ' 0 20W112y b 22J20� m 56150 m 28125� m f 3330--), 21.Arcnas&Indian Canyon 22. Barislo&Indian Canyon 23. Ramon&Indian Canyon 24.Alejo&Calle Encilia 53149 Z 3291300 fi2 58153Z5 F 3051278 F 18&169 +.J + l4 22120 + ± +) 4 r 121110 103/94 J h f 2671243 J 8437 J f 67761--* Q o a 3151287 111 — — 4371397 225Z r 8 33130—1 109199 ti 25.Amado&Calle Encilia 2&Tahqullz Canyon&Calle Encino 27.Arena&Calle Encilia 20.Portion&Colic Encilia L 67/61 f t 40137 t 42138 w t 1461133 m e o 50145 a o �—367/334 19117 2 — 6111556 r f L� r + L 44140 f r 102/93 + L r 56/50 L r 13/12 31/28 J? TV- 31128 S +) r4 38N --T- h r4 44140 7551144 m 271/247 28/25_� „'— — f 4411402 125/114 r 62/56 Z m 38/34 Z 414 Midday/PM Conversion Year 2015 Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 6b 28 1.Tachevah&Palm Canyon 2.Tamarisk&Palm Canyon 3.Granvia Valamonle&Palm Canyon 4.Alejo&Palm Canyon L 1201111 _ 60155 Z40/37 L 111/102 25/23 r + 4 r 90/83 4 + L4 r 65160 r60155 +.j + L+ r 8V74 30127 J 41,556 J r4 80173 41,556--J� e — 41,3991 e — 136/1251 36'28-7), f 20118—1, f c f 40/37 S.Arnold&Palm Canyon 6.Andreas&Palm Canyon 7.Tahquilz Canyon&Palm Canyon 0. La Plaza&Palm Canyon e 0 0 65/60 — 1131120 1601147 e r + 4 r 2011185 +J + 4 r 14112 r 1641151 + 4 r 9&88 60155 1171119 y 304/280 55150 71172--1 1591147 9.Arenas&Palm Canyon 10.Baristo&Palm Canyon 11.Ramon&Palm Canyon 12.Camino Parocela&Indian Canyon o2 m u m 30127 F 65/80 a 90/83 o F 196/180 41,556 4 r 84/78 + 0 4 r 95187 +J m 4 r 296/272 +J 4 r 1291119 20118 J HaII —► 7&65 17&1621 41,3991 ;f A 75159 —1 85/78 —:1- 55151 Z 30/28 13.Tachevah&Indian Canyon 14.Tamarisk&Intlian Canyon 15.Granvia Valamome&Hawn Canyon 16.Alejd&Indian Canyon Z 2101193 1191110 Z 30127 Z 27125 e f-111/703 — — F 2&23 14112 g —1 e F 17V16C 30128 Z- 1&14 + t.4 .C- 20119 + t L+ r 25123 31127 15114 2820 J 101193 J 9N88 y 3&28—1 c 14112 S — 17&162 C 15114 m Was m 14112 Z 20186 Z Midday/PM Future Year 2035 Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 7a 29 17.Amada&Indian Canyon 18.Andreas&Indian Canyon 19.Tahqudz Canyon&Indian Canyon 20. La Plaza&Indian Canyon Z 99191 Z 1351154 ` 2001184 1151106 �' — 41,591 m 1811166 L50146 +-J + L 62158 +-1 + 4 r 62/58 45141—j- t 182/166 --r 1961180 125/115_7 1811156y — 25132 — ZEe 22512071 e— m f 25123Z N o 62158 Z — 3129—�4, 38134--), 21.Amnas&Indian Canyon 22.Barislo&Indian Canyon 23. Ramon&Indian Canyon 24. AIejo&Calk Encilia 60155 L 3711341 65160 M41316 209/192 r + L+ 25123 +j r L r 136/125 116/107J + f f4 301277 1 95W J 751691 $, o — 3551326 —� o e C 4921452 � m 31129Z — 30134 e r 121I112 25.Ameda&Calk Encilia 26.TahquiU Canyon&Calk Encilia 27,Arena&Calle Encilia 28.Ramon&Calle Encilia t 75169 N t 45142 t 48144 r t 1641151 — �—56152 0 413I380 21120 "�—' 688/533 /"j f �? r 50146 +j N r 115A06 +.j N r 62158 L4 r 15114 35132 J 35132 J +) 42139 S +) 50146 1751181 e m o 3051201 --- 7129 - 4971457 g 1411130 o 70164-71, 42139 _:I_ 41,399 Z Midday/PM Future Year 2035 Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 7b 30 Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study 77777 M,, ;,, Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Intersection and arterial Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted for the existing one- way configuration and the four alternative configurations for the existing traffic conditions; for the two-way conversion Year 2015 traffic conditions; and for the future Year 2035 traffic conditions. Intersection and arterial Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted using the Synchro Program. Analysis Methodology The Highway Capacity Manual defines the intersection Level of Service (LOS) in terms of average vehicle delay. The LOS values range from LOS A, with an average vehicle delay of less than ten seconds, indicating excellent conditions to a LOS F, with an average delay of more than 80 seconds, typically indicating oversaturated conditions- The LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections based on the HCM methodology is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Criteria Average Total Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) and Level of Service (LOS) Type of Intersection Control Signalized Unsignalized/ STOP Controlled A(minimal delay) _ _ < 10 > 10 a< 10__ B (short delay) > 10 and < 20 nd < 15 C(average delay) > 20 and < 35 > 15 and < 25 D (long delay) > 35 and < 55 >25 and < 35 E (very long delay) >55 and <80 > 35 and < 50 _ F extreme delay/jammed >80 > 50 Additionally, the Highway Capacity Manual provides procedures to evaluate the LOS of an existing or proposed facility for the purpose of planning, design or operation of arterials. The methodology does not address arterial capacity, which is generally determined by the capacity of the arterial's signalized intersections. The operation of vehicles on arterial streets is influenced by three-main factors: the arterial environment, the interaction between vehicles, and the effect of traffic signals. The Highway Capacity Manual defines the arterial LOS in terms of average through vehicle travel speeds. The average travel speed includes the delays such as those caused at intersections as well as those due to parking maneuvers, lane changes, vehicles entering or exiting the roadway through various driveways, level of pedestrian activity, the proportion of buses and trucks, and turning movements. The Synchro program utilized is compatible with the Highway Capacity Manual. The Synchro program assumes the analyzed one-lane southbound on Indian ;" 31 Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study ;, Traffic Analysis Canyon Drive as an arterial for determining arterial LOS. Operationally the southbound lane functions as a"downtown"type street for downtown circulation. Level of Service Analysis Analysis results indicate that with the Existing Year 2013, Year 2015 (Conversion Year), and Future Year 2035 the current one-way configuration, as well as all of the studied alternatives, operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. All of the study intersections operate at LOS C or better during the midday and the p.m. peak hours. Additionally, the Arterial Level of Service for Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Tachevah Drive is LOS C or better for the various alternatives. • Existing Year 2013 midday and p.m. peak hour intersection LOS analyses results for the various alternatives are summarized in Tables 2a and 2b. The results of existing Year 2013 arterial LOS analyses for the existing condition and the four alternative scenarios are summarized in Table 3. • Year 2015 intersection LOS are summarized in Tables 4a and 4b for the midday and p.m. peak hours and the intersection LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The results of arterial LOS analyses for the Year 2015 traffic volumes are summarized in Table 5. Year 2015 Arterial LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix E. • Year 2035 intersection LOS are summarized in Tables 6a and 6b for the midday and p.m. peak hours. Intersection LOS worksheets for Year 2035 are provided in Appendix C. The results of arterial LOS analyses for the Year 2035 traffic volumes are summarized in Table 7. Year 2035 Arterial LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. The arterial LOS analyses indicated that the existing geometries and all four alternatives operate at LOS C during the midday and p.m. peak periods, for Year 2013, Year 2015 and Year 2035. Even though all alternatives operate at LOS C, the calculated arterial speeds are slightly different for each alternative. The speeds for Alternative 1 are slightly slower than the other alternatives because it only provides two northbound lanes while the other alternatives provide three northbound lanes. Alternative 2 has higher northbound speeds than Alternative 3 and 4 because parking is not provided on the east side of the street for Alternative 2 but it is provided for Alternatives 3 and 4. Since parking is not provided on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive in Alternative 3 the southbound movement for Alternative 3 has better speeds than Alternative 2. Further, the analyses indicate that the Existing configurations on Indian Canyon Drive operate at a slightly higher speed (and, therefore, slightly better LOS), for existing, Year 2015 and Year 2035 traffic volumes, than any of the four alternatives. Both this study and the 1998 study results show that it is viable to reduce the number of northbound lanes on Indian Canyon Drive and provide a single southbound lane, enhancing access to downtown businesses. The previous study concluded that the southbound lane would operate basically as a downtown local street and not as a through arterial street. In this study, primarily because of the reduction in traffic volumes mostly due to the recession, the Synchro Arterial Analysis shows that the southbound lane operates as an arterial street and functions the Ai.[fERT _. 32 GR° ' Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study Traffic Analysis same as the northbound lanes. If traffic volumes increase greater than what is projected in this study, the findings of the previous study may be more reflected of traffic flow operational LOS. This means that the three northbound lanes can function with acceptable LOS, but the new southbound lane may function at a lesser LOS, however it will enhance circulation and still provide acceptable operation as a "downtown' type street, not as an arterial intended to carry through traffic. All four alternatives permit bicyclists to continue to share the road. "Sharrow" markings (shared lane marking) can also be utilized for all four alternatives. ALBERT 33 GA� E ,� °. Table 2a: Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013-Midday Peak Na Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Dela LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachcvah Drive 9.2 A 9.9 A 9.0 A 9.2 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 5.1 A 4.2 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive(a)Granvia Valmonte 8.6 A 7.0 I A 7.9 1 A 8.3 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.2 B 11.9 ', B 12.1 B 12.5 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.2 A 7.5 A 7.6 A 7.5 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road LO A 1.0 A 0.9 A 1.0 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 18.2 B 18.9 B 14.0 B 14.9 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.5 A 7.7 A 4.0 A 4.6 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 8.1 A 9A A 7.6 A 7.7 A 10 S. Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.2 A 9.4 A 7.2 A 7.0 A 11 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 16.6 B 10.2 B 16.1 B 16.2 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive(a,Camino Parocela 10.1 B 11.0 B 10.2 B 9.9 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.1 A 7.5 A 6.5 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 13.0 B 12.8 B 12.4 B 12.5 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive(a)E.Alejo Road 11.7 B 14.9 B 12.6 B 13.9 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive(a)E.Amado Road 8.5 A 9.4 A 7.5 A 9.6 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 4.9 A 72 A 6.5 A 4.8 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 7.4 A 13.3 B 11.9 B 6.9 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.2 A 7.0 A 3.9 A 4.3 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.7 A 8.8 A 6.6 A 6.8 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 8.7 A 8.9 A 7.8 A 9.2 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 12.3 B 17.3 B 14.5 B 11.7 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 5.4 A 5.2 A 5.3 A 5.4 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.6 A 10.6 B 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 11.0 B 12.9 B 11.6 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 18.6 B 23.8 C 22.3 C 19.8 B 34 Table 2b: Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013-PM Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Altemative 2&3 Alternative 4 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS I N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 8.9 A 9.5 A 8.8 A 8.9 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive Cd;E.Tamarisk Road 4.7 A 4.1 A 4.3 A 4.7 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmome 7.5 A 6.8 A 7.4 A 7.5 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 1 L 1 B 11.7 B 11.4 B 11.5 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 7.1 A 7.8 A 8.3 A 8.3 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.0 A 1.0 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E,Tahquitz Canyon Way 13.9 B 14.3 B 13.0 B 13.7 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.5 A 3.1 A 3.6 A 4.4 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive(a;Arenas Road 7.8 A 7.2 A 7.2 A 7.5 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive(a?Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.2 A 7.2 A 7.0 A 1 I S.Palm Canyon Drive On Ramon Road 15.8 B 16.8 B 15.4 B 15.5 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 9.6 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.0 A 7.3 A 6.4 A 6.0 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 12.4 B 12.3 B 12.4 B 12.6 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Val monte 2.4 A 2.4 A 2.4 A 2.4 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.4 B 13.6 B 12.1 B 12.7 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.5 A 9.1 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 5.6 A 6.6 A 5.8 A 5.3 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 6.9 A 11.6 B 11.2 B 7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.1 A 3.9 A 3.9 A 4.3 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.6 A 7.0 A 0.2 A 6.8 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 8.4 A 8.3 A 7.4 A 8.7 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive(a;Ramon Road 10.5 B 19.3 B 12.7 B 10.9 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 4.5 A 4.5 A 4.5 A 4.5 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 11.9 B 12.8 B 114 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 9.6 A 9.6 A 9.6 A 9.6 A 28 S.Cattle Encilia @ Ramon Road 20.8 B 21.4 C 23.5 C 20-7 C 35 Table 3. Arterial Level of Service for Existing Year 2013 Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 Alternatives 4 Arterial (One-Way) 1 (Two-Way) 2 (Two-Way) 3 (Two-Way) 4 (One-Way) 5 (Segment) Dir Length Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial (mi) Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH Midday Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.2 C 17.3 C 22.7 C 17.9 C 19.2 C Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to SB 1 6 15.4 C 16,9 C 19.7 C {{{„e000ci, gi'si?(�n;ioo ,:ni%�sii% =,,,•s:;; 2iii2 {g/i/igooioi ,i000iniiiniie• Ramon Road) auua„�,no, :iLaa<¢.on¢.on ,,, .••;••,i.4;:; :ni;;;.i;;z ;;; •,iinii000000i oinsiooinsioo 7/ii%%ii,Li,¢liii ui%i,¢% ;;,,.cam zzz•zz• �z;;z:azzaiz PM Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.7 C 17.7 C 23.0 C 18.2 C 19.6 C Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive 'z"a" iiiiiiiiiii% iii;%% % % �/• %i �� %' ��% ? (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 "'%' %%€i€%% ;%%% 16.8 C 18.1 C 21.2 C Ramon Road) , iaasia000ioi isosmmismmi •j�o/o,.,,.,. /•;ia Notes: 1. Existing Configuration-one-way widr four NB lanes and parking on both sides. 2. Alternative 1 -Two-way with one southbound lane,two NB lanes and parking on both sides. 3. Alternative 2-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the west side(No parking on the cast side). 4. Alternative 3-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the east side(No parking on the west side). 5. Alternative 4-One-way with three NB lanes,angle parking on the west side,and parallel parking on the east side. tiJ Table 4a: Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015-Midday Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Delay LOS Delay LOS Del= LOS Delay LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.3 A 9.9 A 9.1 A 9.3 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive Cb E.Tamarisk Road 5.0 A 4.3 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 3 N. Palm Canyon Drive a Granvia Valmonte 8.7 A 7.2 A 8.0 A 8.4 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.5 B 12.2 B 12.6 B 12.4 B 5 N. Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.4 A 7.1 A 7.8 A 7.2 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7.1 A 7.0 A 8.2 A 7.4 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 17.7 B 18.7 B 13.3 B 14.5 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.6 A 7.7 A 4.1 A 4.6 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 8.2 A 9.2 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.4 A 7.2 A 7.0 A I 1 S.Patin Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 16.7 B 16.3 B 16.2 B 16.2 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Paroeela 10.2 B 11.1 B 10.2 B 10.0 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachcvah Drive 6.1 A 7.6 A 6.6 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 13.1 B 13.2 B 12.3 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 12.4 B 15.3 B 14.3 B 13.8 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.1 A 10.0 A 7.6 A 8.4 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road M6 B 14.1 B 11.4 B 8.9 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive(a E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 7.4 A 12.9 B 12.0 B 6.9 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive(a;La Plaza 4.3 A 7.0 A 4.0 A 4.2 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.7 A 8.8 A 6.5 A 6.9 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive(a Baristo Road 8.7 A 8.9 A 7.9 A 9.2 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 12.3 B 17.6 B 14.8 B 11.8 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 5.5 A 5.3 A 5.4 A 5.6 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.6 B 26 N.Calle Encilia q E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 11.0 B 12.9 B 11.6 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 18.6 B 1 23.7 C 22.2 C 19.8 B 37 Table 4b: Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015-PM Peak ExistingAlternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 No. Delav LOS Delav LOS Dela LOS DelaX LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.0 A 11.0 A 8.8 A 8.9 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive al E.Tamarisk Road 4.7 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 4.7 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 7.5 A 6.9 A 7.4 A 7.5 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.1 B 114 B 11.8 B 114 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.7 A 7.2 A 7.7 A 7.0 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 8.2 A 7.3 A 9.1 A 7.1 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 13.4 B 13.7 B 12.8 B 13.3 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.6 A 3.1 A 3.7 A 4.5 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 7.8 A 7.2 A 7.3 A 7.5 A 10 S. Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.2 A 7.2 A 7.1 A 11 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 15.8 B 16.9 B 15.4 B 15.5 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 9.6 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.0 A 7.6 A 6A A 6.0 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 12.2 B 12.6 B 12.3 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive(a?Granvia Valmonte 2.4 A 2.4 A 2.4 A 2.4 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.8 B 14.2 B 14.6 B 12.8 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.9 A 9.0 A 7.5 A 8.6 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7 A 15.2 B 9.9 A 8 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 6.9 A 11.5 B 11.2 B 7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.1 A 3.8 A 4.2 A 4.2 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.6 A 7.1 A 6.5 A 6.8 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive a Baristo Road 8.4 A 83 A 7.6 A 8.7 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 10.6 B 19.5 B 12.9 B 1 I B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 4.6 A 4.5 A 4.5 A 4.6 �', A 25 N.Calle Encilia(a)E.Amado Road 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 119 B 12.8 B 11.5 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 9.7 A 9.7 A 9.7 A 9.7 A 11 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 20.7 B 21.4 C 23.6 C 20.6 C 38 Table 5. Arterial Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015 Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 Alternatives 4 Arterial (One-Way) I (Two-Way) 2 (Two-Way) 3 (Two-Way) 4 (One-Way) 5 (Segment) Dir Length Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial (mi) Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH Midday Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.0 C 16.9 C 21.9 C 17.8 C 19.0 C Tachevah Drive) %iliiii Indian Canyon DriveT0 (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 %%% ;;; ;? ; ��� 15.2 C 16.5 C 19.2 C - '''�/""���/��� "��ii !; Ramon Road) �� !✓.,,,,, PM Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22A C 17.1 C 21.9 C 18.0 C 19.4 C Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive %j/!�!�y /%%i%iiiiiiiiiiiii %%%Li%u z ;(Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 / 16.4 C 17.6 C 20.6 C %„�%- ;zie Ramon Road) Notes: 1. Existing Configuration-one-way with four NB lanes and parking on both sides. 2. Alternative I -Two-way with one soulhbound lane,two NB lanes and parking on both sides. 3. Alternative 2-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the west side(No parking on the cast side). 4. Alternative 3-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the east side(No parking on the west side). 5. Alternative 4-One-way with three NB lanes,angle parking on the west side,and parallel parking on the east side. W •.D Table 6a: Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035-Midday Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Delav, LOS Delay. LOS Dela LOS Delav LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.9 A 10.2 B 9.5 A 9.9 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 5.1 A 4.3 A 4.5 A 4.9 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmome 9.9 A 8.4 A 9.3 A 9.6 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 12.9 B 14.2 B 14.2 B 14.1 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive(a,E.Amado Road 6.6 A 7.1 A 8.2 A 7.4 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive(d Andreas Road 7.0 A 7.1 A 8.2 A 7.3 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 20.5 C 21.6 C 15.0 B 16.8 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive(n6 La Plaza 4.7 A 9.2 A 4.1 A 4.8 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 9.1 A 10.9 B 8.4 A 8.4 A 10 S.Patin Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.2 A 9.4 A 7.3 A 6.9 A I I S.Palm Canyon Drive a Ramon Road 1&1 B 17.5 B 17.4 B 17.3 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 10.6 B 11.6 B 10.7 B 10.4 B 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.1 A 7.8 li A 6.8 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E,Tamarisk Road 13.1 B 13.5 B 13.0 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 4.4 A 4.3 A 4.3 A 4.4 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 13.4 B 16.7 B 15.8 B 16.0 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.4 A 11.0 B 7.7 A 8.7 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive Co.)Andreas Road 10.6 B 16 B 13.1 B 9.4 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 7.5 A 14.1 B 12.1 B 7.7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.3 A 7.7 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.8 A 9.7 A 7.0 A 7.1 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 9.5 A 9.4 A 8.3 A 10.1 B 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 12.4 B 19.4 B 16.5 B 13 B 24 N.Calle Encilia a W.Alejo Road 8.3 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 8.3 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 11.9 B 11.9 B 11.9 B 11.9 B 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E,Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.7 B 11.1 B 13.1 B 11.8 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road l L6 B 11.6 B 11.6 B 11.6 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 19.1 B 22.5 C 22.2 C 18.9 B 40 Table 6b: Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035-PM Peak Existing Alter mthe 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 No. Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS I N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.4 A l0A A 9.2 A 9.4 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 4.8 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 8.8 A 7.5 A 8.4 A 8.8 A 4 N.Patin Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 12.5 B 12.8 B 13.0 B 12.8 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.7 A 7.2 A 8.2 A 7.4 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7.9 A 7.3 A 9.6 A 7.5 A 7 N.Patin Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 15.6 B 15.5 B 14.4 B 15.3 B 8 S.Patin Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.9 A 3.1 A 4.3 A 4.7 A 9 S.Patin Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 8.6 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 8.1 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive a?Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.4 A 7.2 j A 71 A 11 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 17.0 B 17.4 B 16.5 B 16.5 B 12 S.Patin Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 10.0 A 10.1 A 10.4 A 10.1 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.1 A 7.7 A 6.6 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 12.2 B 13.0 B 12.5 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Vahnonte 3.2 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 13.0 B 15.4 B 15.6 B 14.2 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.8 A 10.2 B 7.6 A 8.6 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7.5 A 17.1 B 11.4 B 8.9 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 6.9 A 12.6 B 12.0 B 7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ To Plaza 4.1 A 3.9 A 4.7 A 4.3 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.7 A 7.7 A G.9 A 6.9 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 9.1 A 8.6 A 8.0 A 9.5 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road I I I B 19.6 B 14.7 B 11.4 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 6.1 A 5.8 A 5.8 A 6.1 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road I I B 1 I B 11.0 li B 11.0 B 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 1 1.8 B 11.9 B 13.0 B 11 J B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 10.7 B 10.7 B 10.7 B 10.7 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 20.7 B I 2 L5 C 23.6 C 19.5 C 41 Table 7. Arterial Level of Service for Future Year 2035 Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 Alternatives 4 Arterial (One-Way) t (Two-Way) z (Two-Way) 3 (Two-Way) 4 (One-Way) s (Segment) Dir Length Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial (mi) Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH Midday Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 21.8 C 16.3 C 21.4 C 17.5 C 18.5 C Tachevah Drive) •iiz64i:z;!ia iiiiiii;:a•si „ygosi•;z,,,., „oaoz»z;;;zi Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 %%���%%/oi %% ii! � 14.8 C 15.4 C 18.2 C / Ramon Road) ; iaai i;a :; %i%%%' PM Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.0 C 16.6 C 21.5 C 17.7 C 19.1 C Tachevah Drive) ii3i1i3i........ Indian Canvon Drive £!i% Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 :iii/ :{; ( / 15.5 C 16.4 C 18.9 C Ramon Road oiooioioomo onssmmioioioo '/'7//jiiii//Zii i'ji 9ji�•/i• Notes: I. Existing Configuration-one-way with four NB lanes and parking on both sides. 2. Alternative 1 -Two-way with one southbound lane,two NB lanes and parking on both sides. 3. Alternative 2-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the west side(No parking on the east side). 4. Alternative 3-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the east side(No parking on the west side). 5. Altemative'4-One-way with three NB lanes,angle parking on the west side,and parallel parking on the east side. N Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study 7777W��-� Conclusions CONCLUSIONS This study concludes that it is feasible to convert Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road into a two-way street (Alternative 1, 2 or 3). All three alternative scenarios that include two-way traffic will provide an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) C. Alternative 4 with three one-way northbound lanes (and no southbound lanes), angle parking on the west side, and parallel parking on the east side is also a feasible alternative. Alterative 4 operates at an acceptable LOS C and provides approximately 20% more parking spaces on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive. While it is clear that Alternative 4 with angle parking can provide more on-street parking, it is difficult to ascertain specific business advantages for any of the three viable two-way conversion alternatives other than enhanced traffic circulation in the downtown business area with no degradation in level of service. ALB A 43 Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study Improvement Cost Estimates Improvement Cost Estimates The cost to implement the conversion to two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive is estimated to be approximately $1.4 to $1.75 million. The cost details are summarized in Table S. This cost includes the following improvements on Indian Canyon Drive: • Re-striping of Indian Canyon Drive between Alejo Road and south of Ramon Road. • Signal modifications at the intersections of Indian Canyon Drive at Ramon Road, Baristo Road, Arenas Road, La Plaza, Tahquitz Canyon Way, Andreas Road, Amado Road and Alejo Road. • At signalized intersections where Marbclite poles are currently used for the eastbound and westbound traffic, replace with new poles to meet current standards. • Installation and implementation of traffic signal interconnect and synchronization. The signal modifications will typically not require left turn phasing. Northbound and southbound left turn pockets will be provided at all intersections. New signal poles would be required to enable the installation of traffic signal indications on mast arms. Because of the existing monument in the median on Tahquitz Canyon Way at Indian Canyon Drive, the eastbound left turn would be converted from PPLT (Protected/ Permissive Left Turn Phasing) to permissive phasing, and the existing westbound through lane would be converted to a shared through/left lane with permissive phasing to allow for a westbound left turn movement. A cost to implement Alternative 4 (three one-way northbound lanes with angle parking on west side and parallel parking on the east side) is in the range of $75 to $100 thousand. The cost details for Alternative 4 are summarized in Table 9. Patin SpnngsU 09AISJtepan\IMien Ce ..2-W,Conversion Smdy Rcvks d.da ALsERT 4 Q GA� f Indian Ca"yon 2-Way Conversion Studya ?> Improvement Cost Estimates Table 8: Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Cost Estimate Construction Cost Design Description ($) Cost(S) Total I Intersection and Signal Modification Costs Indian Canyon Road C Ramon Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road @ Baristo Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road n Arenas Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road @ La Plaza 60,000 to 90,000 8,500 68,500 to 98,50 Indian Canyon Road C�Tahquitz Canyon Way 60,000 to 90,000 8,500 68,500 to 98,50 Indian Canyon Road @ Andreas Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road L Amado Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road (d,Alejo Road 100,000 to 130,000 18,500 118,500 to 148,50 1I Restriping Costs 50,000 to 70,000 10,000 60,000 to 80,00 III Signal Interconnect and Coordination Costs 150,000 50,000 200,000 Subtotals: 670,000 to 930,000 138,000 808,000 to 1,068,00 Administration/Contract Management(12%): 96,960 to 128,160 Plan Checking/Inspections(12%): 96,960 to 128,160 Miscellaneous/Contingencies(15%): 121,200 to 160,200 Total: 1,123,120 to 1,484,520 Rounded: 1,200,000 to 1,500,000 Replacing Marbelite Poles for Eastbound&Northbound Traffic: 200,000 to 250,000 Grand Total: 1,400,000 to 1,750,000 � &AES 4 5 E _,: 1 improvement Cost Estimates Table 9: Indian Canyon Drive Alternative 4 Cost Estimate Construction Cost($) Design Total($) Restriping Costs 45,000 to 60,000 10,000 55,000 to 70,000 Subtotals: 45,000 to 60,000 10,000 55,000 to 70,000 Administration/Contract Management(12%): 6,600 to 8,400 Plan Checking/Inspections (12%): 6,600 to 8,400 Miscellaneous/Contingencies(15%): 8,250 to 10,500 Total: 76,450 to 97,300 Call: 75,000 to 100,000 M ERES 9 i Cindy Berardi From: robin@abrahamsarchitects.com Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 1:02 PM To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat, Geoff Kors;JR Roberts; CityClerk Subject: Indian Canyon TWO-WAY,yes! Bicycles + Pedestrians, too.... Mayor and Councilmembers Foat, Kors, Mills+ Roberts,Thank you, always, for your continued dedicated work to our city! And apologies for the late note, but I only just now found out that you're voting on the Indian Canyon two-way project this evening. I absolutely support a two-way plan for Indian Canyon. Please also consider BICYCLE and PEDESTRIAN accommodation into this plan, as this is required under California's Active Transportation Program that was approved and adopted by the state earlier this decade. Many thank-you's for your careful consideration. Sincerely, Robin Abrahams architect+ Palm Springs resident 1597 N. Kaweah Rd. Palm Springs, CA 92262 #206-335-0509 i � � q /- ORDINANCE NO. 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. City Attorney's Summary This Ordinance amends and restates in full the City's adopted Vacation Rental Ordinance. This Ordinance imposes additional restrictions on occupancy and use of vacation rental properties in Palm Springs and provides additional enforcement oversight. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ordains: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.25 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code is amended to read: Chapter 5.25 VACATION RENTALS 5.25.010 Title. This Chapter shall be referred to as the "Vacation Rental Ordinance." 5.25.020 Findings. The City Council finds and determines as follows: (a) The primary use of single-family and multi-family dwelling units in the City of Palm Springs is the provision of permanent housing for residents of the City who live and work in the City. Vacation Rentals and Homesharing are not uses specifically recognized in the City's Zoning Ordinance, nor are these uses identified as uses permitted in single-family or multi-family zones. Vacation Rentals and Homesharing are similar in character and use as hotels and other commercial short term uses and can only be permitted in single-family or multi-family zones if such uses are ancillary and secondary to the residential use of property. The use of single family dwelling units fA (b) Incidents involving excessive noise, disorderly conduct, vandalism, overcrowding, traffic congestion, parking congestion, and the accumulation of refuse, require response from police, fire, paramedic, and other City services associated with this secondary, ancillary, commercial use escalates the demand for City services, create adverse impacts in the residential areas of the City, and adversely affects the City's residential neighborhoods. Vacation Rentals and Homesharing use in residential Ordinance No. Page 2 neighborhoods may have effects that can best be addressed through an appropriate city regulatory program. (c) The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a regulatory program for Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging, with appropriate standards that regulate vacation rental of residential property, minimize adverse effects of vacation rental uses on surrounding residential neighborhoods, ensure that vacation rentals and homesharing are ancillary and secondary uses of residential property consistent with the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, preserve the character of neighborhoods in which Wacation Rrental and Homesharing uses occur, and provide an administrative procedure to preserve existing visitor serving opportunities and increase and enhance public access to areas of the City and other visitor destinations. (d) Limiting Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging to single-family dwelling units subject to the regulations provided in this Chapter and prohibiting Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging in apartments will safeguard, preserve, and protect residential housing stock in the City. (e) The adoption of a comprehensive code to regulate issuance of, and attach conditions to, vacation PeAtal n&4 fi rate Registration Certificates for Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging within single-family residential neighborhoods and the related use of residential property preserves the public health, safety, and welfare. This Chapter provides a permitting process and imposes operational requirements consistent with the ancillary and secondary status of Vacation Rentals and Homesharing, for the purpose of minimizing +^ nirni;zo the potential adverse impacts of transient uses on residential neighborhoods. (f) This Chapter is not intended to regulate hotels, motels, inns, time-share units, or non-vacation type rental arrangements including, but not limited to, lodging houses, rooming houses, convalescent homes, rest homes, halfway homes, or rehabilitation homes. 5.25.030 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning respectively ascribed to them by this Section: "Apartment" means (a) a residential unit in a multi-family development of two (2) dwelling units where both dwelling units are rented or leased for occupancy as a residence for individual families, and (b) a residential unit in a multi-family development of three (3) or more dwelling units. "Applicant" means the Owner. "Bedroom" means an area of a Vacation Rental normally occupied and being heated or cooled by any equipment for human habitation, which is 120 square feet and Ordinance No._ Page 3 greater in size, consists of four walls to the ceiling, at least one of which is located along an exterior wall with a window, and contains a built-in closet. "Business Entity" means a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is not a natural person or a personal or family trust or a limited liability company consisting solely of natural persons... "Cluster or Compound" means any two or more Vacation Rentals that operate on a unified or shared basis where residents of such Vacation Rentals have exclusive access to more than one Vacation Rental and/or the facilities of such Vacation Rentals, including by way of example, a swimming pool, tennis court, or cooking facilities. "Contract" means an agreement or evidence of any tenancy that allows or provides for the vacation rental of property. "Daytime occupancy" means the hours between 10:00 am and 10:00 pm. "Daytime occupants" mean the guests who maV occupy a Vacation Rental during a daytime occupancy. "Enforcement Official" means the CitV Manager, the Police Chief, the Fire Marshall. the Building Official, or one or more of their respective designees. "Exclusive listing arrangement" means a written agreement between an Owner and an agent or representative where the agent or representative has the sole and exclusive right to rent or lease a Vacation Rental unit to any person and the Owner is prohibited from renting or leasing the Vacation Rental unit except through the Owner's agent or representative. "Estate Home" means a single family dwelling with five or more bedrooms located on property zoned R-1-B, R-1-A, R-1-AH, or G-R-5. "Good cause" for the purposes of denial, suspension, revocation, imposition of conditions, plaGeMeRt OR 9F Femeval fmm the PF9peFty WatGh List, renewal, and reinstatement of a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate, means (1) the Applicant, Owner, the Owner's Agent, or the Local Contact Person has failed to comply with any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Chapter or any relevant provision of this Code, State law, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; (2) the Applicant, Owner, Owner's Agent, or Local Contact Person has failed to comply with any special conditions that were placed upon the Vacation Rental Registration Certificate by the Gity Ma4aqeFLnforcement Official; or (3) the Vacation Rental has been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health or welfare or the safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the Vacation Rental is located. "Good Neighbor Brochure" means a document prepared by the City Ma Rage rEnforcement Official Ordinance No._ Page 4 that summarizes general rules of conduct, consideration, and respect, including without limitation provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code applicable to or expected of uests toef the City. "Homeshare Interest" means a portion of an Owner's home that is subject to homesharing as provided in this Chapter. "Homesharing" means an activity whereby the Owner hosts visitors in the Owner's home, for compensation, for periods of twenty-eight (28) consecutive days or less, while the Owner lives on-site and in the home, throughout the visitor's stay. "Hotline" means the telephonic service operated by or for the City for the purpose of receiving complaints regarding the operation of any Vacation Rental and the forwarding of such complaints to the appropriate Long' G_nnt;;gt PeFGGR and/ " city enforcement officials or, if applicable, the Local Contact Person. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "Hotline" also includes any contact in person or by telephone, email, digital or electronic communication, or correspondence of any kind to and/or from any FepFeseRtative of the City Enforcement Official. "Local contact person" means the Owner, a local property manager, or agent of the Owner, who is available twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week for the purpose of responding in-person within thirty (30) minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the Vacation Rental, or any agent of the Owner authorized by the Owner to take remedial action and who responds to any violation of this code. "Owner" means the natural person or persons who is/are the owner of record of the Property. The term "Owner" also includes a personal or family trust consisting solely of natural persons and the trustees of such trust or a limited liability company and the members of such company, insofar as the disclosure requirements pursuant to Section 5.25.085 are satisfied. The term "Owner" does not include a Business Entity. "Property" means a residential legal lot of record on which a Vacation Rental is located. "Rental Term" means the period of time a Responsible Person rents or leases a Vacation Rental. "Responsible Person" means an occupant of a Vacation Rental who is at least twenty-five (25) years of age and who shall be legally responsible for compliance of all Ordinance No._ Page 5 occupants of the unit and/or their guests with all provisions of this Chapter and/or this code. "Vacation Rental" means a single-family dwelling, or any portion thereof, utilized for occupancy for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes without the Owner being present for a period of twenty-eight (28) consecutive days or less, other than ongoing month-to-month tenancy granted to the same renter for the same unit, occupancy of a time-share basis, or a condominium hotel as defined in Section 91.00.10 of this Code. The term "vacation rental" is synonymous with "short term rental" and "transient use" and does not include homesharing. "Vacation Rental Registration Certificate" or 'Registration Certificate" means the annual permit and/oraA aaaNal registration for a Vacation Rental or a Homeshare Interest issued by the City pursuant to this Chapter. 5.25.040 Registration Certificate Required. (a) The operation of a Vacation Rental or a Homeshare Interest without a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate is prohibited. (a4hA Vacation Rental Registration Certificate shall not be issued to any Business Entity. A natural person, limited liability company, or personal or family trust shall not maintain any financial interest in more than one Vacation Rental. For this purpose, financial interest includes both legal and beneficial ownership as well as any arrangement that provides for receipt of any portion of the revenues generated by the Vacation Rental. An Owner natural person shall only be issued, and can only maintain, one Vacation Rental Registration Certificate at any time. Renewals of Vacation Rental Registration Certificates issued on or after November 24, 2016 to a Business Entity (other than a limited liability company) shall terminate on March 1, 2017; a renewal of a second Vacation Rental Registration Certificate, or more, issued to an Owner natural perseR shall terminate on March 1, 2017. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Subsection (a) or this Subsection (bc) of this Section, any Ownernatarai--persea who has a financial interest in two or more Vacation Rentals subject to current and valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificates as of November 30, 2016, may continue to operate and maintain no more than two (2) susgof 4hesesuch Vacation Rentals so long as such Vacation Rentals are operated and maintained in full compliance with this Chapter. (bc) The provisions of Subsection (ab) of this Section shall not apply to or be enforced against any Owneraatufal--persen who operates a Vacation Rental pursuant to a valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificate issued prior to November 24, 2016 for the period of time between November 24, 2016 through January 1, 2021. The provisions of Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to or be enforced against any business entity, or its successor natural person that operates a Vacation Rental pursuant to a valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificate issued prior to November 24, 2016 for the period of time between November 24, 2016 through January 1, 2021 so long as such Ordinance No. Page 6 business entity for each Vacation Rental complies with the provisions of Section 5.25.085. The purpose of this deferral of the enforcement of the provisions of Subsection (a) is for persons or entities issued valid vacation rental sert+€isateRegistration Certificates prior to November 24, 2016 to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to recoup costs reasonably invested for vacation rental use and which may not have been recouped during the period of vacation rental use and which cannot be recouped once the vacation rental use is terminated. (sd) Each Owner of a Vacation Rental who rents, exchanges, trades, gifts, or grants such Vacation Rental for a period of twenty-eight (28) consecutive days or less shall fully comply with all provisions of this Chapter related to the use and occupancy of a Vacation Rental, and the operational requirements, provided in this Chapter. Each rental, exchange, trade, gift, and grant of a stay of less than twenty-eight (28) days shall count as one Ceontract. L4) No Owner of residential property in the City shall rent any Homeshare Interest for a period of twenty-eight consecutive days or less without a valid Rental Registration Certificate for Homesharing pursuant to this Chapter for such Hernesharing ignitHomesharing Interest. (ef) A copy of the current Registration Certificate as issued by the City and the maximum number of guests allowed on the premises shall be displayed in a clear and legible manner in a conspicuous and easily accessible location in the unit and on all advertising related to each Vacation Rental or Homesharing UnitHomesharing Interest, including without limitation, web based advertising, hosting platform, print media, and television. 5.26.060 Agency. (a) An Owner may retain an agent with an exclusive listing arrangement or a representative to assist in the compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, including, without limitation, the filing of a complete Vacation Rental registration, the management of the Vacation Rental unit or units, and the compliance with the requirements of this Chapter including the collection and Payment to the City of all transient occupancy taxes due and Payable on the Vacation Rental unit. The Owner and any such agent or representative of Owner must have the authority to evict any tenant, resident, or guest permitted to reside at the Vacation Rental for violation of any provision of this Chapter or regulation thereof. Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this Section and notwithstanding any agency relationships between an Owner and an agent or representative, the Owner of the Vacation Rental unit or units shall execute all applications and documentary requirements as provided in this Chapter and shall remain responsible for compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. The failure of an agent to comply with this Chapter shall not relieve the Owner of the Owner's obligations under the provisions of this Chapter. Ordinance No. Page 7 (b) In the event an Owner enters into an exclusive listing arrangement, the Vacation Rental registration certificate may be secured, and the transient occupancy registration certificate requirements provided in this Chapter may be performed, by the agent or representative and not by the Owner. 5.25.060 Vacation Rental Registration Requirements. (a) Prior to use of a property as a Vacation Rental, and annually thereafter, the applicant shall register the property as a Vacation Rental with the City -on a registration form furnished by or acceptable to the Gfty MaaageFEnforcement Official and signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. Each application shall contain the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the Owner of the unit for which the Vacation Rental registration certificate is to be issued. The name address and telephone numbers of any other natural persons, limited liability companies or personal or family trusts that hold any financial interests in the Vacation Rental as well as copies of legal documents creating such financial interests- (2) The name, address, and telephone number of the exclusive listing agent, if any, of the Owner of the unit. (3) The name, address, and twenty-four-hour telephone number of the tonal seatast P9FGGRLocal Contact Person and verification that the Local Contact Person can respond in-person to the site of the Vacation Rental within thirty (30) minutes. The Local Contact Person may only use the address of the Vacation Rental if the Local Contact Person will be present at the unit for the duration of each Contract. (4) The address of the residential property proposed to be used as a Vacation Rental. (5) The number of bedrooms and the applicable overnight and daytime occupancy limit of the unit consistent with the provisions of Section 5.25.070 (bc). (6) Evidence of a valid business license issued by the City for the separate business of operating Vacation Rentals or submission of a certificate that Owner is exempt or otherwise not covered by the City's Business Tax Ordinance (Division II, Title 3 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code) for such activity. Ordinance No. Page 8 (7) Evidence of a valid transient occupancy registration certificate issued by the City for the Vacation Rental unit. (8) Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of all regulations pertaining to the operation of a Vacation Rental. (9) Executed indemnification and hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to indemnify, save, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City of Palm Springs, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, individually and collectively, and the City of Palm Springs representatives, officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, damages, fines, obligations, suits, judgments, penalties, causes of action, losses, liabilities, or costs at any time received, incurred, or accrued as a result of, or arising out of Owner's actions or inaction in the operation, occupancy, use, and/or maintenance of the Property. (10) Evidence of insurance coverage as required under Section 5.25.0760(rt) of this Chapter. 1( 1) Completion of building, fire, and safety inspection and completion of any corrections identified by an Enforcement Officialthe Building nArial andler F;.e Marshall. Such inspections shall include a review of the premises for compliance with the operational requirements of this Chapter, including without limitation determining the total number of qualified bedrooms. (1�Q) Written acknowledgement in a form approved by the City MariagerEnforcement Official that there are no covenants or other deed restrictions on the property that prohibit or limit the use of the property as a Vacation Rental. The Gity MaaagwEnforcement Official may accept a written consent from the governing board of a homeowners' association with jurisdiction over the property in satisfaction of this requirement. (123) Such other information as the City MaaaW nforcement Official deems reasonably necessary to administer this Chapter. (b) The registration of a Vacation Rental shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council; provided, however, the fee shall be no greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the City in administering the provisions of this SestiepChapter. Ordinance No._ Page 9 (c) A Vacation Rental registration certificate shall be denied if a registration certificate for the same unit and issued to the same Owner has previously been revoked pursuant to Section 5.25.090. The denial of a registration certificate for any reason may be appealed in accordance with to the provisions of Chapter 2.50 of the Municipal Code. (d) Upon change of property Ownership, the pe444Registration Certificate shall expire and the property shall not be used as a Vacation Rental until the new or successor Owner is issued a Vacation Rental Gertmf Gate Registration Certificate for the property. In the event of a change in agent or the occurrence of any other material fact set forth in the annual registration, a new registration for a Vacation Rental shall be required to continue operation of the Vacation Rental and within feur#eenseven days of said change the Owner or his or her exclusive listing agent shall submit the required registration and fee. (e) The Owner or his or her exclusive listing agent shall cancel the Vacation Rental Registration Certificate within seven (7) days of the date the Vacation Rental is sold or otherwise disposed of or after an event that results in the unit no longer in use as a Vacation Rental. 6.26.070 Operational Requirements and Standard Conditions. (a) The Owner shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the Vacation Rental unit complies with all applicable codes regarding fire, building and safety, health and safety, and all other relevant laws. (b) No more than 'weRty-eightthirty-two (328) Ceontracts for Vacation Rental use of a property shall be allowed or provided in any calendar year. A Contract includes any occupancy of a property subiect to a Vacation Rental registration certificate by persons other than the Owner when the Owner is not present during such occupancy, regardless of whether compensation is paid for such occupancy or whether occupancy is evidenced in an agreement or document. (i) For the first year a Vacation Registration Certificate is in effect, the thirty- two (32) contract limit shall be prorated based on the number of months that else prior to the subsequent calendar year. A. G-Gontmct includes any (ii) Notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by this subsection, the Owner can -designate and file with the Enforcement Official the names of up to fivet#Fee (35) persons who may occupy the Vacation Rental unit at no cost and without requiring the presence of the Owner on the premises of the Vacation Rental Each such occupancy shall fully comply with all other provisions of this Chapter..- Ordinance No. Page 10 (c) The Owner shall limit overnight occupancy of the Vacation Rental unit to a specific number of occupants, with the maximum number of occupants as no more than two (2) persons per bedroom within each Vacation Rental unit and a maximum of no more than eight (8) persons total within the Vacation Rental unit, except that Owner may allow up to two (2) minor children. age 12 or under, to occupy the Vacation Rental in addition to the maximum number of occupants otherwise provided in this Subsection. - The number of bedrooms in a Vacation Rental shall be verified by the GAY MaflageFEnforcement Official using County Assessor and/or City Building records and/or a physical inspection of the premises, prior to the issuance of a Registration CGertificate. The Owner may also allow up to four (4) daytime occupants in addition to the total number of guests allowed for overnight occupancy pursuant to this Subsection. all olsn limit the fnMl rl a.hime nGGUiqaRGV n£ 4hn Vanation Rental nit fn n penifin RumbeF Of nnni inants nn4 tQ AmnigAd an amnunt dl;termined by addann the to#al n nrninhf number ens gal to fif#y n nt of thenvem nht o nts except the tata of dayt me oeenpants droll pat exneer7 fiyelve 42 n No more than one (1) automobile per bedroom shall be allowed to park on the street for each Vacation Rental unit and no more than twofouf (42) additional automobiles may be parked in the street during daytime occupancv for daytime occupants. Advertising and/or renting one or more Vacation Rentals as part of a cluster or compound -is prohibited. (d) The Owner of an Estate Home may apply to the City Manager for an Exemption from the limitations of Subsection (c) of this Section for up to two (2) additional bedrooms for housing to accommodate no more than two (2) persons for each additional bedroom approved pursuant to the Exemption up to a maximum of twelve (12) guests and up to two (2) minors age twelve (12) and under.. -a The 9n£n� ^�nt G fisialCity Manager shall provide notice to all owners of property within two hundred and fifty (250) feet of the boundaries of Vacation Rental Exemption site at least ten (10) days prior to rendering a decision on the application. . The City Manager shall review the application for an Exemption and may approve such Exemption if the City Manager finds such additional occupancy is consistent with the purpose, intent, and goals of this Chapter and any guidelines as may be adopted by the City Council. Such Exemption if granted. may be subiect to conditions and will be subject to annual review and renewal consideration after providing notice as required in this Subsection. sha#4eview e 'nn for an Exen,ntlnn and may apprnye 6uGh Exemption if the Enfnraomen of this hapter The Cnfnreemept OfPinial shall splloit apd tokA iatn a ..t nod frp Re GihbeFs before @PPFovdRQ . Exemption SUGh CxeMOtinn if (ee) During the Rental Term each Vacation Rental unit is rented, the Owner, his or her agent, and/or the Local Contact Person designated by the Owner, after being contacted by the Enforcement Official, shall be available twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, for the purpose of (1) responding by telephone within fifteen (15) minutes of complaints from or through the Hotline and (2) responding Ordinance No._ Page 11 in-person within thirty (30) minutes to any additional or successive complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the Vacation Rental. (+#f) The Owner shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the occupants and/or guests of the Vacation Rental unit do not create unreasonable noise disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate provisions of the Municipal Code or any state law. (eg) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.74.043, any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or any machine or device for the producing or reproducing of any sound shall be conducted within a fully enclosed Vacation Rental unit and shall not be audible at the property line of the Vacation Rental. (fh) Prior to occupancy pursuant to each separate occasion of rental of a Vacation Rental, the Owner or the Owner's agent or representative shall enter into a written ContractFental agreement with a Responsible Person where (1) the Responsible Person will provide the Responsible Person's name, age, address, and a copy of a government issued identification; (2) establishes and sets out the terms and conditions of the Contractfental agFeement, including without limitation occupancy limits, noise prohibitions, and vehicle parking requirements; (3) requires the Responsible Person to acknowledge and agree that he or she is legally responsible for compliance of all occupants of the Vacation Rental or their guests with all provisions of this Chapter and/or the Municipal Code; (4) the Owner or the Owner's Agent provides a copy of the "Good Neighbor Brochure" to the Responsible Person; (5) the Responsible Person provides a list of all guests by name; and (6) the Responsible Person provides a list of all guests' vehicles, including license plate numbers. Each Contra-YEIRtal agFeWngnt shall be maintained by the Owner or the Owner's Agent for a minimum of four (4) years and shall be readily available for inspection upon request of the Gity ManageFEnforcement Official. A summary or abstract of the written agreementContract, in a form approved by the Gity-MaaaW nforcement Official, shall be filed with the G;4 ManageFEnforcement Official prior to occupancy, in a manner approved by the City ManageFEnforcement Official, and shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the Vacation Rental property and shall be made available on site at the request of an Enforcement Official... (gi) The Owner, or his or her agent, shall, upon notification by the Enforcement Official that the responsible person, including any occupant and/or guest of the Vacation Rental unit, has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of provisions of the Municipal Code or any state law, shall promptly respond in a timely and appropriate manner to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests, and when requested by the City Gity ManageFEnforcement Official, evict one or more of the guests. For the purpose of this Subsection and Subsection (hj) below, the phrase "in a timely and appropriate manner" shall mean in-person contact within thirty (30) minutes for any call from theEnforcement Official oF #etline. Ordinance No._ Page 12 (#j) Failure of the Owner or his or her agent to respond to calls or complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the Vacation Rental in a timely and appropriate manner shall be grounds for imposition of penalties as set forth in this Chapter. It is not intended that an Owner, agent, or Local Contact Person act as a peace officer or place himself or herself in an at-risk situation. (ki) Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection by the collectors and between the hours of five a.m. and eight p.m. on scheduled trash collection days. The Owner of the Vacation Rental unit shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code (Waste Disposal and Diversion), and shall provide "walk-in service" or as may otherwise be approved by the Gity Maaagw nforcement Official. (}) The Owner of the Vacation Rental unit shall post a copy of the Registration Certificate and a copy of the conditions set forth in this Section, including all rules and regulations applicable to the use of the property as a Vacation Rental, on the inside of each entry door or in a conspicuous location near each entry door on the Vacation Rental. (mk) The Owner shall provide each occupant of a Vacation Rental with the following information prior to occupancy of the unit and/or post such information in a conspicuous place within the unit: (1) The name of the managing agency, agent, rental manager, legal seatast gefi;GRLocal Contact Person, or Owner of the unit, and a telephone number at which that party may be reached on a twenty-four-hour basis; (2) The maximum number of occupants permitted to stay in the unit; (3) The trash pick-up day and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash or refuse on the exterior of the property; (4) Notification that the amplification of music outside of the dwelling unit or otherwise audible at the property line is a violation of this Chapter; (5) Notification that the occupant may be cited or fined by the City and/or immediately evicted by the Owner pursuant to state law, in addition to any other remedies available at law, for creating a disturbance or for violating gnye#w provisions of this Chapter; Ordinance No. Page 13 (6) Notification that failure to conform to the occupancy requirements of the Vacation Rental unit is a violation of this Chapter; (7) A copy of this Chapter of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time. (1n) The use of a Vacation Rental unit shall not violate any applicable conditions, covenants, or other restrictions on real property. (fao) The Owner shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the Municipal Code concerning transient occupancy taxes, including, but not limited to, submission of a monthly return for each Vacation Rental in accordance with Section 3.24.080. The monthly return shall be filed each month regardless of whether the Vacation Rental unit was rented or not during each such month. (ap) The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional standard conditions, applicable to all Vacation Rental units or identifiable classes of Vacation Rentals, as necessary, to achieve the objectives of this Chapter. A list of all such additional standard conditions shall be maintained and on file in the Office of the City Clerk and such offices as the City Manager designates. _(sg) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (ap) above, upon a determination of gGood CGause, the City Manager may impose additional or special standards or requirements for ;� placement or imposition of special conditions or performance standards for Owners, Owner's Agents, Local Contact Persons, and their affected Vacation Rentals_ Watch I iN (pr) The standard conditions may be modified by the City " e-r nforcement Official upon request of the Owner or his or her agent based on site-specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a Vacation Rental. All requests must be in writing and shall identify how the strict application of the standard conditions creates an unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a Vacation Rental would not be allowed. Any hardships identified must relate to physical constraints to the subject site and shall not be self-induced or economic. Any modifications of to the standard conditions shall not further exacerbate an already existing problem. `sq) The City Manager shall have the authority to establish administrative rules and regulations, which may include, but are not limited to, registration conditions, reporting requirements, inspection frequencies, enforcement procedures, advertising restrictions, disclosure requirements, or insurance requirements, consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, for the purpose of implementing, interpreting, clarifying, carrying out, furthering, and enforcing the requirements and the provisions of this Chapter. No Ordinance No. Page 14 person shall fail to comply with any such regulation. A copy of such administrative rules and regulations shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk. (41) Owner shall procure, maintain, and pay premiums for commercial insurance policies that cover short term rental of property for each Vacation Rental with minimum limits as may be established by the City Manager from time to time. The nruranr;e RSUFaRGe, WhiGh QWReF is requiFed tG GaFFy and keep On feFG9, shall RaFne City of Palm repre0entatiVeC officers officials employees agents and volunteers as additional Palm Cnri nns Gihu G961FIcll iRdiVid6lally and collectively and the f ifiic representatives shall Ac)t GoAtF*b-tQ with Gnvi;rage shall not be suspended, voided, or GanGG119d ID!, notice by ce4ified mail return receipt regnestGd has been given to the f ity of Palm the term of the Agreement pram! Permit (su) Owner shall annually secure a building and fire and safety inspection prior to renewal of the Vacation RGAt@l Gai4f cateRegistration Certificate. 5.25.076 Specific Prohibitions. (a) No person or entity shall offer or provide an Apartment, or any portion thereof, for rent for 28 consecutive days or less to any person. (b) No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a Vacation Rental that is in violation of any provision of this Chapter. (c) No person, including without limitation, an apartment owner, an apartment manager, or a representative of the apartment owner or manager, shall evict any tenant or otherwise terminate a lease for the purpose of converting an apartment to a vacation rental or in anticipation of converting an apartment to a vacation rental. In addition to any other remedy provided under the Palm Springs Municipal Code, failure to comply with this provision may be asserted as an affirmative defense in an action brought by or on behalf of the apartment owner, apartment manager, or representative to recover possession of the unit. Any attempt to recover possession of a unit in violation of this Ordinance shall render the apartment owner, apartment manager, or representative liable to the tenant for actual or punitive damages, including damages for emotional distress, in a civil action for wrongful eviction. The tenant may seek injunctive relief and money damages for wrongful eviction and the prevailing party in an action for wrongful eviction shall recover costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. (d) The provisions of Subsection (a) of this Section shall not apply to or be enforced against any person or entity who rents an apartment or portion thereof pursuant to a Ordinance No._ Page 15 valid vacation rental sertifisate Reg istration Certificate issued prior to April 15, 2016 for the period of time between April 15, 2016 through January 1, 2019. The purpose of this deferral of the enforcement of the provisions of this Section is for persons or entities issued valid vacation reatalregistration certificates prior to April 15, 2016 to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to recoup costs reasonably invested for vacation rental use of apartments and which may not have been recouped during the period of vacation rental use of the the apartment and which cannot be recouped once the vacation rental use is terminated. (e) The provisions of Subsection (a) of this Section, Subsection 5.25.040(b) {limits ^^ ^„mtior ^f UA44, and Subsection 5.25.070(b)(ii)- shall also not apply to any building in which an apartment is located that meets all requirements of an R-1 occupancy under the City's building and fire code and for which such apartment has a valid Wacation rRental pRegistrationerm t Certificate issued prior to April 15, 2016. Ed. Note. Subsection (d) of Section 5.25.075 shall be deemed repealed and no longer in effect as of 12:01 am on January 1, 2019 and all persons and entities shall fully comply with the provisions of Subsection (a) of Section 5.25.075 of this Code. See § 4 of Ord. 1902 (2016). 5.25.078 Homesharing Authorization. (a) The Notwithstanding any provision of this Cshapter to the contrary, homesharing shall be authorized in the City, provided that the Owner complies with each of the following requirements: (1) Obtains and maintains at all times a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate for Homesharing; (2) Operates the Hhomesharing Interestastivity in compliance with all Vacation Ro^t-R.l �f�-+e,Registration Certificate for Homesharing conditions, which may be imposed by the Gity ManaW nforcement Official to effectuate the purpose of this Chapter; (3) Collects and remits Transient Occupancy Tax to the City and complies with all City Transient Occupancy Tax requirements as set forth in this Code; (4) Takes responsibility for and actively prevents any nuisance activities that may take place as a result of homesharing activities; (5) Complies with all applicable laws, including all health, safety, building, and fire protections laws; Ordinance No._ Page 16 (6) Complies with the regulations promulgated pursuant to this Chapter- (b) In the event the Owner of a Homeshare Interest does not live on-site, in the home, and is not able to respond within thirty (30) minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct oft occupants of the Homesharing Interest, the property shall be deemed a Vacation Rental and Owner shall be required to fully comply with the provisions of this Chapter relating to Vacation Rentals, including without limitation, securing a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate. 5.26.080. Audit. Each Owner and agent or representative of any Owner shall provide the Gity M@Ra@eFEnforcement Official with access to each Vacation Rental and the books, records, documents, papers, tax returns, and bank accounts at any time during normal business hours as the City Ma;ageFEnforcement Official may determine are necessary or convenient for the purpose of inspection or audit to determine that the objectives and conditions of this Chapter are being fulfilled. 5.25.085 Disclosure of Business Entitites, Limited Liability Companies and Personal or Family Trusts On or before June 1, 2017, all Business Entities, limited liability companies, and personal or family trusts owning one or more Vacation Rentals shall disclose to the City ManageFEnforcement Official the names, relevant contact information, and any such other information as may be requested by the Gity ManaW nforcement Official of each natural person holding the legal, equitable, and/or beneficial interest of each such Business Entitiy, limited liability company, or personal or family trust and the address of each Vacation Rental owned by each such Business Entity, limited liability company, or personal or family trust. Each Business Entity that complies with the provisions of this Section prior to June 1, 2017, shall, prior to June 1, 2018 transfer each Vacation Rental to a natural person who can otherwise comply with the provisions of this Chapter or cease operating any Vacation Rental properties owned by the Business Entity as Vacation Rentals. Any Business Entity that fails to comply with the disclosure requirements provided in this Subsection, shall cease operating all Vacation Rental properties owned by the Business Entity as Vacation Rentals no later than June 1, 2017. 5.25.090 Violations. Ordinance No._ Page 17 (a) Any person who violates a provision of this Chapter is subject to criminal sanctions and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapters 1.01 and 1.06 of this Code and the specific penalties as provided in this Chapter. Any person who uses, or allows the use of, residential property in violation of the provisions in this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each day in which such residential property is used, or allowed to be used, in violation of this Chapter. An administrative citation issued pursuant to Chapter 1.06 for a first violation shall be five hundred dollars ($500.00) and each subsequent violation shall be one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars. Each administrative citation for a violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be levied or assessed against the Owner. (b) Upon the third violation in any twelve month period, the City Manager shall suspend the Vacation Rental GeFtif Gate Registration Certificate for two (2) years. (c) Any person who operates a Vacation Rental without a Vacation #eatal SerlifisateRepistration Certificate, shall be liable to the City for the payment of transient occupancy tax pursuant to the provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 3.24, including without limitation penalties and interest, payment of an administrative fine in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), and permanent ineligibility to operate a Vacation Rental in the City. In the event the person continues to operate a Vacation Rental without a Vacation Rental CeFtifaGateRegistration Certificate, the person shall be a-liable for an administrative fine in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and any successive violations shall be subject to fines provided in an escalation formula established by the City Council by resolution. (d) Any person who advertises a Vacation Rental without including the Vacation Rental Registration Certificate in any advertising for such Vacation Rental, or operates a Vacation Rental without a contract, or without providing the City with a summary or abstract of such contract, or without timely tendering full monthly payments of transient occupancy tax, shall pay a fine in the amount of Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) and the Owner's Vacation RA^#^ sateRegistration Certificate shall be suspended for six (6) months for a first offense and shall pay a fine in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) and the Owner's Vacation Rental Ger#fieateReoistration Certificate shall be revoked for a second offense. Any subsequent violations will be subject to the provisions of Subsection (c) of this Section. (e) The failure of an Owner or the Owner's agent or representative to comply with an order of any police officer shall result in the revocation of the Vacation Rt4ntal GeFti#isateRegistration Certificate. (f) The appeal and hearing provisions of Chapter 2.504.06 shall apply to any revocation or suspension of a Registration Certificatef)41 (g) Any person who fails to pay any fee or charge provided in this Chapter within the time required, shall pay a penalty in the amounts established by the City Council by resolution. Such penalty may also include interest from the date on which the fee or charge became due and payable to the City until the date of payment. Ordinance No. Page 18 (h) The filing of knowingly false claims against a Vacation Rental or the guests staying in a Vacation Rental is prohibited and shall be punishable by administrative fines as provided in Chapter 1.086 of this Code. (i) In addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedy allowed by law, all -remedies prescribed under this Chapter are cumulative and the election of one or more remedies does not bar the City from the pursuit of any other remedy, criminal, civil, or administrative which may be pursued by the City to enforce this Chapter and/or address any violation of this Code or to remedy any other public nuisance. 5.25.100 Requirements Not Exclusive. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to any license, permit, or fee required under any other provision of this Code. The issuance of any permit pursuant to this Chapter shall not relieve any person of the obligation to comply with all other provisions of this Code pertaining to the use and occupancy of Vacation Rental or the property on which it is located. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State Guidelines, because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a "project," as that term is defined in Section 15378 of the State Guidelines. In addition, The City Council also determines this Ordinance consists of regulations intended to ensure that commercial short term rental use of residential property remains an ancillary and secondary use of residential Property in the City and thereby preserve the residential character of the City's single- family and multi-family neighborhoods as identified in the City's adopted General Plan, and its concomitant Environmental Impact Report. Thus, to the extent there is any environmental impact from the adoption of this Ordinance. the City Council finds that the Environmental Impact Report for the adopted General Plan is the controlling environmental document. SECTION 3. The City Manager is authorized to exercise reasonable administrative discretion in the implementation of this Ordinance during the first year this Ordinance is in effect, including without limitation phasing in of programs, policies, and practices consistent with the business needs of the City, any department, division, bureau, or section designated to enforce this Ordinance, and the overall responsibilities and priorities of the City Manager as provided by the City Council. SECTION 4. Any valid rental agreement for a Vacation Rental with occupancies in terms of number of guests and/or vehicles in excess of the requirements of Section 5.25.070(c) of this Ordinance, entered into between an Owner or an Agent with a renter and the renter has paid a deposit for such rental prior to November 30, 2016 shall be deemed consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance reeaFdi MUM Ordinance No. Page 19 so long as such rental agreement and the Vacation Rental otherwise complies with the requirements of this Ordinance �9;-291f� SECTION 5. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If anv portion, section, subsection, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, work, or application of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each and every portion, section, subsection, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word and application not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether anv portion of this Ordinance or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid. Ordinance No._ Page 20 SECTION 345. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL THIS 7T" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. ROBERT MOON, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Ordinance No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was introduced at an adjourned regular meeting of the Palm Springs City Council on the 30th day of November, 2016, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7"' day of December, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK City of Palm Springs, California ORDINANCE NO. 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. City Attorney's Summary This Ordinance amends and restates in full the City's adopted Vacation Rental Ordinance. This Ordinance imposes additional restrictions on occupancy and use of vacation rental properties in Palm Springs and provides additional enforcement oversight. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ordains: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.25 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code is amended to read. Chapter 5.25 VACATION RENTALS 5.25.010 Title. This Chapter shall be referred to as the "Vacation Rental Ordinance." 5.25.020 Findings. The City Council finds and determines as follows: (a) The primary use of single-family and multi-family dwelling units in the City of Palm Springs is the provision of permanent housing for residents of the City who live and work in the City. Vacation Rentals and Homesharing are not uses specifically recognized in the City's Zoning Ordinance, nor are these uses identified as uses permitted in single-family or multi-family zones. Vacation Rentals and Homesharing are similar in character and use as hotels and other commercial short term uses and can only be permitted in single-family or multi-family zones if such uses are ancillary and secondary to the residential use of property. (b) Incidents involving excessive noise, disorderly conduct, vandalism, overcrowding, traffic congestion, parking congestion, and the accumulation of refuse, require response from police, fire, paramedic, and other City services associated with this secondary, ancillary, commercial use escalates the demand for City services, create adverse impacts in the residential areas of the City, and adversely affects the City's residential neighborhoods. Vacation Rentals and Homesharing use in residential neighborhoods may have effects that can best be addressed through an appropriate city regulatory program. Ordinance No._ Page 2 (c) The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a regulatory program for Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging, with appropriate standards that regulate vacation rental of residential property, minimize adverse effects of vacation rental uses on surrounding residential neighborhoods, ensure that vacation rentals and homesharing are ancillary and secondary uses of residential property consistent with the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, preserve the character of neighborhoods in which Vacation Rental and Homesharing uses occur, and provide an administrative procedure to preserve existing visitor serving opportunities and increase and enhance public access to areas of the City and other visitor destinations. (d) Limiting Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging to single-family dwelling units subject to the regulations provided in this Chapter and prohibiting Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging in apartments will safeguard, preserve, and protect residential housing stock in the City. (e) The adoption of a comprehensive code to regulate issuance of, and attach conditions to, vacation Registration Certificates for Vacation Rental and Homesharing lodging within single-family residential neighborhoods and the related use of residential property preserves the public health, safety, and welfare. This Chapter provides a permitting process and imposes operational requirements consistent with the ancillary and secondary status of Vacation Rentals and Homesharing, for the purpose of minimizing the potential adverse impacts of transient uses on residential neighborhoods. (f) This Chapter is not intended to regulate hotels, motels, inns, time-share units, or non-vacation type rental arrangements including, but not limited to, lodging houses, rooming houses, convalescent homes, rest homes, halfway homes, or rehabilitation homes. 5.25.030 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning respectively ascribed to them by this Section: "Apartment" means (a) a residential unit in a multi-family development of two (2) dwelling units where both dwelling units are rented or leased for occupancy as a residence for individual families, and (b) a residential unit in a multi-family development of three (3) or more dwelling units. "Applicant" means the Owner. "Bedroom" means an area of a Vacation Rental normally occupied and being heated or cooled by any equipment for human habitation, which is 120 square feet and greater in size, consists of four walls to the ceiling, at least one of which is located along an exterior wall with a window, and contains a built-in closet. Ordinance No. Page 3 "Business Entity" means a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is not a natural person or a personal or family trust or a limited liability company consisting solely of natural persons. "Cluster or Compound" means any two or more Vacation Rentals that operate on a unified or shared basis where residents of such Vacation Rentals have exclusive access to more than one Vacation Rental and/or the facilities of such Vacation Rentals, including byway of example, a swimming pool, tennis court, or cooking facilities. "Contract" means an agreement or evidence of any tenancy that allows or provides for the vacation rental of property. "Daytime occupancy" means the hours between 10:00 am and 10:00 pm. "Daytime occupants" mean the guests who may occupy a Vacation Rental during a daytime occupancy. "Enforcement Official" means the City Manager, the Police Chief, the Fire Marshall, the Building Official, or one or more of their respective designees. "Exclusive listing arrangement" means a written agreement between an Owner and an agent or representative where the agent or representative has the sole and exclusive right to rent or lease a Vacation Rental unit to any person and the Owner is prohibited from renting or leasing the Vacation Rental unit except through the Owner's agent or representative. "Estate Home" means a single family dwelling with five or more bedrooms located on property zoned R-1-B, R-1-A, R-1-AH, or G-R-5. "Good cause" for the purposes of denial, suspension, revocation, imposition of conditions, renewal, and reinstatement of a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate, means (1) the Applicant, Owner, the Owner's Agent, or the Local Contact Person has failed to comply with any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Chapter or any relevant provision of this Code, State law, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; (2) the Applicant, Owner, Owner's Agent, or Local Contact Person has failed to comply with any special conditions that were placed upon the Vacation Rental Registration Certificate by the Enforcement Official; or (3) the Vacation Rental has been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health or welfare or the safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the Vacation Rental is located. "Good Neighbor Brochure" means a document prepared by the Enforcement Official that summarizes general rules of conduct, consideration, and respect, including without limitation provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code applicable to or expected of guests to the City. Ordinance No. Page 4 "Homeshare Interest" means a portion of an Owner's home that is subject to homesharing as provided in this Chapter. "Homesharing" means an activity whereby the Owner hosts visitors in the Owner's home, for compensation, for periods of twenty-eight (28) consecutive days or less, while the Owner lives on-site and in the home, throughout the visitor's stay. "Hotline" means the telephonic service operated by or for the City for the purpose of receiving complaints regarding the operation of any Vacation Rental and the forwarding of such complaints to the appropriate city enforcement officials or, if applicable, the Local Contact Person. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "Hotline" also includes any contact in person or by telephone, email, digital or electronic communication, or correspondence of any kind to and/or from any Enforcement Official. "Local contact person" means the Owner, a local property manager, or agent of the Owner, who is available twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week for the purpose of responding in-person within thirty (30) minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the Vacation Rental, or any agent of the Owner authorized by the Owner to take remedial action and who responds to any violation of this code. "Owner' means the natural person or persons who is/are the owner of record of the Property. The term "Owner" also includes a personal or family trust consisting solely of natural persons and the trustees of such trust or a limited liability company and the members of such company, insofar as the disclosure requirements pursuant to Section 5.25.085 are satisfied. The term "Owner" does not include a Business Entity. "Property" means a residential legal lot of record on which a Vacation Rental is located. "Rental Term" means the period of time a Responsible Person rents or leases a Vacation Rental. "Responsible Person" means an occupant of a Vacation Rental who is at least twenty-five (25) years of age and who shall be legally responsible for compliance of all occupants of the unit and/or their guests with all provisions of this Chapter and/or this code. "Vacation Rental" means a single-family dwelling, or any portion thereof, utilized for occupancy for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes without the Owner being present for a period of twenty-eight (28) consecutive days or less, other than ongoing month-to-month tenancy granted to the same renter for the same unit, occupancy of a time-share basis, or a condominium hotel as defined in Section 91.00.10 of this Code. The term "vacation rental" is synonymous with "short term rental" and "transient use" and does not include homesharing. Ordinance No._ Page 5 "Vacation Rental Registration Certificate" or `Registration Certificate" means the annual permit and/ora registration for a Vacation Rental or a Homeshare Interest issued by the City pursuant to this Chapter. 5.25.040 Registration Certificate Required. (a) The operation of a Vacation Rental or a Homeshare Interest without a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate is prohibited- (b) A Vacation Rental Registration Certificate shall not be issued to any Business Entity. A natural person, limited liability company, or personal or family trust shall not maintain any financial interest in more than one Vacation Rental. For this purpose, financial interest includes both legal and beneficial ownership as well as any arrangement that provides for receipt of any portion of the revenues generated by the Vacation Rental. An Owner shall only be issued, and can only maintain, one Vacation Rental Registration Certificate at any time. Renewals of Vacation Rental Registration Certificates issued on or after November 24, 2016 to a Business Entity (other than a limited liability company) shall terminate on March 1, 2017; a renewal of a second Vacation Rental Registration Certificate, or more, issued to an Owner shall terminate on March 1, 2017. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Subsection (a) or Subsection (c) of this Section, any Owner who has a financial interest in two or more Vacation Rentals subject to current and valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificates as of November 30, 2016, may continue to operate and maintain no more than two (2) of such Vacation Rentals so long as such Vacation Rentals are operated and maintained in full compliance with this Chapter. (c) The provisions of Subsection (b) of this Section shall not apply to or be enforced against any Owner who operates a Vacation Rental pursuant to a valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificate issued prior to November 24, 2016 for the period of time between November 24, 2016 through January 1, 2021. The provisions of Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to or be enforced against any business entity, or its successor natural person that operates a Vacation Rental pursuant to a valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificate issued prior to November 24, 2016 for the period of time between November 24, 2016 through January 1, 2021 so long as such business entity for each Vacation Rental complies with the provisions of Section 5.25.085. The purpose of this deferral of the enforcement of the provisions of Subsection (a) is for persons or entities issued valid vacation Registration Certificates prior to November 24, 2016 to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to recoup costs reasonably invested for vacation rental use and which may not have been recouped during the period of vacation rental use and which cannot be recouped once the vacation rental use is terminated. (d) Each Owner of a Vacation Rental who rents, exchanges, trades, gifts, or grants such Vacation Rental for a period of twenty-eight (28) consecutive days or less shall fully comply with all provisions of this Chapter related to the use and occupancy of a Vacation Rental, and the operational requirements, provided in this Chapter. Each Ordinance No. Page 6 rental, exchange, trade, gift, and grant of a stay of less than twenty-eight (28) days shall count as one Contract. (e) No Owner of residential property in the City shall rent any Homeshare Interest for a period of twenty-eight consecutive days or less without a valid Rental Registration Certificate for Homesharing pursuant to this Chapter for such Homesharing Interest. (f) A copy of the current Registration Certificate as issued by the City and the maximum number of guests allowed on the premises shall be displayed in a clear and legible manner in a conspicuous and easily accessible location in the unit and on all advertising related to each Vacation Rental or Homesharing Interest, including without limitation, web based advertising, hosting platform, print media, and television. 5.26.060 Agency. (a) An Owner may retain an agent with an exclusive listing arrangement or a representative to assist in the compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, including, without limitation, the filing of a complete Vacation Rental registration, the management of the Vacation Rental unit or units, and compliance with the requirements of this Chapter including the collection and payment to the City of all transient occupancy taxes due and payable on the Vacation Rental unit. The Owner and any such agent or representative of Owner must have the authority to evict any tenant, resident, or guest permitted to reside at the Vacation Rental for violation of any provision of this Chapter or regulation thereof. Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this Section and notwithstanding any agency relationships between an Owner and an agent or representative, the Owner of the Vacation Rental unit or units shall execute all applications and documentary requirements as provided in this Chapter and shall remain responsible for compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. The failure of an agent to comply with this Chapter shall not relieve the Owner of the Owner's obligations under the provisions of this Chapter. (b) In the event an Owner enters into an exclusive listing arrangement, the Vacation Rental registration certificate may be secured, and the transient occupancy registration certificate requirements provided in this Chapter may be performed, by the agent or representative and not by the Owner. 5.25.060 Vacation Rental Registration Requirements. (a) Prior to use of a property as a Vacation Rental, and annually thereafter, the applicant shall register the property as a Vacation Rental with the City on a registration form furnished by or acceptable to the Enforcement Official and signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. Each application shall contain the following information- (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the Owner of the unit for which the Vacation Rental registration certificate is to be issued. The name, Ordinance No._ Page 7 address and telephone numbers of any other natural persons, limited liability companies or personal or family trusts that hold any financial interests in the Vacation Rental as well as copies of legal documents creating such financial interests. (2) The name, address, and telephone number of the exclusive listing agent, if any, of the Owner of the unit. (3) The name, address, and twenty-four-hour telephone number of the Local Contact Person and verification that the Local Contact Person can respond in- person to the site of the Vacation Rental within thirty (30) minutes. The Local Contact Person may only use the address of the Vacation Rental if the Local Contact Person will be present at the unit for the duration of each Contract. (4) The address of the residential property proposed to be used as a Vacation Rental. (5) The number of bedrooms and the applicable overnight and daytime occupancy limit of the unit consistent with the provisions of Section 5.25.070 (c). (6) Evidence of a valid business license issued by the City for the separate business of operating Vacation Rentals or submission of a certificate that Owner is exempt or otherwise not covered by the City's Business Tax Ordinance (Division 11, Title 3 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code) for such activity. (7) Evidence of a valid transient occupancy registration certificate issued by the City for the Vacation Rental unit. (8) Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of all regulations pertaining to the operation of a Vacation Rental. (9) Executed indemnification and hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to indemnify, save, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City of Palm Springs, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, individually and collectively, and the City of Palm Springs representatives, officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, damages, fines, obligations, suits, judgments, penalties, causes of action, losses, liabilities, or costs at any time received, incurred, or accrued as a result of, or arising out of Owner's actions or inaction in the operation, occupancy, use, and/or maintenance of the Property. Ordinance No._ Page 8 (10) Evidence of insurance coverage as required under Section 5.25.070(t) of this Chapter. (11) Completion of building, fire, and safety inspection and completion of any corrections identified by an Enforcement Official. Such inspections shall include a review of the premises for compliance with the operational requirements of this Chapter, including without limitation determining the total number of qualified bedrooms. (12) Written acknowledgement in a form approved by the Enforcement Official that there are no covenants or other deed restrictions on the property that prohibit or limit the use of the property as a Vacation Rental. The Enforcement Official may accept a written consent from the governing board of a homeowners' association with jurisdiction over the property in satisfaction of this requirement. (13) Such other information as the Enforcement Official deems reasonably necessary to administer this Chapter. (b) The registration of a Vacation Rental shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council; provided, however, the fee shall be no greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the City in administering the provisions of this Chapter. (c) A Vacation Rental registration certificate shall be denied if a registration certificate for the same unit and issued to the same Owner has previously been revoked pursuant to Section 5.25.090. The denial of a registration certificate for any reason may be appealed in accordance with to the provisions of Chapter 2.50 of the Municipal Code. (d) Upon change of property Ownership, the Registration Certificate shall expire and the property shall not be used as a Vacation Rental until the new or successor Owner is issued a Vacation Registration Certificate for the property. In the event of a change in agent or the occurrence of any other material fact set forth in the annual registration, a new registration for a Vacation Rental shall be required to continue operation of the Vacation Rental and within seven days of said change the Owner or his or her exclusive listing agent shall submit the required registration and fee. (e) The Owner or his or her exclusive listing agent shall cancel the Vacation Rental Registration Certificate within seven (7) days of the date the Vacation Rental is sold or otherwise disposed of or after an event that results in the unit no longer in use as a Vacation Rental. Ordinance No. Page 9 5.25.070 Operational Requirements and Standard Conditions. (a) The Owner shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the Vacation Rental unit complies with all applicable codes regarding fire, building and safety, health and safety, and all other relevant laws. (b) No more than thirty-two (32) Contracts for Vacation Rental use of a property shall be allowed or provided in any calendar year. A Contract includes any occupancy of a property subject to a Vacation Rental registration certificate by persons other than the Owner when the Owner is not present during such occupancy, regardless of whether compensation is paid for such occupancy or whether occupancy is evidenced in an agreement or document. (i) For the first year a Vacation Registration Certificate is in effect, the thirty- two (32) contract limit shall be prorated based on the number of months that elapse prior to the subsequent calendar year. (ii) Notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by this Subparagraph, the Owner can designate and file with the Enforcement Official the names of up to five (5) persons who may occupy the Vacation Rental unit at no cost and without requiring the presence of the Owner on the premises of the Vacation Rental. Each such occupancy shall fully comply with all other provisions of this Chapter. (c) The Owner shall limit overnight occupancy of the Vacation Rental unit to a specific number of occupants, with the maximum number of occupants as no more than two (2) persons per bedroom within each Vacation Rental unit and a maximum of no more than eight (8) persons total within the Vacation Rental unit, except that Owner may allow up to two (2) minor children, age 12 or under, to occupy the Vacation Rental in addition to the maximum number of occupants otherwise provided in this Subsection. The number of bedrooms in a Vacation Rental shall be verified by the Enforcement Official using County Assessor and/or City Building records and/or a physical inspection of the premises, prior to the issuance of a Registration Certificate. The Owner may also allow up to four (4) daytime occupants in addition to the total number of guests allowed for overnight occupancy pursuant to this Subsection. No more than one (1) automobile per bedroom shall be allowed to park on the street for each Vacation Rental unit and no more than two (2) additional automobiles may be parked in the street during daytime occupancy for daytime occupants. Advertising and/or renting one or more Vacation Rentals as part of a cluster or compound is prohibited. (d) The Owner of an Estate Home may apply to the City Manager for an Exemption from the limitations of Subsection (c) of this Section for up to two (2) additional bedrooms for housing to accommodate no more than two (2) persons for each additional bedroom approved pursuant to the Exemption up to a maximum of twelve (12) guests and up to two (2) minors age twelve (12) and under.. The City Manager shall provide notice to all owners of property within two hundred and fifty (250) feet of the boundaries of Vacation Rental Exemption site at least ten (10) days prior to Ordinance No. Page 10 rendering a decision on the application. . The City Manager shall review the application for an Exemption and may approve such Exemption if the City Manager finds such additional occupancy is consistent with the purpose, intent, and goals of this Chapter and any guidelines as may be adopted by the City Council. Such Exemption, if granted, may be subject to conditions and will be subject to annual review and renewal consideration after providing notice as required in this Subsection. (e) During the Rental Term each Vacation Rental unit is rented, the Owner, his or her agent, and/or the Local Contact Person designated by the Owner, after being contacted by the Enforcement Official, shall be available twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, for the purpose of (1) responding by telephone within fifteen (15) minutes of complaints from or through the Hotline and (2) responding in-person within thirty (30) minutes to any additional or successive complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the Vacation Rental- (f) The Owner shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the occupants and/or guests of the Vacation Rental unit do not create unreasonable noise disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate provisions of the Municipal Code or any state law. (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.74.043, any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or any machine or device for the producing or reproducing of any sound shall be conducted within a fully enclosed Vacation Rental unit and shall not be audible at the property line of the Vacation Rental. (h) Prior to occupancy pursuant to each separate occasion of rental of a Vacation Rental, the Owner or the Owner's agent or representative shall enter into a written Contract with a Responsible Person where (1) the Responsible Person will provide the Responsible Person's name, age, address, and a copy of a government issued identification; (2) establishes and sets out the terms and conditions of the Contract, including without limitation occupancy limits, noise prohibitions, and vehicle parking requirements; (3) requires the Responsible Person to acknowledge and agree that he or she is legally responsible for compliance of all occupants of the Vacation Rental or their guests with all provisions of this Chapter and/or the Municipal Code, (4) the Owner or the Owner's Agent provides a copy of the "Good Neighbor Brochure' to the Responsible Person; (5) the Responsible Person provides a list of all guests by name; and (6) the Responsible Person provides a list of all guests' vehicles, including license plate numbers. Each Contract shall be maintained by the Owner or the Owner's Agent for a minimum of four (4) years and shall be readily available for inspection upon request of the Enforcement Official. A summary or abstract of the written Contract, in a form approved by the Enforcement Official, shall be filed with the Enforcement Official prior to occupancy, in a manner approved by the Enforcement Official, and shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the Vacation Rental property and shall be made available on site at the request of an Enforcement Official. Ordinance No. Page 11 (i) The Owner, or his or her agent, shall, upon notification by the Enforcement Official that the responsible person, including any occupant and/or guest of the Vacation Rental unit, has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of provisions of the Municipal Code or any state law, shall promptly respond in a timely and appropriate manner to prevent a recurrence of such conduct by those occupants or guests, and when requested by the City Enforcement Official, evict one or more of the guests. For the purpose of this Subsection and Subsection 0) below, the phrase "in a timely and appropriate manner" shall mean in-person contact within thirty (30) minutes for any call from the Enforcement Official. 0) Failure of the Owner or his or her agent to respond to calls or complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the Vacation Rental in a timely and appropriate manner shall be grounds for imposition of penalties as set forth in this Chapter. It is not intended that an Owner, agent, or Local Contact Person act as a peace officer or place himself or herself in an at-risk situation- (k) Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection by the collectors and between the hours of five a.m. and eight p.m. on scheduled trash collection days. The Owner of the Vacation Rental unit shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code (Waste Disposal and Diversion), and shall provide "walk-in service" or as may otherwise be approved by the Enforcement Official. (1) The Owner of the Vacation Rental unit shall post a copy of the Registration Certificate and a copy of the conditions set forth in this Section, including all rules and regulations applicable to the use of the property as a Vacation Rental, on the inside of each entry door or in a conspicuous location near each entry door on the Vacation Rental. (m) The Owner shall provide each occupant of a Vacation Rental with the following information prior to occupancy of the unit and/or post such information in a conspicuous place within the unit: (1) The name of the managing agency, agent, rental manager, Local Contact Person, or Owner of the unit, and a telephone number at which that party may be reached on a twenty-four-hour basis; (2) The maximum number of occupants permitted to stay in the unit; (3) The trash pick-up day and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash or refuse on the exterior of the property; Ordinance No. Page 12 (4) Notification that the amplification of music outside of the dwelling unit or otherwise audible at the property line is a violation of this Chapter; (5) Notification that the occupant may be cited or fined by the City and/or immediately evicted by the Owner pursuant to state law, in addition to any other remedies available at law, for creating a disturbance or for violating any provision of this Chapter; (6) Notification that failure to conform to the occupancy requirements of the Vacation Rental unit is a violation of this Chapter; (7) A copy of this Chapter of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time. (n) The use of a Vacation Rental unit shall not violate any applicable conditions, covenants, or other restrictions on real property. (o) The Owner shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the Municipal Code concerning transient occupancy taxes, including, but not limited to, submission of a monthly return for each Vacation Rental in accordance with Section 3.24.080. The monthly return shall be filed each month regardless of whether the Vacation Rental unit was rented or not during each such month- (p) The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional standard conditions, applicable to all Vacation Rental units or identifiable classes of Vacation Rentals, as necessary, to achieve the objectives of this Chapter. A list of all such additional standard conditions shall be maintained and on file in the Office of the City Clerk and such offices as the City Manager designates. (q) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (p) above, upon a determination of Good Cause, the City Manager may impose additional or special standards or requirements for placement or imposition of special conditions or performance standards for Owners, Owner's Agents, Local Contact Persons, and their affected Vacation Rentals. (r) The standard conditions may be modified by the Enforcement Official upon request of the Owner or his or her agent based on site- specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a Vacation Rental. All requests must be in writing and shall identify how the strict application of the standard conditions creates an unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a Vacation Rental would not be allowed. Any hardships identified must relate to physical constraints to the subject site and shall not be self-induced or economic. Any modifications of to the standard conditions shall not further exacerbate an already existing problem. Ordinance No._ Page 13 (r) The City Manager shall have the authority to establish administrative rules and regulations, which may include, but are not limited to, registration conditions, reporting requirements, inspection frequencies, enforcement procedures, advertising restrictions, disclosure requirements, or insurance requirements, consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, for the purpose of implementing, interpreting, clarifying, carrying out, furthering, and enforcing the requirements and the provisions of this Chapter. No person shall fail to comply with any such regulation. A copy of such administrative rules and regulations shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk. (s) Owner shall procure, maintain, and pay premiums for commercial insurance policies that cover short term rental of property for each Vacation Rental with minimum limits as may be established by the City Manager from time to time. (t) Owner shall annually secure a building and fire and safety inspection prior to renewal of the Vacation Registration Certificate. 5.26.076 Specific Prohibitions. (a) No person or entity shall offer or provide an Apartment, or any portion thereof, for rent for 28 consecutive days or less to any person. (b) No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a Vacation Rental that is in violation of any provision of this Chapter. (c) No person, including without limitation, an apartment owner, an apartment manager, or a representative of the apartment owner or manager, shall evict any tenant or otherwise terminate a lease for the purpose of converting an apartment to a vacation rental or in anticipation of converting an apartment to a vacation rental. In addition to any other remedy provided under the Palm Springs Municipal Code, failure to comply with this provision may be asserted as an affirmative defense in an action brought by or on behalf of the apartment owner, apartment manager, or representative to recover possession of the unit. Any attempt to recover possession of a unit in violation of this Ordinance shall render the apartment owner, apartment manager, or representative liable to the tenant for actual or punitive damages, including damages for emotional distress, in a civil action for wrongful eviction. The tenant may seek injunctive relief and money damages for wrongful eviction and the prevailing party in an action for wrongful eviction shall recover costs and reasonable attorneys' fees- (d) The provisions of Subsection (a) of this Section shall not apply to or be enforced against any person or entity who rents an apartment or portion thereof pursuant to a valid vacation Registration Certificate issued prior to April 15, 2016 for the period of time between April 15, 2016 through January 1, 2019. The purpose of this deferral of the enforcement of the provisions of this Section is for persons or entities issued valid vacation registration certificates prior to April 15, 2016 to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to recoup costs reasonably invested for vacation rental use of apartments and which may not have been recouped during the period of vacation rental use of the Ordinance No._ Page 14 the apartment and which cannot be recouped once the vacation rental use is terminated. (e) The provisions of Subsection (a) of this Section, Subsection 5.25.040(b) [limits on number of units], and Subsection 5.25.070(b) [limits on number of Contracts] shall also not apply to any building in which an apartment is located that meets all requirements of an R-1 occupancy under the City's building and fire code and for which such apartment has a valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificate issued prior to April 15, 2016. Ed. Note. Subsection (d) of Section 5.25.075 shall be deemed repealed and no longer in effect as of 12:01 am on January 1, 2019 and all persons and entities shall fully comply with the provisions of Subsection (a) of Section 5.25.075 of this Code. See § 4 of Ord. 1902 (2016). 5.26.078 Homesharing Authorization. (a) The Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter to the contrary, homesharing shall be authorized in the City, provided that the Owner complies with each of the following requirements: (1) Obtains and maintains at all times a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate for Homesharing; (2) Operates the Homesharing Interest in compliance with all Vacation Registration Certificate for Homesharing conditions, which may be imposed by the Enforcement Official to effectuate the purpose of this Chapter; (3) Collects and remits Transient Occupancy Tax to the City and complies with all City Transient Occupancy Tax requirements as set forth in this Code; (4) Takes responsibility for and actively prevents any nuisance activities that may take place as a result of homesharing activities; (5) Complies with all applicable laws, including all health, safety, building, and fire protections laws; (6) Complies with the regulations promulgated pursuant to this Chapter. (b) In the event the Owner of a Homeshare Interest does not live on-site, in the home, and is not able to respond within thirty (30) minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the Homesharing Interest, the property shall be deemed a Vacation Rental and Owner shall be required to fully comply with the Ordinance No. Page 15 provisions of this Chapter relating to Vacation Rentals, including without limitation, securing a Vacation Rental Registration Certificate. 5.26.080. Audit. Each Owner and agent or representative of any Owner shall provide the Enforcement Official with access to each Vacation Rental and the books, records, documents, papers, tax returns, and bank accounts at any time during normal business hours as the Enforcement Official may determine are necessary or convenient for the purpose of inspection or audit to determine that the objectives and conditions of this Chapter are being fulfilled. 5.25.086 Disclosure of Business Entitites, Limited Liability Companies, and Personal or Family Trusts On or before June 1, 2017, all Business Entities, limited liability companies, and personal or family trusts owning one or more Vacation Rentals shall disclose to the Enforcement Official the names, relevant contact information, and any such other information as may be requested by the Enforcement Official of each natural person holding the legal, equitable, and/or beneficial interest of each such Business Entitiy, limited liability company, or personal or family trust and the address of each Vacation Rental owned by each such Business Entity, limited liability company, or personal or family trust. Each Business Entity that complies with the provisions of this Section prior to June 1, 2017, shall, prior to June 1, 2018 transfer each Vacation Rental to a natural person who can otherwise comply with the provisions of this Chapter or cease operating any Vacation Rental properties owned by the Business Entity as Vacation Rentals. Any Business Entity that fails to comply with the disclosure requirements provided in this Subsection, shall cease operating all Vacation Rental properties owned by the Business Entity as Vacation Rentals no later than June 1, 2017. 5.25.090 Violations. (a) Any person who violates a provision of this Chapter is subject to criminal sanctions and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapters 1.01 and 1.06 of this Code and the specific penalties as provided in this Chapter. Any person who uses, or allows the use of, residential property in violation of the provisions in this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each day in which such residential property is used, or allowed to be used, in violation of this Chapter. An administrative citation issued pursuant to Chapter 1.06 for a first violation shall be five hundred dollars ($500.00) and each subsequent violation shall be one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars. Each administrative citation for a violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be levied or assessed against the Owner. (b) Upon the third violation in any twelve month period, the City Manager shall suspend the Vacation Registration Certificate for two (2) years. Ordinance No. Page 16 (c) Any person who operates a Vacation Rental without a Vacation Registration Certificate, shall be liable to the City for the payment of transient occupancy tax pursuant to the provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 3.24, including without limitation penalties and interest, payment of an administrative fine in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), and permanent ineligibility to operate a Vacation Rental in the City. In the event the person continues to operate a Vacation Rental without a Vacation Registration Certificate, the person shall be liable for an administrative fine in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and any successive violations shall be subject to fines provided in an escalation formula established by the City Council by resolution. (d) Any person who advertises a Vacation Rental without including the Vacation Registration Certificate in any advertising for such Vacation Rental, or operates a Vacation Rental without a contract, or without providing the City with a summary or abstract of such contract, or without timely tendering full monthly payments of transient occupancy tax, shall pay a fine in the amount of Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) and the Owner's Vacation Registration Certificate shall be suspended for six (6) months for a first offense and shall pay a fine in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) and the Owner's Vacation Registration Certificate shall be revoked for a second offense. Any subsequent violations will be subject to the provisions of Subsection (c) of this Section. (e) The failure of an Owner or the Owner's agent or representative to comply with an order of any police officer shall result in the revocation of the Vacation Registration Certificate- (f) The appeal and hearing provisions of Chapter 2.50 shall apply to any revocation or suspension of a Registration Certificate. (g) Any person who fails to pay any fee or charge provided in this Chapter within the time required, shall pay a penalty in the amounts established by the City Council by resolution. Such penalty may also include interest from the date on which the fee or charge became due and payable to the City until the date of payment. (h) The filing of knowingly false claims against a Vacation Rental or the guests staying in a Vacation Rental is prohibited and shall be punishable by administrative fines as provided in Chapter 1.06 of this Code. (i) In addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedy allowed by law, all remedies prescribed under this Chapter are cumulative and the election of one or more remedies does not bar the City from the pursuit of any other remedy, criminal, civil, or administrative which may be pursued by the City to enforce this Chapter and/or address any violation of this Code or to remedy any other public nuisance. Ordinance No._ Page 17 6.25.100 Requirements Not Exclusive. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to any license, permit, or fee required under any other provision of this Code. The issuance of any permit pursuant to this Chapter shall not relieve any person of the obligation to comply with all other provisions of this Code pertaining to the use and occupancy of Vacation Rental or the property on which it is located. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State Guidelines, because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a "project," as that term is defined in Section 15378 of the State Guidelines. In addition, The City Council also determines this Ordinance consists of regulations intended to ensure that commercial short term rental use of residential property remains an ancillary and secondary use of residential property in the City and thereby preserve the residential character of the City's single- family and multi-family neighborhoods as identified in the City's adopted General Plan, and its concomitant Environmental Impact Report. Thus, to the extent there is any environmental impact from the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council finds that the Environmental Impact Report for the adopted General Plan is the controlling environmental document. SECTION 3. The City Manager is authorized to exercise reasonable administrative discretion in the implementation of this Ordinance during the first year this Ordinance is in effect, including without limitation phasing in of programs, policies, and practices consistent with the business needs of the City, any department, division, bureau, or section designated to enforce this Ordinance, and the overall responsibilities and priorities of the City Manager as provided by the City Council. SECTION 4. Any valid rental agreement for a Vacation Rental with occupancies in terms of number of guests and/or vehicles in excess of the requirements of Section 5.25.070(c) of this Ordinance, entered into between an Owner or an Agent with a renter and the renter has paid a deposit for such rental prior to November 30, 2016, shall be deemed consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance so long as such rental agreement and the Vacation Rental otherwise complies with the requirements of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any portion, section, subsection, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, work, or application of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each and every portion, section, subsection, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and Ordinance No. Page 18 application not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Ordinance or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid. SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL THIS 7T" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. ROBERT MOON, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Ordinance No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was introduced at an adjourned regular meeting of the Palm Springs City Council on the 30th day of November, 2016, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7'h day of December, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK City of Palm Springs, California 4 .q ' ( 1 PSRAR December 5, 2016 City of Palm Springs Mayor and City Council Palm Springs City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This letter is submitted by the Palm Springs Regional Association of Realtors` ("PSRAR") in opposition to proposed Ordinance No. 1907, amending and restating Chapter 5.25 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code relating to vacation rentals (hereinafter referred to as the "VRO Amendments"). PSRAR is deeply concerned that the proposed VRO Amendments would infringe upon fundamental rights of private property owners and would have a negative impact on the residential real estate market and the City's tourist economy. While PSRAR has concerns with and objects to numerous provisions of the VRO Amendments, it is particularly concerned with the following provisions, each of, as will be discussed below, which would outright deprive or infringe upon the right of private property owners to rent their home: (1) Section 5.25.040(a),which would require that vacation rentals be owned only by a "natural person," a trust of a natural person, or a limited liability company ("LLC") consisting solely of natural persons;' (2)Section 5.25.040(a),which would also limit vacation rental registrations to a maximum of one per persons(subject to a limited exception that would establish grandfather rights for up to two registrations);z and (3)Section 5.25.070, which would limit vacation rentals to a maximum of 32 "contracts" (i.e., short-term rental agreements) per calendar year.; ' See VRO Amendments § 5.25.040(a)(stating, in relevant part:"A Vacation Rental Certificate shall not be issued to any Business Entity"). 'See VRO Amendments § 5.25.040(a)(stating, in relevant part:"A natural person shall only be issued,and can only maintain,one Vacation Rental Registration Certificate at any time.... Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Subsection(a)or this Subsection(b)of this Section.Any natural person who has a financial interest in two or more Vacation Rentals subject to current and valid Vacation Rental Registration Certificates as of November 30.2016,may continue to operate and maintain no more than two(2)such Vacation Rentals so long as such Vacation Rentals are operated and maintained in full compliance with this Chapter"). 'See VRO Amendments § 5.25.070(b)(stating: "No more than thirty-two(32)contracts for Vacation Rental use of a property shall be allowed or provided in any calendar year."). ® 4045 E Ramon Road, Palm Springs,CA 92264 760-320-6885 1 760-308-621 t fax REA:IOR f PS11 z The Right to Rent Private Property Property ownership in the United States is commonly described metaphorically as a "bundle of rights" or a "bundle of sticks."' The concept of property ownership as a bundle of rights "is an abstract notion that analytically describes property as a collection of rights vis-a-vis others, rather than rights to a 'thing,' like a house or a piece of land." The bundle of rights a property owner has include the rights to possess and use the property,the right to exclude others from the property,and the right to gain income from the property by "foregoing personal use ... and allowing others to use it."' Among the core rights that a property owner typically has, and that an owner does not expect to be deprived of by regulation, is the right to lease or rent the property on a temporary basis.' The Supreme Court of California has been very clear about this core right to rent one's property, stating: The power to alienate property or a property right is not limited to the right to sell or assign it. It means generally the power "to transfer or convey [it] to another." The conveyance need not be the whole fee. The right of alienation applies when fee holders seek to convey lesser estates. "[T]he power or right of alienation" "incident to the ownership of an estate in fee-simple" "include[s] the power or right to dispose of property held in fee ... by lease, mortgage, or other mode of conveyance ...."8 This fundamental right to rent is echoed by a leading treatise, Thompson on Real Property, which observes that "the right to lease property is an incident of ownership."' Another major treatise,Property, by Jesse Dukeminier and James Krier, further underscores the fundamental right to rent by quoting a 2001 decision of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which explains how the "right of rent" is one of the sticks in the bundle of property rights. The Court stated: [It] is undisputable that the right of property owners to rent their real estate is one of the bundle of rights that, taken together, constitute the essence of ownership of property.... The question that the present case poses,therefore, is whether, under the facts of this case, 'See Denise R. Johnson,Reflections on the Bundle of Rights,32 VERMONT L.REV. 247(2007)(hereinafter"Johnson"). s Johnson at 247. s Johnson at 253. 'See J.E. Penner, The "Bundle of Rights"Picture of Property,43 UCLA L.REV. 711 (1996)(noting that conventional"bundle of rights"formulation and various views of the"bundle of rights"). 'Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,24 Cal.4th 830, 841 (2001)(citations omitted)(emphasis added). 9 THOMPSON ON REAL PROPERTY § 14.02(a)(2016,Matthew Bender&Company, Inc.)(citing Nomest Bank Arizona v. Superior Court In and For County ofMaricopa,963 P.2d 319, 323 (Ariz. 1998)(right to rent under a lease of real property is an incorporeal hereditament that is an incident to an estate in land);Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Carter,2 So. 2d 680(La.App, 1941);Assessors of West Springfield v. Eastern States Exposition,93 N.E.2d 462(Mass. 1950); Attorney General v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co.,248 N.W. 860(Mich. 1933)). 113 4045 E Ramon Road, Palm Springs,CA 92264 760-320-68851760.308.6211fax REALTOR '<o t PSRAR the continued maintenance of the no rental condition serves "a legal and useful purpose." We conclude that it does not. Owners of a single-family residence can do one of three economically productive things with the residence: (1) live in it: (2) rent it: or (3) sell it. Thus, if the owners of a single-family residence do not choose, for reasons of family size or other valid reasons, to live in the house they own, their only viable options are to rent it or to divest themselves entirely of their ownership by selling it." The VRO Amendments Would Infringe Upon the Right to Rent Private Property The proposed restrictions on who can hold a vacation rental registration, how many vacation rental registrations a person can have, and how many times a vacation rental can be rented per year would infringe upon the core property right to rent as affirmed by the California Supreme Court and described in the two major treatises quoted above. In particular, the VRO Amendments would infringe upon the right to rent private property because they would: (1) require that vacation rentals be owned only by a natural person, a trust of a natural person, or by an LLC consisting solely of natural persons and not by a "business entity;"" (2) prevent any person from having more than one vacation rental registration;12 and (3) limit vacation rentals to a maximum of 32 "contracts" (i.e., short-term rental agreements) per calendar year.13 Each of these three provisions would clearly infringe upon the right to rent private property.l" • The Natural Persons Restriction of Section 2.25.040(a): It is well-established that the right to own real property is not limited to natural persons." The California Corporations Code establishes that corporations and other business entities have the same right as a natural person does to own real property in California." Section 5.25.040(a)of the VRO Amendments would prohibit corporations and 0 Gangemi v. Zoning Bd of Appeals of the Town ofFairfeld,763 A.2d 1011, 1015-16(Conn.2001)(citing J. DUKEMINIER&J.KRIER,PROPERTY at 86(3d ed. 1993)(stating("[property] consists of a number of disparate rights,a `bundle' of them:the right to possess,the right to use,the right to exclude,the right to transfer")(emphasis added). "See VRO Amendments § 5.25.040(a). '2 See VRO Amendments § 5.25.040(a). "See VRO Amendments§ 5.25.070(b). °The VRO Amendments would preclude vacation rentals in apartments altogether. See VRO Amendments §5.25.075(a). 11 THOMPSON ON REAL PROPERTY § 14.02(b).(stating that real property ownership"may be in the individuals, in various forms ofcorporations and other organization entities,and in the sovereign.") 6 See 15 Cal.Jur. 3d Corporations § 15 (Corporation as person)(stating,in relevant part: Under the provisions of the General Corporation Law, a corporation has all of the powers of a natural person in the carrying out of its business activities,subject to restrictions in its articles of incorporation or to statutory limitations. In addition, corporations are "persons" whose rights are protected by federal civil-rights laws. Under the United States Constitution, the rights of a corporation are to be ® 4045 E Ramon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92264 760-320-68851760308-6211fax REALTOR :M* ('S RAR other business entities(e.g., a partnership) from obtaining a vacation rental registration. This conflicts with the Corporations Code. In addition,Section 5.25.085 would require that"business entities'already owning one or more vacation rentals transfer each of them, by June 1, 2018, "to a natural person who can otherwise comply with the provisions of this Chapter or cease operating"them altogether. These provisions constitute an outright deprivation of the right to rent for all "business entities"that own property in Palm Springs. Moreover, because Section 5.25.040(a) of the VRO Amendments would prohibit business entities from obtaining a vacation rental registration, it effectively confiscates the right of business entities to rent private property. Therefore, Section 5.25.040(a) is vulnerable to challenge on the ground that it constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution. • The One Registration Per Person Restriction of Section 5.25.040(a): As a matter of general property law,there is no limit on how much property a person can own. Moreover, the "bundle of rights"that an owner has in a property—including the core right to rent it, as affirmed by the California Supreme Court—is the same regardless of whether the owner owns one property or multiple properties. Because Section 5.25.040(a) of the Vacation Rental Ordinance would prohibit a person from obtaining more than one vacation rental registration, it would constitute an outright deprivation of the right to rent as applied to owners of more than one property in Palm Springs. The amendment that Councilmembers agreed to at the November 30th meeting—which would allow a natural person who has a financial interest in two or more vacation rentals as of November 30, 2016 to have grandfather rights to continue to hold a maximum of two registrations—does not cure this deprivation of property rights. • The 32-Rentals Per Year Restriction of Section 5.25.070:The core right to rent one's property, as affirmed by the California Supreme Court, is not limited on the basis of how often an owner may exercise that right. Section 5.25.070(b) of the VRO Amendments would limit vacation rental owners to a maximum of 32 rental agreements per year. This provision would unreasonably infringe upon the right to rent private property by placing an arbitrary limitation on the number of times a property owner may exercise that right in a given year. PSRAR Request: It is imperative that the City Attorney provide to the City Council, and that the City Council make available to the public, a formal opinion as to the legal validity of these three provisions of the proposed VRO Amendments, before the City Council takes further steps towards adopting this flawed ordinance. measured by the same laws as the rights of a person, as both come within the purview of the 14th Amendment, and a corporation may invoke the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of that amendment against any proscribed action by a State. As used in the Fifth Amendment, the term "person" has always been held ... to extend to corporations so far as property is concerned ....) (emphasis added). ® 4045 E Ramon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92264 760-320-6885 1760-308-6211 fax REa;'OK PS RAR Negative Impacts of the Natural Persons Restriction of Section 2.25.040(a) The requirement that vacation rentals be owned only by a "natural person" not only conflicts with the right to own real property, but would also make it impossible for someone to buy and own a home through a partnership or corporation for privacy or other reasons if they may want or need to rent their home to short-term tenants. As explained above,the right to own real property is not limited to natural persons. The treatise Thompson on Real Property observes that real property ownership "may be in the individuals, in various forms of corporations and other organization entities, and in the sovereign."" In some cases, individuals choose to purchase and own real property in a business entity for privacy or other reasons. There may be any number of reasons why someone may not want to make it easy to for someone to learn that they own a particular property in the City. For example, such a disclosure might present a safety issue for an owner or might increase the risk that they will be the target of a property crime or subject to harassment. One commentator notes that buying a home through an LLC is beneficial for two main reasons: 1. Homeowners can maintain some privacy because the LLC is listed as the property owner. For buyers who don't want nosy people to be able to locate their addresses in public records, buying a home with an LLC is the preferred way to buy property. Many buyers of high-end properties prefer using an LLC, because all property transfers are recorded and available to anyone who wants to look up information on an address. An LLC offers a first level of defense against a buyer's name entering the public record. 2. Owners can protect more of their assets in the event of a lawsuit. If you own your residence in your name (as most people do), someone who's injured on your property can sue you directly. While homeowner's insurance (and umbrella insurance if you have it) will cover the payments on a successful lawsuit up to a certain point, your other assets—including your savings, investments and home equity—could be garnished to pay the rest of the damages. However, if you own your home in an LLC, then the lawsuit can only name the LLC, and the only assets that can be used to pay off the suit are those assets held in the LLC (which usually would just be your home.)" 17 THOMPSON ON REAL PROPERTY § 14.02(b)(emphasis added). 18 Michele Lerner,"What are the Benefits of Buying a Home With an LLC?," Realtor.com (July 9,2014)(available online at http://www,realtor.com/advice/ask-michele/benefits-buvino-home-with-Iles. 4045 E Ramon Road, Palm Springs,CA 92264® 760-320-6885 1 760-308-6211 fax REALTOR rSRAR Although the VRO Amendments have been revised to allow LLCs that consist solely of natural persons to obtain a vacation rental registration, the reasons discussed above could be made for other types of business entities. There also may be financial or estate planning reasons why someone would want to use business entity to purchase a home. By prohibiting"business entities"from qualifying for a vacation rental registration, Section 5.25.040(a) of the VRO Amendments would make it impossible for someone who wishes to rent out their home to short-term tenants to buy and own property using a partnership. In effect,this provision would force people to choose between the right to rent out their property, and considerations of their personal privacy, personal safety and financial well-being. The One-Per-Person Limit on Vacation Rental Registrations and the 32-Contracts Per Year Restriction on Vacation Rentals are Vulnerable to Challenge as Arbitrary and Overly Restrictive. In California, local legislation may be overturned if it is "arbitrary, capricious, wholly lacking evidentiary support, or fails to conform to the procedures required by law."19 As currently written, the one vacation rental registration per person restriction of Section 5.25.040(a) and the 32-contracts per calendar restriction of Section 5.25.070 arguably are arbitrary and therefore susceptible to challenge. By contrast to these proposed numerical restrictions, the Palm Springs Municipal Code does not appear to impose a numerical limitation on the issuance of any other type of permit. The City has not provided a rationale for prohibiting a person who owns more than one home in Palm Springs from obtaining more than one vacation rental registration and there is no inherent reason why that should be the case. Under this limitation,for example, if a couple has joint ownership of two houses,they would only be entitled to use one of them for short-term rentals,whereas if each of the couple owns one house individually, both could be used for short-term rentals. The City also has not provided any rationale for limiting vacation rental owners to 32 vacation rental agreements per year. This requirement would not prevent an owner from renting out a home for an entire year in 32 one-and two-week blocks, but if the same homeowner wanted to rent only on weekends, she would be precluded from doing so on more than 32 weekends a year. 19 Cecily T. Barklay,CURTIN'S CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW at 570(Solano Press,30th ed. 2010)(citing Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education,32 Cal. 779, 786(1982)). ® 4045 E Ramon Road, Palm Springs,CA 92264 760-320-6885 l 760-308-6211 fax 4EAVOP PSRAR This letter has explained how the VRO Amendments would deprive or infringe upon the right of private property owners to rent their home and would make it impossible for someone to buy and own a home through a partnership or corporation for privacy or other reasons if they want or need to rent their home to short-term tenants. It also explains that the one-per-person restriction on vacation rental registrations and the 32-contracts per year are vulnerable to legal challenge as arbitrary and overly restrictive. The these reasons, and for the reasons expressed by PSRAR and its members at the November 30th public hearing and other meetings on the proposed VRO Amendments, PSRAR urges the City Council not to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1907. Respectfully, Lk� Jim Webb, President Palm Springs Regional Association of Realtors' Copy to: David H. Ready, City Manager James Thompson, City Clerk ® 4045 E Ramon Road, Palm Springs,CA 92264 760-320-6885 1760-308-6211 fax RFAIIOR Jay Thompson From: Roxann Ploss <riploss@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 6:55 PM To: Jay Thompson; Robert& Bob Moon & Hammack;J.R. Roberts; Geoff Kors; Ginny Foat; Chris Mills Cc: Protect Our Neighborhoods Subject: STR's Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of Council I know you have heard all of this before, even a couple of times from ME. However, the vote before you tonight is too important for me not to make another attempt. As one who found herself wedged between two STR's soon after purchasing the "house of my dreams" almost 20 years ggo, I know that the struggle to get to this point has been long, arduous and emotionally draining. Mr. Kors and Mr. Roberts reached, after LONG study on their parts, an acceptable compromise which might have gone a long way toward resolving the issues tearing our neighborhoods apart. But, at the last meeting, rental agents seemed to gain a lot of ground. For instance, a four year window in which to divest themselves of property. . . . . in a healthy market. . . . .will be more than already-suffering neighbors can withstand. Threatening fines for "fallacious reporting" of code violations will only serve to discourage any reporting at all t 14 Q 1/20/Jo 17zx4.Z. K . by those who are reluctant to "make waves". Intent, as any lawyer will tell us, is very difficult to prove so why threaten? If someone must rent his/her/their home for 70% of the weekends in a year in order to "afford" the mortgage, is this not the same unstable situation which led to the recent real estate crisis? Are we looking at a lot of potential foreclosures or short sales when the next crisis arises? The same argument applies to the ownership of two mini- hotels by the some person/couple. Absentee hotel managers cause their own set of problems. I for one am not asking for a ban on STR's. Of course, I would rather see long-term rentals! However, even though I have seen the erosion of neighborhood identity which these properties can cause, I believe an owner can rent as he/she sees fit or necessary. I am only casting my own civil vote for the earnest compromise which two hard-working councilmembers presented to you. Thank you for your time, Roxann Ploss z Jay Thompson From: Judy Deertrack <judydeertrack@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 10:14 PM To: Geoff Kors; Robert Moon;Jay Thompson Subject: CONSENT AGENDA/SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS/Wed, Dec 7 2016 Attachments: 01 Save San Diego Neighborhoods Memo CEQA and Vacation Rentals Sept 8 2015.pdf; 02 LEGAL BRIEF (SSDN) KEVIN JOHNSON CEQA AND VACATION RENTALS Sept 8 2015.pdf: 04 DEPT OF PLANNING CEQA& STVR Determination May 21 2016.pdf;03 City of San Diego CEQA &Vacation Rentals Report to Planning Comm Nov 23 2015.pdf Mayor Robert Moon Mr. Geoff Kors City of Palm Springs And Remaining Honorable Members of the City Council, Re: Vacation Rentals and the CEQA Requirements Please see the attachments. I am asking Mr. Thompson to please place my comments on the record for Wednesday, December 7, 2016. I got a call from a public member asking whether the proposed ordinance on Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVR) requires review as a "new project" under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and whether any exemption would apply. I am not at all aware of the timelines on this. Apparently, the City has taken the position that CEQA review is not necessary? I have not had a chance to review this independently. However, I thought you might be interested in the legal dialog between the Attorney for Save San Diego Neighborhoods (SSDN) and the City of San Diego (2015- 2016). One of the City's responses also has a prolonged discussion of other cities that are going through this issue. Attorney Johnson for SSDN argued (and cites) that an ordinance amendment is a "project" under CEQA, and no exemption applies for the introduction of a new ordinance that allowed short term vacation rentals to be introduced into single-family residential neighborhoods. The City of San Diego argued the "common sense" exemption (no conceivable effect could occur because there was more, not less protection once the ordinance was enacted, therefore, the original adoption of the zoning code covered it all). The City stated under the original zoning scheme, STVR were actually allowed in the single-family residential zone, and apparently this new ordinance was just formalizing it all. SSDN disagreed with that position. I think this CEQA issue is very important. I don't know if the time has passed for a challenge to CEQA, BUT if there is ANY remaining discretion on the part of City Council on the Consent Agenda Vote, and you feel that this requires environmental review, I believe you should look at this and consider. If the vote is THAT ministerial, it seems to me it wouldn't be required in the first place (speaking of the Consent Agenda vote). t i�.Jn7/.zal � Frankly, I believe the benefit of the doubt should ALWAYS be given to the public's interest in full and complete information, and CEQA involves three prominent outcomes -- (1) the systematic development of full information, including an analysis of alternatives to what is proposed; (2) certainly a careful identification of criteria, standards, and policy from the City's General Plan and Zoning Scheme, along with identifying physical impacts, and (3) mitigation responsibilities, to the fullest extent feasible -- along with a sophisticated discussion or development of mitigation measures. The public should NEVER be deprived of these results unless there is a CLEAR exemption that applies, or unless the issue of IMPACTS is very clearly missing. With this new proposed ordinance (and I apologize I am speaking in the dark, not knowing the details), I simply do not know the BEFORE and AFTER sequence. But I would guess it is a compromise that is doing both things -- protecting against impacts (No significant impacts), and ALSO granting commercial rights or program impacts that previously did not exist (significant impact). I would caution that the City should be very respectful with this issue, given the level of public controversy, and err on the side of Environmental Review. I notice that the City of San Diego spent more time and energy forming a defense against the public wish for information than it would have taken just to comply with CEQA, and I don't like to see this. I believe the City of Palm Springs has often been remiss in finding questionable exemptions or absence of impact when the opposite was clearly arguable. Time for change. I make no comment on the obligation with the proposed vacation rental ordinance, because I have not had time to review this, given my work on the PDD Study. That is my area of total concentration right now, and the Committee is making some significant headway. I am proud of their work, and anxious to see the results. Judy Deertrack 760 325 4290 PREVIOUS EMAIL RECEIVED BY J.DEERTRACK Subject: CEQA The City Manager and Attorney have made the determination that CEQA review does not apply to this or any VR Ordinance. Their claim is that the ordinance does not qualify as a "Project' under CEQA. It sure looks like it qualifies to me! But CEQA is arcane and we need someone who knows about it. This alone could stop this and any ordinance in its tracks. Thoughts? § 21060.5. Environment "Environment" means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance. 2 § 21065. Project 'Project' means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following: (a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. (c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. 3 r, SAVE// W am K"SORHOODS Contact: Ronan Gray, ronannaa savesandieeoneighborhoods.org, 858-414-0383 For immediate release: September 8, 2015 City of San Diego advised it must comply with CEQA if it makes fundamental zoning changes allowing vacation rentals SAN DIEGO,September 9,2015—The City of San Diego has been put on notice by citizens group, Save San Diego Neighborhoods that if the Mayor and City Council intend to change the City's Municipal Code to allow short-term vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods, it must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Today Save San Diego Neighborhoods' attorneys delivered a letter with the notice and request for a formal reply on Robert A. Vacchi, Director of the San Diego Development Services Department. 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. The Save San Diego Neighborhoods' CEQA letter was served today because the City is moving forward on a draft ordinance that would make short-term vacation rentals in residential zones lawful. Although the proposed draft ordinance may be modified in the coming weeks,the existing draft permits absentee-owned, commercial,mini-hotels to operate in San Diego residential neighborhoods. Residents of San Diego and members of the San Diego Community Planning Groups have voiced strong opposition to STVR, demanding the City enforce the Municipal Code and remove these mini- hotels from our neighborhoods. Earlier this year, the Pacific Beach Planning Group unanimously passed and sent to the City Council a resolution asking the City Council to enforce the Municipal Code and reiterate that STVR mini-hotels are unlawful in single-family zones. The problem of STVR in residential zones continues unabated. Airbnb, one of dozens of online vacation rental companies, has more than 3,500 vacation rentals in the City. Of those, 65%- 2,283 rentals —are whole-house, absentee-owner mini-hotels located throughout San Diego's residential neighborhoods. Hundreds of San Diego residents packed two City Council meetings this spring to complain about the proliferation of vacation rentals and the negative impacts they create, saying "We ARE the neighbors, and we're telling you there is a problem." Save San Diego Neighborhoods was formed in the destructive wake of STVR. Hundreds of citizens have joined the group via its website—www.savesandiegoneighborhoods.org. Save San Diego Neighborhoods is now conducting an online petition whose early results show citizens unanimously support enforcing the City's current municipal code to ban STVR mini-hotels and taking legal action against the City, if needed. More information is available at www.savesandieeoneighborhoods.org, or by emailing ronan@savesandiegoneighborhoods.org. KEVIN K. JOHNSON, APLC A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION KEVIN K.JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE(619)696-6211 JEANNE L,MacKINNON 600 WEST BROADW AY,SUITE 225 HEIDI E.BROWN SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92101 FAX (619)696-7516 September 8, 2015 Via U.S. Mail and E-mail Mr. Robert A. Vacchi, Esq. Director San Diego Development Services Department 1222 First Avenue, MS 301 San Diego, CA 92101-4101 ravacchi -,sandiego.aov Re: Vacation Rental Ordinance and Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Dear Mr. Vacchi: Our firm represents Save San Diego Neighborhoods ("SSDN"), a California non-profit corporation, organized on a community wide basis to advocate for the public interest. We have previously prepared a letter dated May 22, 2015 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) analyzing the San Diego City Attorney's Memorandum of Law dated September 12, 2007 regarding the presence of short-term vacation rentals ("STVR") in residential-single unit ("RS") zones under the San Diego Municipal Code ("SDMC"). The City Attorney previously concluded that the current Municipal Code did not regulate or prohibit STVRs in single-family residential zones. We respectfully disagree with that opinion and are writing to place the City on notice of the need to comply with CEQA before adoption of a new ordinance expressly authorizing such uses. DISCUSSION A new ordinance expressly permitting STVR's in single family residential zones constitutes a"project" under CEQA and is subject to EIR requirements. I Public Resources Code I The enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances is a well-recognized form of project under CEQA. September 8, 2015 Section 21065(a); 14 Cal Code Regs Section 15378(a)(1). There are no statutory or categorical exemptions that apply to such a project. See 14 Cal Code Regs Sections 15260-15285; 14 Cal Code Regs Sections 15301-15333, Relevant provisions of the existing SDMC relating to STVR's are found in Chapter 11 (Land Development Procedures, Chapter 13 (Zones), and Chapter 14 (General Regulations). SDMC Section 131,0420 entitled "Use Regulations in Residential Zones" provides in pertinent part: (b) Within the residential zones, no structure or improvement, or portion thereof, shall be constructed, established, or altered, nor shall any premises be used or maintained except for one or more of the purposes or activities listed in Table 131-04B. It is unlawful to establish, maintain, or use any premises for any purpose or activity not listed in this section or Section 131.0422. The clear import of this provision is that if a purpose or activity is not listed in Table 131-04B, section 131.0420 or 131.0422, not only is it not permitted, it is unlawful. 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 term environment is very broadly defined in 14 Cal Code Regs Section 15360: [T]he physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The unregulated operation of STVR's in single family zones has resulted in a constant stream of neighborhood complaints all around San Diego. Noise,traffic,parking and other nuisance related problems all arise when STVR guests are inserted into otherwise quiet family neighborhoods. Recent home sale activity around the region and in the state has shown that the economic incentives are strong enough to motivate investors to buy single family homes for the purpose of operating them as an STVR commercial business. Individual homeowners have stopped living in their residences year round and rent them out like a hotel. With new guests arriving on a regular basis the residential neighbors are subjected to more car trips in their neighborhoods,parking impacts, many more parties (with guests) and the environment is impacted with more Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT's). Available housing stock is also impacted. Practice Under the California Environmental Ouality Act. Koska&Zischke(2d ed Cal CEB), Section 4.13 2 September 8, 2015 There are a number of published court decisions which provide further guidance on the need for an EIR. In Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Ca1.App.3d 892, a residential hotel unit conversion and demolition ordinance required either construction of replacement units or in-lieu fee for new construction to obtain a conversion permit. This was determined to have a potential environmental impact, and an EIR was required. In Shawn v. Golden Gate Bride Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 699, a proposed bus fare increase was predicted to cause an increase in vehicle use which in turn would increase traffic congestion, air pollution and excessive consumption of fuel. An EIR was required. In Starbird v. County of San Benito ( 1981) 122 Ca1.App.3d 657, the issuance of a conditional use permit for a manufacturing use in a zoning district required a discretionary approval by a Planning Commission and was subject to CEQA review. On the subject of"discretionary"approvals, it is important that the City not confuse individual, STVR permits which will likely involve "ministerial"action by a City agency, versus a city-wide zoning amendment which can have major negative impacts on the environment and for which the City has discretion to avoid environmental impacts. See Cal Code Regs section 15268(b) identifying presumptive "ministerial" actions such as the approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections. In a situation where the City of San Diego is considering express authorization for STVR's in single family zones, the environmental impacts are at the very heart of the discretionary decision making. What weight, for example, should be given to the "rights" of property owners to rent their homes versus the rights of the residential neighbors to peace and quiet and a safe and comfortable neighborhood street? How exactly does the City best regulate STVR use when there are multiple negative impacts associated with tourists and party goers converging with cars and other vehicles on otherwise quiet family neighborhoods? CONCLUSION In conclusion, we note that there is nothing more fundamental to orderly development than the zoning designations placed on properties in the community and the authorized uses within those zones. Residents move into a"neighborhood,"not a mixed use commercial and residential party scene. If communities and their residents cannot count on quiet, safe and efficient neighborhoods, then the planning and zoning laws of the State of California mean very little. The same can be said about the City`s General Plan. In this regard, we note that one of the many benefits of going through the EIR process will be an environmental document which carefully reviews the STVR"Project" in terms of General Plan consistency. We question whether the project will withstand that test. 3 September 8, 2015 Thank you for your attention to these matters. We respectfully request a written reply after you have had a chance to consider the points made in this letter. Very Truly Yours, y . Johnson, AP . Johnso Exhibit 1, May 22, 2015 KKJ APLC to M. Beckett cc: Save San Diego Neighborhoods 4 EXHIBIT 1 KEVIN K. JOHNSON, APLC A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION KEVIN K JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE(619)6966211 JEANNE L.Ma"NON 600 WEST BROADWAY,SUITE 225 HEIDI E.BROWN SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92101 FAX (619)6W7516 May 22, 2015 Via U.S. Mail and E-mail Save San Diego Neighborhoods c/o Ms. Marcie Beckett 4110 Bayward Street San Diego, California 92109 mbeckett .ucsd.edu Dear Ms.Beckett: We have been asked by Save San Diego Neighorhoods ("SSDN") to review and analyze the San Diego City Attorney's Memorandum of Law dated September 12, 2007 regarding the regulation of short-term vacation rentals ("STVR") in residential-single unit("RS") zones under the San Diego Municipal Code ("SDMC"). The City Attorney concluded that the current Municipal Code did not regulate or prohibit STVRs in single-family residential zones. The Memorandum does not follow basic canons of statutory interpretation and omits analysis of some Municipal Code provisions directly impacting this issue. As such,its analysis is incomplete and its conclusions unsupported. The Memorandum appears to be an advocacy piece,most likely crafted as such at the direction of the then City Attorney,Mike Aguirre. Although the SDMC may not expressly regulate STVRs, it is inaccurate to say they are not prohibited by the code. ISSUE Was the City Attorney's Analysis Complete and The Conclusion Correct that the SDMC Does Not Regulate or Prohibit STVRs in Single-Family Residential Zones? RELEVANT PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION In analyzing this issue, which at root is one of statutory interpretation, we have employed the following canons/rules of statutory interpretation: I. Plain meaning rule: follow the plain meaning of the text, May 22, 2015 except when the text suggests an absurd result. 2. Expressio unius: expression of one thing suggests the exclusion of others. 3. Follow ordinary usage of terms,unless the City has given them a specified or technical meaning. 4. Follow dictionary definitions of terms,unless the City has provided a specific definition. 5. Each provision should be read by reference to the whole SDMC. Statutory interpretation is a"holistic"endeavor. Therefore,avoid interpretations that render other provisions superfluous,unnecessary or inconsistent with other provisions. 6. Specific provisions targeting a particular issue apply instead of provisions more generally covering the issue. 7. Exceptions should be read narrowly.) DISCUSSION The relevant provisions of the SDMC are found in Chapter I I(Land Development Procedures, Chapter 13 (Zones), and Chapter 14(General Regulations). I. Sl'VRs Are Not One of the Permitted Purposes or Activities Listed for RS Zones The starting point of our analysis is SDMC Section 131.0420 entitled"Use Regulations in Residential Zones,"which provides in pertinent part: (b)Within the residential zones,no structure or improvement, or portion thereof, shall be constructed, established, or altered,nor shall any premises be used or maintained except for one or more of the purposes or activities listed in Table 131-04B. It is unlawful to establish,maintain, or use any premises for any purpose or activity not listed in this section or Section 131.0422. The clear import of this provision is that if a purpose or activity is not listed in Table 131-04B, section 131.0420 or 131.0422, not only is it not permitted, it is unlawful. The City Attorney acknowledges that Table 131-04B does not include STVRs as a permitted purpose or activity. As such, the City Attorney could have taken the sound interpretive position that if a purpose or activity is not included, it is not permitted. It then would be up to the City to amend the SDMC and regulate this use as permitted by section 131.0110 which provides at subsection (c): "If an appropriate use category and use subcategory cannot be determined for a specific use by referring to the Use Regulations Tables, an amendment to the Use Regulations Table may be initiated in accordance with Chapter 12, Article 3, Division 1 (Zoning and Rezoning Procedures)." These canons of statutory construction are excerpted from"The Rehnquist Court's Canons of Statutory Construction" derived from the Appendix to"Foreword: Law As Equilibrium,"William N.Eskridge,Jr.,Philip P.Frickey, 108 Harv. L. Rev.26,November, 1994. 2 May 22,2015 However,contrary to the clear language of section 131.0420(b), the City Attorney memo narrowly focuses on why STVRs are not hotels and neglects to analyze STVRs within the broader category of visitor accommodations except to say that"because there is no definition of`visitor"or "resident" in the Land Development Code, the visitor accommodation regulations do not prohibit the short-term rental of a single-family dwelling."This reasoning reverses the express language of section 131,0420—activity is prohibited unless expressly permitted, substituting the position that activity is permitted unless expressly prohibited. This misreading of the code section is then weakly supported by"the Visitor Accommodations" section which does not even pertain exclusively to visitors, only referring... "primarily to visitors and tourists." This analysis is incomplete and contrary to the plain meaning of the code which clearly indicates only purposes or activities listed in Table 131-04B are permitted. Logically, if an activity is not listed,it is not permitted. II. STVRs Are Treated As Visitor Accommodations for Tax Purposes and Under the Ordinary Meaning or Definition of this Term STVRs Are Visitor Accommodations It is true that the Land Development Code does not contain a definition of`visitor"or"resident"; however,when the City has not provided a technical meaning for a term, then principles of statutory construction indicate that the ordinary or dictionary meaning of these terms should apply. Visitor is commonly understood to be a person visiting a person or place, socially or as a tourist, "Visitor Accommodations"are described in the SDMC at section I31.0112(a)(6)(L) consistently with this meaning as:uses"that provide lodging,or a combination of lodging,food, and entertainment,primarily to visitors and tourists," The ordinary use of STVRs is for lodging by visitors and tourists/vacationers to the City of San Diego and they are marketed as such. STVRs are subject to the City's Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT"). As stated by the City's Office of the Independent Budget Analyst in the Report to the Smart Growth&Land Use("SGLU") Committee dated April 17, 2015: In order to use a residential property for short-term rentals, the Operator[property owner or anyone with permission from the property owner to occupy or manage the dwelling] of the property must receive a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate for the property, and use the property subject to the Rental Unit Business Tax(RUBT). The Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate states that the Operator is required to collect TOT and remit these funds to the City Treasurer. "Transient"is defined as "any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession,permit,right of access, license,or other agreement for a period of less than one month.""Hotel" is defined broadly as"any structure or any portion of any structure which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging,or sleeping purposes and is held out as such to the public"followed by exceptions not relevant here. SDMC § 31.0305. This definition of hotel is more inclusive than that found in the Land Development Code("LDC") and relied upon by the City Attorney to conclude that because STVRs are 3 May 22, 2015 not hotels,they are not a regulated use or activity.2 The City Treasurer's website indicates on the webpage entitled"Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)/ purism Marketing District": "Short-Term and Vacation Rentals of any kind(i,e. houses,condos, rooms,or spaces)rented directly by the owner/operator, by property management companies, or via intemet services"are an example of lodging businesses subject to the TOT. Again, referring to principles of statutory construction: each provision should be read by reference to the whole SDMC. Statutory interpretation is a"holistic"endeavor. Therefore,avoid interpretations that render other provisions superfluous,unnecessary or inconsistent with other provisions. To treat STVRs as not falling within the definition of a hotel and therefore not within the broader Visitor Accommodations use category for land use purposes but as falling within the tax code as a hotel and requiring collection and payment of TOT renders these provisions clearly inconsistent. Likewise, to contend that the City may tax STVRs as a hotel within the tax code but not treat them as Visitor Accommodations, a broader category that includes hotels,in the land use context presents an absurd and arbitrary result. As explained in detail in McAllister v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 169 Cal App.4th 912, 953 ("McAllister"), in the context of litigation, a court's fundamental task is to ascertain the aim and goal of the City of San Diego so as to effectuate the purpose of the Code. The Court does this by examining the language of the Code, giving the words their usual and ordinary meaning, If the Court finds no ambiguity, the Court presumes the City meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs. If the language is ambiguous and permits more than one reasonable interpretation, the Court may consider various extrinsic aids to ascertain the drafter's intent, including legislative history,public policy, settled rules of statutory construction,and an examination of the evils to be remedied and the legislative scheme as a whole encompassing the matter in question. McAllister,169 Cal.AppAth at 928. Importantly,the Court must select the construction that comports most closely with the aim and goal of the drafter to promote rather than defeat the Code's general purpose and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd and unintended consequences. Id. at 928. The treatment of STVRs as Visitor Accommodations for purposes of taxing authority but not for purposes of land use authority presents such an absurd result. 111. Visitor Accommodations Are Not Permitted in Most Residential Zones Notably, Visitor Accommodations are considered a commercial services use(SDMC section 131.0112(a)(6))and are not a permitted use in any of the residential use categories except the RM-4 and RM-5 categories (see Table 131-04B and§131.0406(b)(5) where"RM-5-12 permits visitor accommodations or medium density multiple dwelling units at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit for 'SDMC §113.0103,relied upon by the City Attorney,provides:HoteVMotel means a building containing six or more guest rooms that are rented for less than 30 days and used or designed to be used for sleeping purposes.Hotel or motel does not include any jail,hospital,asylum,sanitarium, orphanage,prison,detention home,or other institution in which human beings are housed and detained under legal restraint. 4 May 22,2015 each 1,000 square feet of lot area.")This use is further clarified in footnote six to Table 131-04B Use Regulations Table of Residential Zones as "[t]wo guest rooms are permitted for visitor accommodations per the specified square footage of lot area required per dwelling unit(maximum permitted density), as indicated on Table 131-04G". Lastly, a minimum stay of 7 days is required in other RM-1 through RM- 4 zones for non-owner occupants (Footnote 5 to Table 131-04B applicable to multiple dwelling units indicates: "Non-owner occupants must reside on the premises for at least 7 consecutive calendar days."), The City has opted to specifically allow Visitor Accommodations in RM-4 and RM-5 zones and non-resident occupants with minimum stay requirements in other RM-1 through RM-4 zones, but not in any other residential zones. Again, following the principles of statutory interpretation - expression of one thing suggests the exclusion of others - the failure of the City to provide either express permission for Visitor Accommodations and/or minimum stay requirements for other residential use categories suggests the City did not intend to permit Visitor Accommodations of any length in these other categories which include RE,RS,RX and RT. The City Attorney claims additional support for his position by indicating that the issue of whether to create a minimum stay for single dwelling units was presented in 1997 to the Land Use & Housing Committee, which recommended against regulating the minimum stay in single dwelling units and the City Council subsequently introduced Land Development Code amendments without a minimum stay requirement, In this regard,it would be useful to review any meeting minutes reflecting discussion of this issue. However, to interpret the absence of a minimum stay requirement for single dwelling units in this fashion is unfounded. A minimum stay would be wholly unnecessary since Visitor Accommodations were already expressly prohibited in every residential zone except for RMA and RM-5. For RM-1-4, the code also requires a minimum stay for non-owner occupants. This omission in other categories does not indicate any intent on the part of the decision-makers to either permit or not prohibit Visitor Accommodations in single unit residential zones. To the contrary, the provision of minimum stays in RM zones and the omission in other residential zones should be read in conjunction with principles of statutory interpretation- specific provisions targeting a particular issue apply instead of provisions more generally covering the issue and expression of one thing suggests the exclusion of others. IV. A Comprehensive, Holistic Reading of the SDMC Establishes that Articulated Activities Are Permitted and Unarticulated Activities Are Not Permitted Reading the code"holistically", support for SSDN's position is also found by reference to other specially regulated uses provided for in the SDMC. Examination of these permitted and regulated activities lends credence to the position that the City's decision to expressly permit and regulate certain similar uses in residential zones indicates an intent to not permit unarticulated uses, i.e.,expression of one thing suggests exclusion of the other. For example, in Chapter 14,Art. 1, Division I of the SDMC entitled General Rules for Separately Regulated Uses, §141.0102 provides: "(a)The regulations in this article apply to the development of uses that are identified in the Use Regulations Tables in Chapter 13, Article 1 (Base Zones) as Limited Uses or as uses requiring a Neighborhood Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit." In the Residential 5 May 22, 2015 Use Category, Separately Regulated Uses include but are not limited to the following: Boarder and Lodger Accommodations(141.0301); Companion Units (141.0302); Employee Housing (141.0303); Fraternity Houses, Sorority Houses, and Student Dormitories(141.0304); Guest Quarters or Habitable Accessory Buildings (141.0306); Residential Care Facilities(141.0312), Transitional Housing Facilities (141,0313). An examination of code sections for each of these separately regulated uses contain detailed limitations and requirements for these uses. This is consistent with the prevailing principle discussed at section I of this memorandum and contained at SDMC 131.0420: (b) Within the residential zones,no structure or improvement, or portion thereof, shall be constructed, established, or altered,nor shall any premises be used or maintained except for one or more of the purposes or activities listed in Table 131-04B. It is unlawful to establish, maintain, or use any premises for any purpose or activity not listed in this section or Section 131.0422. Expression of these separately regulated uses suggests exclusion of other non-expressed uses, such as STVRs. If it is not expressed, it is not permitted. CONCLUSION The City Attorney memorandum analyzing whether the SDMC prohibits or regulates STVRs omits analysis of relevant SDMC provisions, frames the issue in a results-oriented fashion and fails to analyze the issue consistently with established principles of statutory construction and interpretation. As such, the analysis is incomplete and the conclusions are unsupported. Under the circumstances, SSDN can reasonably continue to take the position with relevant committees and decision-makers that STVRs either (1)are not permitted in RS zones because they are not an expressly permitted use; or(2)are not permitted because they are Visitor Accommodations and, as such,they are not a permitted use in residential zones,except for RM-4 and 5. In addition,we recommend that SSDN continue to take an active role in suggesting regulations and limitations of STVRs in connection with the City's attempts to formulate provisions to regulate this use in residential zones and thereby impact the process. Very Truly Yours, Kevin K.Johnson, APLC 4� se. YX a C Jeanne L.MacKinnon 6 A�A^ i- S 'r THE CITY OF SAN OmGO REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE ISSUED: November 23, 2015 REPORT NO. PC-15-109 ATTENTION: Planning Commission, Agenda of December 3, 2015 SUBJECT: SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL AND HOME SHARING ORDINANCE: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT (PROCESS 5) SUMMARY Issue: Should the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Short Term Vacation Rental and Home Sharing ordinance that amends the City's Land Development Code (LDC) and Local Coastal Program? Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed code amendments, including Chapter 13, Article 1; Chapter 14, Article 1; and Chapter 15, Article 13. Environmental Review: The Development Services Department (DSD)has completed a California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Section 15162—Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declaration consistency evaluation in compliance with Public Resources Code 21166 for the proposed amendments to the Land Development Code (LDC) pertaining to short term vacation rentals. A short term vacation rental is the rental of a.dwelling unit for a term of less than one calendar month where the property owner does not live in the dwelling unit. Home sharing is an activity whereby the property owner or resident host provides lodging accommodations for boarders, lodgers,or visitors in their home in exchange for compensation. The evaluation was performed to determine if conditions specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would require preparation of additional CEQA review. DSD has determined that the proposed amendments are consistent with the original LDC Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 96-03331SCH No. 96081056, certified by City Council on November 18, 1997, Resolution No. 98-288; as well as the City of San Diego General Plan Program FIR No. 104495/SCH No. 20006091032, certified by City Council March 10,2008, Resolution No. 2008-685; and would not result in new impacts. Fiscal Impact Statement: Costs associated with implementation of the regulations in the future will be covered by project applicants. Code Enforcement Impact: The proposed amendments would improve predictability and consistency in the regulation and enforcement of short term vacation rentals, home sharing accommodations, and bed and breakfast establishments, which will benefit property owners, neighborhoods, and tourists. Housina Impact Statement: The proposed amendments include regulatory controls to help preserve long term housing by setting a maximum of 25 percent of dwelling units in a multiple dwelling unit structure which may be rented out on a short term basis for occupant stays less than 30 consecutive days to minimize impacts to housing. Allowing home sharing is an example that can accommodate long term housing needs while accommodating short term accommodations for paying visitors. Other controls, such as limiting short term rental of restricted affordable housing, could help minimize the effect effect of housing impacts that result from the whole house short term rental. BACKGROUND Community Planners Committee (CPC): On September 22, 2015, CPC passed the following motion on a 24-3-2 vote: "The CPC supports hosted home sharing in concept. Whole house rentals for less than 30 days are Visitor Accommodations and the City should enforce the Municipal Code." Code Monitorina Team (CMT): On September 9, 2015, CMT recommended that a subcommittee be established. Generally there was agreement that there is a difference in impact between hosted and non-hosted rentals;that companion units should not be rented short term; that STVR use should not be in Single Family zones; that the responsible party(owner and tenants that sublet) should be held accountable; and that code enforcement must be aggressive. Technical Advisory Committee(TAC): On September 9, 2015, TAC passed the following motion on a 6-2-4 vote: Form a subcommittee to 1) indentify impacts of Short Term Vacation Rentals 2) discuss potential penalties for STVR code violations 3) discuss whether STVRs are appropriate in Single Family or Multi Family zones. Generally there was agreement that effective Code Enforcement was the key to accommodating STVRs in Single Family zones and that companion units should not be rented short term. A few committee members did not wish to restrict STVRs in Single Family zones. A few members expressed support of STVRs in Single Family zones if they were required to obtain Neighborhood Use Permits. - 2 - DISCUSSION The proposed ordinance creates a separately regulated use category: Short term vacation rental of a dwelling unit (whole home rental) for less than 30 consecutive calendar days that provides for exclusive transient use in Single Family Residential (RS) Zones. The proposed ordinance modifies the existing boarder/lodger regulations to allow home sharing (owner occupied rentals). The proposed ordinance also requires that an operator shall designate a local contact who shall be responsible to actively discourage and prevent any nuisance activity at the short term vacation rental, including excessive noise, disorderly conduct, overcrowding, and excessive accumulation of refuse. To address the issues of frequency and occupancy Councilmember Zapf has proposed the following for"Short Term Vacation Rental of a Dwelling Unit" Section 141,0315 b) limited use regulations: 1) Limited use regulations: A maximum of 2 occupants per bedroom plus 2 occupants may stay in a dwelling unit in Single Family Residential (RS)zones. 2) A minimum night stay of no fewer than 21 nights in Single Family Residential zones. 3) If an owner wishes to deviate from 21 night minimum stay in RS zones, then the owner must secure a Neighborhood Use Permit (NUP) 4) The new use category "Short Term Vacation Rentals"be changed to "Short Term Rentals"to clarify that the regulations apply to all short term stays of any purpose. For Boarder, Lodger and Home Sharing Accommodations Section 141.0301: 1) No minimum night stay in all residential zones The draft ordinance, with the additional clarification on frequency and occupancy of single dwelling units in RS zones, addresses the quality of life issues associated with Short Term Vacation Rentals in Single Family Residential zones. The purpose of the San Diego Municipal Code governing Single Family Residential zones is "to promote neighborhood quality, character, and livability" (131.0403). With guests turning over less frequently in Single Family zones and by limiting the number of guests allowed during a stay, there would be significantly less impact on the neighborhood. The impacts which would be reduced include: noise, parking,trash and occupancy. The proposed regulations would"allow reasonable use of property while minimizing adverse impacts to adjacent properties" (131.0403). In addition to the input received from CPC, CMT and TAC, input was received via calls, mail and e-mail, as well as at April 22 and May 29 Smart Growth & Land Use Committee meetings. Some members of the public believe that a permit should be required for all short term rentals as part of the TOT registration process. The concept is that part of the fee associated with the permit (i.e. $150) could be utilized for Code Enforcement and/or additional PISOs. - 3 - Some members of the public have voiced support for the proposed RS zone regulations to be applied to single dwelling units in RM zones as well. Some members of the public advise that Short Term Vacation Rentals are Visitor Accommodations and thus are not currently allowed in Single Family Residential zones. Furthermore,they do not want to see Short Term Vacation Rentals become codified in the Municipal Code, but rather they want the current Municipal Code to be enforced. Councilmember Cate has advocated for three PISO officers to be dedicated to responding to Short Term Vacation Rental and Home Sharing nuisance issues. In the case that either a minimum night stay is enforced, or a neighbor to neighbor interaction facilitated by a PISO is enacted, then effective enforcement will be required for either program's success. Conclusion: Recommend the City Council Adopt the Regulations for Short Term Vacation Rentals and Home Sharing and the direction provided in Councilmember Zapf s memo on Frequency, Occupancy, and Eligible Housing Types. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Purdy Smart Growth & Land Use Committee Consultant Council District 2 PURDY Attachment: Draft code language -4 - Cindy Berardi From: Jerrod Longoria <jerrod.longoria@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 2:13 PM To: Jerrod Longoria; Chris Mills; Geoff Kors; Ginny Foat;JR Roberts; Robert Moon Cc: CityClerk; David Ready; dholland@wss-law.com Subject: Re: Vacation Rental Policy Dear Councilmember Ginny Foat, Thank you for applying Logic in Wednesday's meeting regarding sweeping changes in vacation rentals. As I mentioned in my email to you and the other councilmembers, I am a part-time residence who purchase a property in November of 2015. I'm deeply sadden that I don't think I am going to be able to afford to keep my place. I purchased this home will all intentions of retiring in Palm Springs. I'm even more sadden that members of the council continue to use the word "experiment". How is it possible to think of peoples lives as experiences? Are we lab rats? I'm very disgusted that some of my City Council thinks we are just experiments. I truly appreciate you apply logic to this situation and pushing for more facts and analysis of the impact on the city. As mentioned earlier, I purchased my property in November of 2015. After obtaining a rental permit around February of 2016, 1 begin renting my home when I wasn't staying there. I generally rent 3-5 times per month with some of them being just 2-3 day rentals which includes weekday and weekend rentals. I do a great job vetting renters our and I have not had a single complaint. I own just one vacation home and it is part of my livelihood. The limit of 32 per year is insanely way too low for any part-time residence. As mentioned earlier, I feel I am being forced into a position to have to sell my home. I urge you to please bring situations like mine to the attention of the Council so they can develop a more logical approach to rental regulations that has a much less devastation impact to all stakeholders. Sincerely, Jerrod Longoria On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM Jerrod Longoria <Jerrod.1-ongoria a nafinc.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Robert Moon and Palm Springs City Councilmembers, M name is Jerrod Longoria and I am a art-time resident of Palm Springs. I own a single family home at 2792 Y g Pg Y N Avenida Caballeros, Palm Springs, CA 92262. It took me just over 3 years of smart savings to be able to t come up with enough down for and I was able to purchase in November of 2015. 1 felt so thankful and blessed to be able to own a mid-century Alexander Home in Palm Springs! I was so excited because not only do I love visiting Palm Springs often, I have many family and friends who live in the City of Palm Springs and surrounding areas. My future plans are to eventually move full-time to this home and eventually retire in the amazing city of Palm Springs! I am disappointed to learn that you are considering arbitrary limits on vacation rental contracts and vacation rental ownership. These measures will not solve the problem. In fact, they will likely create even worse problems by discouraging tourists from visiting Palm Springs, reducing the tax revenue available for public services, and wreaking havoc in the housing market. Many homeowners in Palm Springs, including me, want the freedom and flexibility to rent out our homes as we see fit, as long as appropriate restrictions and enforcement mechanisms are in place to keep our neighborhoods safe and pleasant. With excessive restrictions on the number of rentals per year, however, many part-time residents will not be able to afford to keep their homes here. Homeowners and local businesses have worked hard over the past year to develop new enforcement measures that will ensure an appropriate balance between property rights and quality of life. I urge you to keep the focus on strong enforcement. That is the solution we need, not experimental regulations that could harm everyone. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jerrod Longoria 2792 N. Avenida Caballeros, Palm Springs, CA 92262 714.396.0947 2 Cindy Berardi From: Michael Bourque <mbourque516@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 2:04 PM To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; David Ready; CityClerk; Joanne Bruggemans Cc: Jerome Gentes Subject: PLEASE READ: I Strongly Support Our Vacation Rentals To the Honorable Palm Springs Mayor and City Council Members: As a part-time resident and someone who purchased a home in Palm Springs 3 years ago and spent considerable amount of money to remodel with the intent to retire in it in 10 years, I am very upset about the new overly restrictive ordinance you passed this week. My partner and I currently rent our property for high end vacation rentals when we're not in town, as a way to supplement our income to pay the mortgage and upkeep of the house. The new ordinance may threaten our ability to afford the mortgage, which would force us into foreclosure and face a big economic loss on what we have invested into the property. Does the Council prefer that our house be foreclosed and/or sit vacant and fall into disrepair? Further, we have contributed over $8,700 in TOT to the City over the past 12 months, and have paid over $15,000 to local workers for housecleaning, gardening, and pool maintenance in the same period. These workers have families and depend on the income we provide them for their livelihood. If we were not able to rent our home to vacationers, this substantial income local workers (and the City) would stop. We have not once had any complaints because we are active owner-operators and ensure that our guests respect neighbors and abide by the exiting PS VR Ordinance. Please reconsider your overreaction to resident complaints about a few cases of badly managed properties, and do not kill the livelihood that I and many other resident owners depend on in order to afford our Palm Springs homes. Surely, you must realize that the economic viability of the City depends on tourism 100%. Palm Springs has become a vibrant and lively destination, making it even more attractive to those like myself who have dreamed of the lifestyle and worked hard to put plans in place to have it. Or, do you prefer a future for the City of economic decay? Do you want Palm Springs to be a magnet for scaling-down retirees, or a draw for successful professionals like my partner and me, in our early 50's in the prime of our careers and actively working to build a home and life in the City in addition to our work lives in the Bay Area? A better solution would be to enforce the existing rules more actively, increase the fines for violations, and cancel the permits of repeat offenders. If you need to raise the permit fee to afford greater enforcement, that is understandable. However, restrictions on the number of homes a person is able to own, number of contracts per year, length of stay, number of occupants and bedrooms including ages of guests, number of people allowed in the house for a dinner or party, number of rentals allowed in a neighborhood, etc. are excessive and intrusive. Frankly, it is beyond me how I can enforce every one of these details as an owner, never mind how the City will be able to enforce the rules without creating obnoxious intrusion into the privacy of individual homes. I would welcome a conversation about any and all of this. I think it's important that you as a Council understand the people you are impacting with the Ordinance. This is not solely an issue about Rental Agencies and Property Management Companies profiting at the expense of other residents. It is about co-residents like 1 myself and my partner, trying to afford our 2nd home in Palm Springs and be good neighbors at the same time. I've attached a picture of our home as a reference for you. Respectfully, Michael Bourque 1131 E Sierra Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 350 N 2nd St., 4119 San Jose, CA 92264 (408) 507-2453 z Cindy Berardi From: Mark Coleman <mc2coleman@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 12:48 PM To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; Ginny Foat; Chris Mills Cc: David Ready; CityClerk; dholland@wss-law.com Subject: Your vote on Vacation Rental Policy Dear Mayor Robert Moon and Palm Springs City Councilmembers, It's disappointing to hear that the city council voted to impose new restrictions on Palm Springs homeowners.The new rental policy is likely to force a homeowner like me to sell their property due to the loss of income from vacation rentals. The policy does nothing to directly address the problem it is attempting to solve: noise in residential neighborhoods. In my Tahquitz River neighborhood the biggest noise problems are not coming from vacation rental homes. One offending neighbor is a single man who likes to listen to loud disco music by his pool. He complies when we ask hm to lower the volume. Another neighbor likes to host their extended family for pool parties on the weekend. A pool full of screaming children is not very peaceful,but I am willing to tune it out because it seems ridiculous to rail against pool noise if you've chosen to live in resort community. I'd be more supportive of the new policy if it actually focused on enforcing the city's noise ordinance. The policy you approved will do absolutely nothing to regulate noise in my neighborhood. Because the new policy is so illogical, I have to believe that city officials have been persuaded by hotel developers and operators to reduce the competition for lodging by restricting vacation rentals. Very sad, indeed. In a resort city like Palm Springs, it seems very dangerous for city officials to impose onerous restrictions on people who own vacation homes. As a vacation homeowner in Palm Springs,I've have made significant contributions to the local economy.When we purchased our home in 2010, it had been sitting vacant for more than a year.The roof was leaking,the house was infested with crickets and the landscaping was dead. We renovated an eyesore in the neighborhood,and continue to make upgrades and improvements to our property.These upgrades help to raise property values in the neighborhood and feed the local economy. For years,we've provided employment for property managers,gardeners,electricians,plumbers,housekeepers, contractors,pool maintenance providers and other local residents. Each time the house is occupied by us and our guests we patronize the local restaurants,bars,retailers and service providers. In my neighborhood,the full-time residents are less likely to invest in the upkeep of their homes. I rarely see them in local restaurants and shops. The city is shooting itself in the foot by pandering to full-time residents and using vacation homeowners as the scapegoat for noise in residential neighborhoods. Palm Springs is a vacation destination. Vacationers make a little nose when they are having a good time. I would hate to see the revitalization of Palm Springs reversed by a reckless city council. Your vote will cause vacation homeowners like me to reconsider their investment in the city and potentially unload their properties. It threatens a blow to the local housing market and economy. I encourage you to draft a policy that solves the problem at hand. Many vacation homeowners care deeply about their neighborhood and community. Our property manager carefully screens each vacation renter before signing a contract.He drives by our property twice daily to check for signs of misbehavior. I can assure you that all vacation homeowners are not the sole cause of neighborhood noise.The Palm Springs community would be better served by a city policies that are thoughtfully drafted and target the true source of the problem they are attempting to solve. Sincerely, Mark Coleman 360 Avenida Olancha Palm Springs,CA 92264 t Cindy Berardi From: Marc Femenella <marc@marcfemenella.com> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 4:44 PM To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; David Ready; CityClerk; Joanne Bruggemans Subject: Vacation rentals Dear Honorable Palm Springs Mayor and City Council Members: My partner and I have recently become residents of Palm Springs through the purchase of a home in the historic Racquet Club Estates neighborhood. While we don't live in Palm Springs full-time right now, we intend to become full- time residents in the future. My parents live in Palm Desert, and we bought this home to have a place to stay when they visit. (They own a very small place in a retirement community.) Having this home has allowed us and our extended family(especially my nephew and niece in Vermont)to convene in Palm Springs and enjoy this beautiful city with enough room for everyone to relax and play in the pool.The idea of buying this home was to be able to live there full- time when my parents get older, so we can take care of them (and possible have them move in with us). We currently rent our home out while we're not there as a means to afford the mortgage on the home on top of our rent in LA. This is not an income property for us. We just need to be able to afford it for now until we can move to Palm Springs for good. The recent vacation rental ordinance that the Council passed has put our future plans in jeopardy. We can only afford our mortgage with the 50+short-term rentals we book in a year, but the new caps on total stays will reduce our revenue to less than our payments (after taxes and expenses). Even though we've already invested so much in renovations (including re-landscaping for drought-tolerance and adding a block wall to reduce noise from our property), we are now considering selling the home after less than a year. We totally understand the need to strictly handle noise complaints, but limiting stays this severely will only discourage investments and improvements to the city's beautiful, but aging, real estate. urge you to reconsider these new ordinances and focus instead on enforcement of existing ones.These new rules will only hurt this city and its businesses. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Marc Femenella Responsible owner at 2828 N.Sunnyview Drive 1 Cindy Berardi From: John Aloe <johnlaloe@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 8:16 AM To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; Ginny Foat; Chris Mills Cc: David Ready; CityClerk; dholland@wss-law.com Subject: Vacation Rental Comments Dear Mayor Robert Moon and Palm Springs City Councilmembers, I am disappointed to learn that you are considering arbitrary limits on vacation rental contracts and vacation rental ownership. These measures will not solve the problem. In fact, they will likely create even worse problems by discouraging tourists from visiting Palm Springs, reducing the tax revenue available for public services, and wreaking havoc in the housing market. Many homeowners in Palm Springs, including me, want the freedom and flexibility to rent out our homes as we see fit, as long as appropriate restrictions and enforcement mechanisms are in place to keep our neighborhoods safe and pleasant. With excessive restrictions on the number of rentals per year, however, many part-time residents will not be able to afford to keep their homes here. Homeowners and local businesses have worked hard over the past year to develop new enforcement measures that will ensure an appropriate balance between property rights and quality of life. I urge you to keep the focus on strong enforcement.That is the solution we need, not experimental regulations that could harm everyone. Thankyou Johnaloe 2231 north Leonard Palm Springs ca. 92262 Sent from my iPad 1 Cindy Berardi From: Chad Sain <chad.bge@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 6:28 AM To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; David Ready; CityClerk; Joanne Bruggemans Cc: Steve Boswell (corner parocela); Chad (Home/Work Phones) Subject: I Strongly Support Our Vacation Rentals To the Honorable Palm Springs Mayor and City Council Members: I am a full time resident in Palm Springs. I provide Short Term Rental services by hosting visitors in the guest suite inside my own home. This guest suite would be empty most of the year if not for my ability to host visitors on most weekends during the year. I provide host services during their stays as well as serving as a "City Ambassador". My recommendations on dining, shopping and entertainment add economic benefits to our many small businesses in and around our great downtown. I maintain wonderful relationships with all my neighbors and also function on our neighborhood council, ensuring any STIR issues are addressed immediately neighbor-to-neighbor. The proposalsjust approved by the City Council are draconian and will impact negatively everything positive I now provide back to our City. I urge you to reconsider your votes and look for a more measured approach to deal with the real issues. Compromising, not eliminating, this very vibrant industry should be our collective end goals! Very respectfully, Captain Chad Sain (USN, Ret) Warm Sands 1 Jay Thompson From: Jay Thompson Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 8:10 PM To: Jay Thompson Subject: FW: Remarks I will be making at tomorrow's Council Meeting From: Bruce Cronander [brucecronander@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 5:53 PM To: JR Roberts; Geoff Kors; Robert Moon Subject: Remarks I will be making at tomorrow's Council Meeting 1. I will only summarize my memo distributed to you at the last Council meeting entitled Homeowners' Notification and Bill of Rights. It is similar to the existing regulation for Event Houses, but requires notification only once a year for each new or renewed permit, unlike the Event House provision which requires notification - of each event. Less stringent than the event House provision, it does not provide for homeowner objection to a specific permit. It does, however,provide the homeowner with the obligations of each short term renter under the regulation and the rights of the homeowner. If education of homeowners is one of the city's goals, such a provision would go a long way to work towards that goal. 2. Section 5.25.070(d) of the proposed regulation provides for an Estate House exemption of 5 or 6 bedrooms, allowing for up to 12 24 hour guests and an additional 6 guests between 1 Oam and 1 Opm. There is no personal financial hardship argument for such an exemption from the proposed regulation. These are huge homes purchased at significant prices, not owned by homeowners struggling with mortgage payments. It was clearly put forward by real estate interests who have some of these homes in their rental portfolios and don't want to lose them under the proposed regulations. In response to an email from Michael Frick, Councilman Kors stated that "neighbors will be able to weigh in prior to [the exemption being granted) if the size of the lot and the location of neighbors warrants an exemption. There is no such neighbor weigh-in in the provision. Such exemption is solely within the discretion of the City Manager. The regulation should be changed to reflect Councilman Kor's understanding and let potentially affected homeowners have a say regarding these mega rentals. 3. The city should make available on its website or other public website the individual contracts for short term rentals, excluding any confidential information and names, but including the address of the rental, the commencing and ending date of the contract and the number of permitted guests. If homeowners are going to continue to be called on to police their neighborhoods, which we strongly believe they should not, then at the very least they should at least be provided with some information as to what is occurring around them. Respectfully, Bruce Cronander, individually and as a member of PON Cindy Berardi From: Colin Sarjeant <sarj@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:20 PM To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors;A Roberts Cc: CityClerk Subject: Typo in the revised ordinance and a request. I think there is a typo is the revised ordinance. On Page 6 item 5.25.040 the definition of a short term rental was changed from 28 days to 32 days. I don't think that was your intent. If you adopt these changes please don't call it "A one year experiment". There has been a lot of doom and gloom that this ordinance will destroy the real estate market in Palm Springs. I don't believe that will happen but I do feel the uncertainty that has been looming over the market has discouraged some potential second home buyers. I'm sure the rules will need to be tweaked over time but it's difficult to make a 30 year commitment based upon a 1 year "experiment". Please let the everyone know you are committed to making this work. For the record, I'm not a real estate agent and I have no plans to sell but I do want a healthy real estate market and a thriving local (TOURIST) economy. Thank you, Colin Colin Sarjeant, AIA 1400 N Opuntia Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 i Cindy Berardi From: PeterTienken <ptienken@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:53 PM To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors;JR Roberts; Ginny Foat; Chris Mills; CityClerk; Citymanager- Mail Login; Cindy Berardi Cc: AI.Franco@desertsun.com Subject: Unintended Consequences Dear Mayor Moon, Council members, Kors, Roberts, Foat and Mills, I won't bore you with the details of my story, but I will ask you to consider a key aspect of the ordinance as it stands amended and ready for your vote: Annual cost of the Certificate and source of budget for the newly formed department. • Not all vacation rental homes are the same,nor do they generate the same amount of income. A two bedroom house does not have the taming potential of a 4 or 5 bedroom house, so why is the cost of a registration certificate the same for all? It is a tax, and not a progressive tax. The annual cost of a certificate should be determined on a sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms. 2 and 3 bedroom homes attract a very different demographic than larger homes, basically older retirees from Canada or the northern US, as opposed to younger weekenders here for a party. Who is more likely to be a disturbance to the neighborhood? By charging the same amount,the smaller quieter house is subsidizing the larger noisier house. • Transient Occupancy Tax distribution. Please let me know if this information is readily available. How is the Transient Occupancy Tax revenue allocated? Shouldn't it go toward financing a department to manage Vacation Rentals? The City already brings in 6.2 million dollars in TOT from vacation rentals. Using 1.7 million of this amount would easily finance the department that should have been in place when the ordinance was first adopted a few years ago. • When I first started looking after my friends vacation homes four years ago, the Vacation Rental Registration Certificate cost$60 or$65 per year. It then went up to $200 and$225 per year. We were told that it was due to administrative costs and the hiring of an outside contractor. I thought there would be more enforcement, but the only change I saw was that the certificate(which is filled out and printed on demand by a city clerk), was now laminated. • If homeowners decide to rent their houses out full time,the only way anyone can afford them, is to collect a houseful of roommates(service industry jobs do not pay very well). A houseful of roommates will bring the same problems as weekenders. It seems to me that you are unintentionally punishing homeowners that do not cause problems by applying draconian measures across the board. A large vacation rental company can afford to have their homeowners pay the higher fee, because they generate larger income,but the small homeowner who actually uses his/her home numerous times a year, and only generates a few thousand dollars to help offset their operating costs, cannot afford the hike in fees. I'm not a realtor, but I know that this will have a direct impact on real estate values. Please do not be hasty in approving this amended ordinance. Delay the vote until you have had a chance to consider all the economic consequences of this vote. Sincerely, Peter Tienken 1265 E Verbena Dr. Palm Springs, CA 92262 562-805-1700 t Cindy Berardi From: Bob Hunt <cyclist45@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:28 PM To: Robert Moon;1R Roberts; geoff.kors@palmspringca.gov;Ginny Foat; CityClerk Subject: Vacation Rental Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing this letter to express our thoughts on the proposed Vacation Rentals ordinance. We understand that some renters can create excessive noise, however most seem to be in free standing Homes with multiple bedrooms and not in 1 bedroom condos.. Our 2nd major concern is with the ordinance is the increase in the annual permit fee for each unit to $900. This fee is an across the board increase and does not take into account that there are 4 and 5 bedrooms houses and 1 bedroom condos, and this amount creates undue hardship on those who have 1 bedroom condos. I am an owner of a 1 bedroom condo and for us to pay $900 per year and be limited to 32 times it can be rented is totally unfair. Let me give you an example. Our condo rents for about$150 per night in season. So the first 3 weeks of renting if we rent for 2 days on the weekend, (most of our rentals are for the weekends), would go toward paying the city fees. And in the summer we will not be able to get the $150 we get in season, it is more like $95. So off season it would take almost 5 weeks to pay this fee. Potentially this is over 10% of our income for the year! And that is not our net income, we have expenses! This is certainly undue hardship on a business. Also a concern is naming the 5 non paying guests who are allowed to be there in our own condo! First of all I don't know which of our friends or family might visit us this year. Nor should we have to report our personal usage to you the City of Palm Springs. We should be reporting rental usage that requires TOT charges only! The other item is having to send you notification that we are in compliance with the HOA. If we are out of compliance with our HOA, it should be the HOA that send us notification. This is not a city problem. These items are very disconcerting to us and we feel strongly they should be changed. Sincerely Robert B Hunt, Palm Springs Dean A Carlson, Palm Springs Bob Hunt HomeSmart Professionals 431 S Palm Canyon Drive Suite 100 Palm Springs Ca 92262 760-578-4003 License# 01041794 1 Cindy Berardi From: Jim Small <1978jimsmall@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 9:43 PM To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors;JR Roberts; David Ready; CityClerk; Joanne Bruggemans Subject: re: new ordinance Council Members: Please allow me to add my name to the long list of individuals that's opposing the new short term rental ordinance. I do not oppose the idea of an ordinance that serves the public and protects them from those who practice shabby stewardship of their rental properties, however, I oppose an ordinance that places an extreme burden on the property owner by increasing the yearly fee to an obscene level. I oppose this ordinance on the basis that it it not being studied at length and what the ramifications are going to be to the Palm Springs economy. I oppose the nearly 300% increase in the fee for owners without determining how devastating this can be on owners and the workers that they hire to maintain their properties. I understand that the short term rental market needs oversight, however, it cannot be at the expense of a property owner"s livelihood. Let"s enforce the current safeguards that are in place, implement a sliding scale for the yearly fee (perhaps based on square footage or number of bedrooms) instead of penalizing owners of small homes or small condominiums who operate on thin margins and cannot pass this huge increase onto its customers. I have only recently become a resident of Palm Springs with my vacation home purchase, however I have been vacationing here for the better part of the last 20-25 years. I feel that this ordinance will place an undue burden onto the property owner to comply, if there is the slightest hint of a violation, one can be forced to pay huge fines with no recourse, which would effectively put many property owners out of business along with all of the trades people that are used to maintain these properties. I sincerely hope that all of you on the council will take another look at this ordinance and at least make some changes to it so hard working property owners can feel pride about the services that they offer and let's all work together to promote Palm Springs as one of the premier vacation destinations in the world! Sincerely James Small i Cindy Berardi From: Ling Hwang <double.ling@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 11:33 PM To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors;A Roberts; Ginny Foat; Chris Mills Cc: David Ready; CityClerk; dholland@wss-law.com Subject: Maximum renters per house issue Dear Honorable Major and Council Members, Thank you for your hard work on the short term vacation rental issue. I know there are many facets to consider and it's not an easy task. My husband and I purchased a home last year solely based on the basis that we can rent out our house to support the monthly expenses. Without this income we would not be able to afford to own a house. My husband is a hairdresser and I am a personal assistant - we are not rich landlords. This is our only property that we own and it is our retirement fund. Our house used to be a dilapidated "crack house" as reported by our neighbors. They are all so thrilled that we purchased the house and removed the "eye sore" and "crack heads" from the neighborhood. We have contributed significantly to the value of our block. As a 5 bedroom house, we rely on being able to rent to 10 people or more to minimally cover the monthly expenses. With the proposed ordinance, if we can only rent to 8 people 32 times per year, it would significantly reduce our income. We are not a huge estate....but this is our castle. Our only castle! We are on a corner lot on almost a 1/4 acre lot. The house and yard is very spacious. We did not carve out "illegal" bedrooms - they are indeed "real" bedrooms with closets and ensuite bathrooms. We welcome any inspection so we can prove it is not a "frat house". We also don't rent to "partiers" - this house is geared for the multi-generational families who want to spend time together under one roof. We believe we offer a good product for those travelers. We ask that you consider the economic consequences if houses such as ours are limited to only 8 people. We think it is reasonable to grandfather those existing houses that have "legit" bedrooms to have 2 people per bedroom. We hope you will implement this idea and save us from selling our beautiful and beloved house. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ling Hwang t (NTrP:/I LMMIFRaMNMTML) SOURCE=TOPNAV- MOBILE) Petition statement to be delivered to Robert Moon,Mayor,Ginny Foat,Councilmember,Geoff Korn,Councilmembeg JR Roberts,Councilmember,and James Thompson,City Clerk New Vacation Rental Ordinance for Palm Springs Needs Further Changes Petition by Brian Wilson Ucontact creator.html?petition id=1162731 Name* Email* United States Address Address(cont.) City State' ZIP Code* Comment SIGN THE PETITION Note:By signing,you agree to receive email messages from MoveOn.org Civic Action and MoveOn.org Political Action.you may u nsubscribe at any time.[Privacy policy [http://petitions.moveon.org/privacy.htmq] PETITION STATEMENT Many of the latest proposed changes in the Vacation Rental Ordinance are great, but many of them are not. Ask the PS City Council to reconsider some key items, request that they utilize a third party economic study before implementation of any final decision, and suggest the creation of a mission statement to better define the future of Palm Springs, and how this new vacation rental policy fits into that future. There are currently 1,759 signatures. NEW goal-We need 2,000 signatures! PETITION BACKGROUND The Palm Springs Vacation Rental Subcommittee(consisting of Councilmembers JR Roberts and Geoff Kors) has completed the draft ordinance changes and will be presenting the proposal to the rest of the City Council this Cindy Berardi From: drew.rudman@gmail.com on behalf of Drew Rudman <drew@vrconnection.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 10:46 AM To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors;JR Roberts; David Ready; CityClerk; Joanne Bruggemans Subject: Palm Springs Vacation Rental Ordinance Changes Hello, My name is Drew Rudman and I am long time visitor,but relatively new vacation home owner and vacation rental operator here in Palm Springs. I purchased my property in Palm Springs back in March of 2016 after moving to southern California(San Diego)and selling a vacation home/rental in Lake Tahoe. I considered many Southern California communities, including other Coachella Valley cities, in which to purchase my vacation home/rental but decided on Palm Springs in a large part because it had a long history of being a tourist destination and a strong track record of being vacation rental friendly with tough,but,for the most part, fair regulations on the books. I'd like to know why I am now being punished for that decision? I have personally done nothing wrong. Followed all the rules. Paid all my taxes.Never had an incident. The house I purchased needed substantial work to consistently attract guests and I was not opposed to making those significant investments based on my calculated prospects of recouping those investments based on existing rules and regulations. I have now spent the past 9 months making those investments and improving the property only to have the rules changed on me,dramatically increasing my fees and significantly restricting my ability to rent the property. I am now being financially damaged both as a vacation rental business as well as expected decrease of the value of my property. I know many like to "poo-poo"the damage these changes will do to the real estate market here in Palm Springs,but you can use me as a case study: Had the new regulations been in effect when I was making my decision on where to purchase my vacation home, I would not have considered Palm Springs. With something like 30%of Palm Spring properties vacation homes,that is a significant chunk of the real estate market. Unfortunately, I can't make my decision"retroactively". Significant time and investments have already been made and will not be recouped with the changes being proposed. I am now being punished for following the rules as they were presented to me at the time of my decision. I respectively request that changes as significant as the ones being proposed be delayed until an economic impact study can be performed to truly understand the ramifications.You owe it to all Palm Springs constituents to fully understand changes as dramatic as the ones proposed. If that is for some reason untenable,then at least consider"grandfathering" in existing permit holders to the "rules of the road"as they were when they decided to invest in Palm Springs. That is only fair. I am not opposed to incremental adjustments to policies: increased fees and fines as warranted. But the changes proposed amount to wholesale re-writing of the rules that dramatically change the nature of the practice. It is unfair, most likely unconstitutional,and certainly un-American. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Best Regards, Drew Drew Rudman 858-345-1256 1 Cindy Berardi From: Bryan Schopp <bschopp56@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 3:33 PM To: Robert Moon;JR Roberts; Geoff Kors; Ginny Foat; CityClerk Subject: Vacation Rentals Dear Mayor Moon and the Palm Springs Council Members, I wanted to send you one more email prior to tonight's Meeting regarding Vacation Rental or STR's in Palm Springs. I will make as brief of bullet points that I can for your consideration. 1. I find it hard to believe that your are going to make a decision on any changes without first getting a complete financial study along with an impact analysis. 2. I have to date not seen any study that has vetted or validated the call in log of the Hot line. I have not seen any comments on how many were legitimate calls, and how many were for normal life noises one should expect when living in a neighborhood, IE: children playing in pools, people talking outside, gardeners, or normal noises that one should expect during daylight hours and before 10 PM and after 8 AM. I know from my experience as a Vacation Rental Management owner that most of the calls that we have received were all during the hours of 8 AM and 10 PM for children playing in pools, people jumping in pools, laughing, and normal talking levels. Not for the so called weekend warriors parties that from what I can tell from reactions of the city council and mayor is believed to be a rampant problem. Do the research, get the numbers and make a judgment based on facts not perceptions. What is the extent of the perceived problems? Is it real or are you hearing a few vocal residents. Per the 1090 Hot line calls made with a population of over 47,000 residents if each call was made by a different individual that is only 2.4% of our population. Consider that the average, once studied is more likely to show that the number of individuals that called the HOT Line is a 1/3 or even less due to one person making several phone calls then you are looking at less then 1%of the population that feels the problem is worth making a phone call. So by all means lets make new rules for that group. Democracy? 3. With the top 50 homes with the highest number of calls being only 2.85% of the total Licensed STR's having just under 84% of the calls it seems to me that the problems expressed and apparently given a great deal of attention is an obvious minority of the STR's. Then you would also need to vet the call log to validate if they are true violations or not. I would guess that once done you would find that close to if not more then 50% of the calls are not valid violations of the codes. Of the Top 50 only 30 were ever sited. 30 / 1936 is 1.5% of the current permitted STWs. This is not a major problem that requires more regulations. It is very apparent that the decision for the changes is very much an emotional one and not one based on facts or data since the time has not been taken to get the data. Not a reasonable way to make such drastic changes. Address the problem STR's with enforcement and then see what other changes need to take place. To make new regulations that do nothing to stop the problem properties is premature to say the least. How will limiting the number of contracts to 32 make a change to the problem of uncontrolled renters? It only stands to punish those who have managed their STR's correctly and have had no issues or complaints. 4. With the City admittedly not having taken much in the way of an enforcement to date of the existing regulations, (All be it with no current real budget set for enforcement) that making additional rules is perhaps premature. The city has taken in over$6 million in TOT from the STR's and has not allocated the funds for enforcement. I also fail to understand the request to raise the License fee to cover the new proposed enforcement budget. Why is none of TOT revenue allocated to the enforcement of the program. Want your cake and to eat it as well I guess. t 5. Lastly, but certainly there is much more to consider, with the city making noise that is negative to our vacationers, and putting a negative note on it you are taking a huge gamble in today's Social Media world of creating a problem that could drastically hurt the city. If our valued visitor thinks that we want to limit our tourist and have a negative attitude they will stop coming and spread the word via social media like wild fire. It would not take much and the comments would not even have to be all true. You also are going to greatly affect our real estate business. As the housing market across the country has risen we see far fewer who can also afford a second home. The only way many of them are able to do so is by renting the home out which allows them to afford it. HGTV has several shows that address this issue. With out the ability to rent them out we will lose a great many of our buyers and our market will greatly depreciate. We will lose visitors, in turn we will lose restaurants, shops, entertainment etc. In other words we will all lose. If some one chooses to live in a vibrant resort community and expects to not have any noise even outside then they are not being realistic. Because we had several years of a sleepy town with so many vacant or second part time homes some of our residents came to expect that having neighbors did not mean you would hear them. Well that is not normal in any neighborhood living in any town. What I have seen happen is some have just decided that vacation homes is bad and now will call the hot line if they hear any noise at all. With living in the desert with so many pool homes one should expect to hear others using there pool as well. I hope and also expect that any decision that our city council makes is one that is based on facts and data. Not emotions or a few squeaky wheels. Are you sure you are not just listening to chicken little? Are you certain of the extent of the problem. The few numbers that I am able to get do not show this to be a wide spread problem that requires more rules. More rules is not always the answer. Enforcement of the existing rules would be the obvious starting point. Allocate the funds from the TOT revenue and give it a chance. Bryan Schopp 200 N. Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 BRE# 03178748 Cell: 760-861-4404 Email: bschopp2palmspringsdreamhome.com Website: www.palmspringsdreamhome.com Facebook:www.facebook.com/palmspringsdreamhome 2