HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/5/2016 - STAFF REPORTS - 3.B.��� PALM sp4
iy
a
u w
a
f
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2016
LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE RENTAL OF
APARTMENTS AS VACATION RENTALS AND AMENDING THE PALM
SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Chief of Staff/City Clerk
SUMMARY
The City Council will consider introduction of an ordinance to prohibit the conversion of
apartments (2 or more units) to short-term vacation rentals. The ordinance provides
that an apartment, or an apartment unit, that had a valid vacation rental certificate
issued prior to April 15, 2016, may continue until January 1, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION:
Waive reading of the text and introduce by title only on first reading Ordinance
No. , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTIONS 5.25.020 AND 5.25.030 OF, AND ADDING SECTION 5.25.075
TO, THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE RENTAL OF
APARTMENTS AS VACATION RENTALS."
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The City currently allows and has adopted extensive regulations for vacation rental
properties. On April 20, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordnance No. 1891, an interim
ordinance that prohibited the rental of apartments as vacation rentals. Ordinance
No. 1891 was scheduled to expire on July 31, 2016; however, the City Council on July
13, 2016, adopted ordinance 1897, extending the interim regulations to
November 30, 2016.
The City Council Vacation Rental Subcommittee (Councilmember Kors and
Councilmember Roberts) have conducted three meetings regarding vacation rentals.
Two of the meetings were specifically conducted regarding apartments as vacation
rentals. The Subcommittee submits the proposed regulations on apartments, as the
current interim ordinance is set to expire. Further meetings are in process, for further
public comment and the review of all other vacation rental regulations and enforcement.
CTEM NO. %
City Council Staff Report
October 5, 2016 -- Page 2
Vacation Rental Regulations
The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1), as recommended by the Vacation Rental
Subcommittee, would prohibit apartments [defined as two (2) or more dwelling units], as
vacation rentals. Any existing apartment, or apartment unit, that has a current valid
Vacation Rental Certificate may continue to operate as a short-term vacation rental until
January 1, 2108, after which all short-term rentals must cease.
ONE -PS has recommended the City Council prohibit apartments from being used for
vacation rentals. Protect our Neighborhoods is in support of this recommendation. At
the Vacation Rental Subcommittee meeting, a member of the Vacation Rental
Managers Association, verbally stated the Association is not necessarily opposed to the
regulations regarding apartments.
The current interim regulations define apartments as five (5) or more units. The
proposed regulations define apartments as two (2) or more units, and will affect
properties such as a duplex or a triplex. During the interim regulations an apartment
owner with five units, obtained a building permit to "eliminate" one unit, now making it
four units, as a means to obtain a vacation rental certificate for the four unit building.
It is not the intent of the ordinance to prohibit properties such as an Estate property with
one or more units, nor a property with a casita from being used as a vacation rental.
However, Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.23.14(D)(4) does provide additional
regulation on the accessory units as follows:
4. The following additional requirements shall apply to accessory second units in all
residential districts:
a. The owner of the accessory second unit shall live within the primary
dwelling unit or the accessory second unit, and may rent the other unit. The
two units shall not be concurrently rented, excepting upon request from the
property owner, the Director may grant the owner a temporary exception to the
occupancy requirement for a period not to exceed twenty four (24) months.
b. Rental of the accessory second unit, separate from the primary unit, must
be for periods of 30 days or more; however, such minimum requirement shall
not apply where the entire property, including the primary unit and the
accessory second dwelling unit, is rented or leased to the same person under
one lease or rental agreement.
c. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory second unit, the
property owner shall record with the county recorder's office an agreement with
the city setting forth the property owner's acknowledgement and agreement
with the requirements of this Chapter, in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney.
d. An accessory second unit shall not be metered separately from the
primary dwelling unit for gas, electricity, and water.
Staff has identified (Attachment 2) a list of properties that have a current vacation rental
certificate or certificates that may be affected. Some of these properties will need
02
City Council Staff Report
October 5, 2016 -- Page 3
Vacation Rental Regulations
further investigation to determine if the property is an Estate property or single family
with an accessory unit, rather than a multi -family apartment.
The City Council recently held a Strategic Planning Session and developed several one-
year priorities. One priority was "Maintain and increase affordable housing." The
Subcommittee and City Staff believe the proposed ordinance is consistent with the City
Council's established one-year priority.
The Desert Sun recently reported "Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent"
(Attachment 3). The report provides an overview of housing that is affordable. For
instance, the Desert Sun reported since 2012, the per -square -foot rents in the City of
Palm Springs has jumped 17 percent from 2012 to 2015, and household incomes have
fallen back to 1995 levels. The report further reports that over 50% renters in the City of
Palm Springs are "cost -burdened" renters who spend more than 30 percent of their
income on housing costs.
The City's General Plan (Attachment 4) provides a listing of Palm Springs Subsidized
Multiple -Family Housing. This is housing that meets the legal criteria of affordable
housing, and indicates that 485 units are "at -risk" that could, but not necessarily will, be
transferred to market rate housing once the subsidized housing obligations are met.
Additionally, any subsidized affordable housing could be lost due to default or
bankruptcy such as the loss of 129 units at the Desert Flower Apartments due to
foreclosure.
The City may be lacking in apartment units. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
Palm Springs has the following housing characteristics.
TYPE
1 unit, detached (generally SFR)
1 unit, attached (generally condos)
2 units
3 or 4 units
5 to 9 units
10 to 19 units
20 or more units
Mobile Homes
NUMBER OF UNITS
12,989
10,439
482
1,497
2,477
2,622
3,527
2,246
According to the Building Department, since 2006-07 no new apartment building permits
have been issued, with the exception of the permits issued in 2009-10 for the
subsidized Rosa Gardens apartments. Additionally, some prior housing that was
affordable, such as the newly opened Latitude 33, is being remodeled to higher rent
properties.
The median household income in the City of Palm Springs is $45,547. According to a
recent report from the Palm Springs Regional Association of Realtors, the median price
of a detached home is $548,540 up 5% in the last 12 months, and up 63.7% from the
03
City Council Staff Report
October 5, 2016 -- Page 4
Vacation Rental Regulations
2011 low. The Coachella Valley Economic Partnership reports the median home value
is $353,000, thus 20% down -payment is over $70,000, or nearly 150% of the median
annual household income. Financing the remaining $280,000 at a 30-year fixed rate at
4 percent, is $1,750 per month with taxes and insurance, is nearly 50% of the median
household income. As such, renting an apartment may be the only available housing
alternative. Only 22% of City employees reside in the City of Palm Springs.
The current Zoning Code provides a process to convert a multi -unit property to a hotel
which includes review by building, fire and planning to provide important consumer
protections. The conversion of apartments to short-term vacation rentals, as currently
allowed in the Code, avoids the review and regulatory process. The City has received
one vacation rental application for a property currently with a land use of HOTEL, and
has received another inquiry. The currently application is being held, pending City
Council action on the proposed ordinance.
If adopted, Staff will not issue new vacation rental certificates to apartments, and current
apartments may continue to operate with a valid certificate until January 1, 2018. This
grace period will provide a reasonable amortization period for the owners to: rent the
units for 29-days or more, rent the property under long-term lease, secure permits and
approval to convert the property to a hotel, transfer the property or otherwise cease use
as short-term vacation rentals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Loss of Vacation Rental fees and Transient Occupancy Tax that could be generated by
the conversion and rental of apartments to vacation rental units for less than 28-days,
potentially offset by increased TOT for these stays at hotels or other vacation rental
properties.
Currently, the City has 63 permitted small hotels (under 25 rooms) that may provide a
similar lodging experience to the tourist.
;4ESTHOMPSON
ef of Staff/ ity Clerk
9 j
aw
DOUG�S C. HOLLAND
City A rney
DAVID H. READY
City Manager
04
City Council Staff Report
October 5, 2016 -- Page 5
Vacation Rental Regulations
Attachments:
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Property List
3. Desert Sun Report January 9, 2016
4. Table 3-11 Palm Springs General Plan
05
m
aouauipao pasodoad
� 1N3WHOViid
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 5.25.020 AND
5.25.030 OF, AND ADDING SECTION 5.25.075 TO, THE
PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE
RENTAL OF APARTMENTS AS VACATION RENTALS
City Attorney Summary
This Ordinance amends the City's Vacation Rental
ordinance to prohibit the conversion of apartments (as
defined) to vacation rentals in the City. Any vacation rental
certificate issued prior to April 15, 2016 shall remain in effect
and may be extended through January 1, 2018 and such
certificate shall terminate and any vacation rental use of any
apartment unit covered by such certificate shall cease.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs finds:
A. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs has adopted a Land Use Element
and a Housing Element of its General Plan. The Land Use Element sets forth policies
and goals toward the protection of land use planning that is protective of the social
impacts of land uses and the Housing Element sets forth the City's policies and goals
towards providing a supply and range of housing opportunities throughout the City.
B. The City Council has expressed concern regarding the potentially adverse
impacts that the conversion of rental apartment units to vacation rental uses may have
on the City's rental housing stock and resident socio-economic population mix.
C. There is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare
because conversions of apartment units to vacation rentals could displace apartment
residents and drive these residents out of Palm Springs, eroding the City's resident
socio-economic population mix but also adversely impact City business that rely on
residents in that mix as a valuable employee pool.
D. The City Council specifically finds there is a reasonable relationship between the
conversion of apartment units to vacation rentals and the diminution in the supply of
affordable housing thereby creating undue hardships for residents displaced by the
conversion to vacation rentals and will otherwise adversely affect the availability and
cost of affordable housing throughout the City.
E. The purpose of this ordinance is to (1) ensure a reasonable balance in the
availability of rental and ownership housing in the City and to maintain opportunities for
individual choice in the tenure, type, cost, and location of housing; (2) maintain an
adequate supply of housing; and (3) avoid displacement of and undue hardship to
residents of the City who may be required to move from the community due to a
shortage of housing caused in part by conversions of apartment units to vacation
07
Ordinance No.
Page 2
rentals.
F. This Ordinance supersedes and succeeds an interim moratorium ordinance that
prohibited the conversion of apartments to vacation rental units and prevented the short
term rental of apartments during the period of time the interim moratorium ordinance
was in effect; however, any apartment unit included in a vacation rental certificate
issued prior to April 15, 2016 was exempted from the interim moratorium. The Council
finds that maintaining and continuing this exemption of apartment units subject to
vacation rental certificates issued prior to April 15, 2016 until January 1, 2018 will
provide a reasonable amortization period to owners of such apartment units within
which they may recoup the costs they reasonably invested in each such apartment unit
for use as a vacation rental.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, ordains:
SECTION 1. Section 5.25.020 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code is amended to read:
5.25.020 Findings.
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
(a) The use of single-family dwelling units for Vacation Rental lodging purposes
provides alternate visitor serving lodging opportunities in the City; however, such uses
in certain single-family neighborhoods may have effects that can best be addressed
through an appropriate city regulatory program.
(b) The establishment of a regulatory program for Vacation Rental lodging will
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.
(c) Limiting Vacation Rental lodging to single-family dwelling units and prohibiting
Vacation Rental lodging in apartments will preserve and protect residential housing
stock in the City.
(d) The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations for Vacation Rental lodging
within single-family residential neighborhoods and the related use of residential property
thereby enabling the City to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
(e) 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.
SECTION 2. Section 5.25.030 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code is amended to add
the following definitions and amend the definition of "Vacation Rental:"
1:
Ordinance No. _
Page 3
"Apartment" means a residential unit in a multi -family development of two (2) or
more dwelling units where one or more units is rented or leased for occupancy as a
residence for one individual or family.
"Single-family dwelling" means a detached building designed primarily for the use
of a single family and no portion which is to be rented out separately.
"Vacation Rental" means a single-family dwelling, or any portion thereof, rented
for occupancy for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes for a period of twenty-eight
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.
SECTION 3. Section 5.25.075 is added to the Palm Springs Municipal Code to read:
5.25.075 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 rental that is in violation
of any provision of Chapter 5.25 of this Code.
(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 rental certificate issued prior to April 15, 2016 for the period of time
between April 15, 2016 through January 1, 2018. The purpose of this deferral of the
enforcement of the provisions of this Section for persons or entities issued valid
vacation rental certificates prior to April 15, 2016
SECTION 4. Subsection (d) of Section 5.25.075 shall be deemed repealed and no
longer in effect as of 12:01 am on January 2, 2018 and all persons and entities shall
fully comply with the provisions of Subsection (a) of Section 5.25.075 of this Code.
09
Ordinance No.
Page 4
SECTION 5. In the event any term or provision of this Ordinance is to any extent
invalid or incapable of being enforced, such term or provision shall be excluded to the
extent such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability and all other terms and provisions
shall remain in full force and effect.
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 DAY OF 2016.
ROBERT MOON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
10
Ordinance No.
Page 5
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 a regular
meeting of the Palm Springs City Council on the _ day of , 2016, and adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of _, 2016, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
City of Palm Springs, California
11
ATTACHMENT 2
Property List
12
City of
Palm Spring
Vacation Rental Property List
N) # ,
silla+aet,
Dart
fiBEt
400
980 E Parocela PI
Palm Springs
CA
92264
APT
Fourplex
948
351 Cottonwood Road
1
IPalm Springs
CA
92262
1
APT
Fourplex
1103
1881 5 Palm Canyon Drive
[Palm Springs
CA
92264
4
MFR
Duplex
11412
1371
E Mesquite Ave
A
IPalm Springs
CA
92262
1
MFD
Triplex
11412
137
EMesquite Ave
B
IPalm Springs
CA
92262
1
MFD
11412 I
137
E Mesquite Ave
C
IPalm Springs
CA
92262
2
MFD
11674 I
962
E Parocela Place
1
[Palm Springs
I CA
92264
0
I C-112
15 unit, listed as commercial property.
11674 I
962 E Parocela Place
2
[Palm Springs
CA
92264
2
I C-112
I
11674 I
962( E Parocela Place
3
[Palm Springs
CA
[ 92264
1
[ C-112
[
11674 I
962'', E Parocela Place
4
(Palm Springs
CA
I 92264
1
I C-112
[
11674 I
9621E Parocela Place
5
(Palm Springs
CA
[ 92264
2
I C-R2
I
11729 1
350'IW Via Lola
(Palm Springs
CA
[ 92262
4
[ MFR
IDuplex
11807 [
544 I W Arenas Road
I
Palm Springs
CA
1 92262
4
I MFR
(Triplex
12081 1
140'' W Via Lola
I
Palm Springs
CA
I 92262
2
I APT
138 Units (17 STVR)
12177 1
180 E Sonora Road
I
(Palm Springs
CA
I 92264
8
I C-112
(Six units
12192 1
542 5 Calle Santa Rosa
I
(Palm Springs
CA
92264
2
I MFR
ITriplex
12232 1
525 E Cottonwood Road
11
(Palm Springs
[ CA
I 92262
1
I APT
IFourplex
12233 1
525 E Cottonwood Road
12
1Palm Springs
1 CA
92262 1
1
I APT
I
12237 1
525 E Cottonwood Road
13
1Palm Springs
I CA
92262 1
1
I APT
I
12238 I
525 E Cottonwood Road
14
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92262 1
1
I APT
I
12243 1
1076 E Deepwell Road
I
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92264 1
6
I MFD
IListed at MFD but single unit
12254 1
535 Tamarisk Road
(
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92262 1
5
I MFD
IDuplex
12305 1
775 N Mission Road
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92262 1
4
I MFD
ITriplex (SFR)
12425 1
130 E Morongo Road
I
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92264 1
3
I MFD
IDuplex
12487 1
770 E Chuckwalla Road
12
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92262 1
1
1 MFD
IFive units
12500 1
2724, N Junipero Ave
ID
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92262 1
1
1 APT
ITriplex
12503 1
13051 N Indian Canyon Drive
C1
lPalm Springs
I CA
I 92262 1
0
1 APT
(Unable to determine number of total units in complex
12504 1
1305
N Indian Canyon Drive
IC2
[Palm Springs
I CA
92262 1
0
1 APT
I
12610 1
351
Cottonwood Road
12
IPalm Springs
I CA
92262 I
0
1 APT
IFourplex
12611 I
351
Cottonwood Road
13
1Palm Springs
1 CA
92262 I
0
1 APT
1
12612 +
351
Cottonwood Road
14
IPalm Springs
I CA
92262 I
2
1 APT
I
2396 [
18211
E Amado Road
11
]Palm Springs
I CA
1 92262 I
1
1 APT
]Five units
2621 1
18211 E Amado Road
12
1 Palm Springs
I CA
1 92262 I
1
1 APT
1
2622
1821 EAmado Road
13
]Palm Springs
I CA
1 92262 I
1
I APT
1
2623
1821'1E Amado Road
14
]Palm Springs
I CA
1 92262 I
1
1 APT
1
2624
1821�i E Amado Road
15
1Palm Springs
I CA
1 92262 I
2
1 APT
1
2692
1340I E Camino Amapola
IA
IPalm Springs
1 CA
1 92264
2
1 MFD
IDuplex
2693
1340E Camino Amapola
I
IPalm Springs
1 CA
1 92264
1
MFD
I
Page 1
MFD and Apt 9-29-16
F2697L-
6323 Camino Real
I2705 520 E Chuckwalla Road
I2706 5201 E Chuckwalla Road
I2707 520' E Chuckwalla Road
12797 267I W Overlook Road
12929 133 East Ocotillo Ave
I2930 133 East Ocotillo Ave
12931 133 East Ocotillo Ave
12932 1331 East Ocotillo Ave
I3077 21201,N Junipero
3077 2120,N Junipero
3077 2120,N Junipero
3077 2120,N Junipero
3081 821 5 Avenida Evelita
3159 970 Parocella Place
3159 970 Parocella Place
3184 7775an Lorenzo
3185 505, W. Sepulveda
3257 111 Canyon Rock Road
3373 764, N. Palm Canyon
3393 795 E Chuckwalla Rd
3393 795 E Chuckwalla Rd
3393 795 E Chuckwalla Rd
3403 504 5 Calle Encilia
Total: 53 Properties
Y-"
A
' -
I o1Y
SLetU
ft
S�+
.I '�
I
iNoas
Palm Springs
CA
92264
1
APT Triplex
1
Palm Springs
CA
92262
2
MFD Triplex I
2
Palm Springs
CA
92262
2
MFD I
3
Palm Springs
CA
92262
2
MFD I
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
2
MFD Duplex I
1
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
1
APT Five units I
2
Palm Springs
CA
92264
1
APT I
3
Palm Springs
CA
92264
1
APT I
14
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
2
APT I
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
2
APT Main house with 3 separate units I
IA
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
1
I APT I
IB
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
1
I APT
IC
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
1
I APT I
I
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
6
I MFR Per planning: Two units, legal nonconforming multi -family residence in R-1
11
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
2
1 APT IFourplex
12
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
1
I APT
13
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
1
1 MFR I Five units
I
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
4
1 MFD
I
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
3
1 MFR I Duplex
I
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
1
1 APT ISingle apartment in the Kosher Sampson building
11
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
4
1 MFD I Five units that were converted to three untis in April 2016
12
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
1
1 MFD I
13
Palm Springs
CA I
92262
1
1 MFD I
11
Palm Springs
CA I
92264
1
1 MFD ITriplex
143 units
Page 2
MFD and Apt 9-29-16
ATTACHMENT 3
Desert Sun Report
January 9, 2016
15
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent http://www.desertsun.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/01/07/rising-rents-coachel[a-valley...
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent
Rosalie Muruhv. The Desert Sun
(Photo: Jay Calderon,(The Desert
Sun)
12:01 p.m. PST January 9, 2016
For renters hoping to buy their first homes, the transition has seldom been harder.
Here's the situation, according to an annual study from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies: The
percentage of Americans who rent their homes is at its highest level in 50 years. Nearly half of renters spend
more than the recommended 30 percent of their income on housing. And between 2001 and 2014, rents rose 7
percent nationwide while inflation -adjusted incomes fell by 9 percent.
At the same time, banks tightened lending standards after the recession, which makes it harder for many young
adults to qualify for mortgage loans.
"A number of factors have fueled soaring demand. The bursting of the housing bubble played an important role," wrote the authors of the study, which was
released in December. "Household incomes have also fallen back to 1995 levels and access to mortgage credit has tightened, making the transition to
homeownership more difficult for many who might otherwise buy homes."
In the Coachella Valley, the median renting household earns just $30,200 per year, according to census data. Nearly 58 percent of renters break the "30
percent rule." And in November, the median home cost $290,000, according to real estate research firm CoreLogic DataQuick — meaning a 20 percent
down payment would be nearly twice as large as the median renter's annual income.
"The thing I feel really guilty about is, with rent, that money is gone. With a mortgage, at least I'm getting something in return," said Alexis Ortega, 28, who
shares a one -bedroom apartment in Palm Springs. "But it feels almost unattainable because of the down payment. I could put a lot of savings into a down
payment, but then I wouldn't have any savings."
USA TODAY: No let-uD seen in rent hikes this vear (/storv/monev/2016/01/04/apartment-rent-increases/78270848/)
Palm Springs leads Coachella Valley rent growth
Ortega, a Stanford graduate who works at the Desert AIDS Project, used to rent a bedroom in her father's house. But after years of sharing the home
I of 8 9/20/2016 9:03 AM
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent
http: //www.desertsun.comistory/money/real-estate/20l6/01 /07/rising-rents-coachel la-val ley...
with four other adults, she and her partner decided to move out. They now split a $950-per-month one -bedroom apartment.
As soon as you move out, all that money just dwindles," said Ortega, who said the best part of living at home was the money she saved.
Roxanne Terwelp, 26, has already been renting in Palm Springs for five years. When she and a roommate moved into their two -bedroom unit near
downtown five years ago, rent was just $875. It's crept up to $1,000, and Terwelp said units on the market now ask $1,200. And since their staircase
overlooks the cranes rising over downtown, she's worried about continuing increases.
According to data from real estate research firm Real Answers, rental prices in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties increased 8.5 percent from the
third quarter of 2014 to the same period in 2015. Across the state, rents increased by 9.1 percent on average.
Since 2012, rents per square foot in the Inland Empire have increased by 14 percent, according to Real Answers. Zillow data shows that Palm Springs
outpaced that: per -square -foot rental prices jumped 17 percent from 2012 to 2015.
Rent per square foot, by city
Rental prices in many Coachella Valley cities fell during the recession, then began to
rise again in 2013. Since then, Palm Springs, Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs
have seen the steadiest growth in per -square -foot prices. In mid -valley cities, rents
are similar to what they were five years ago.
— Indian Wells
\ — Rancho Miragf
$1.50 Palm Springs
— Palm Desert
$1.00
La Quinta
— Cathedral City
— Coachella
— Indio
y — Mecca
— Desert Hot
�— Springs
ryO^`L ryOr`rL ryO^'� ryO^"� ryOg0. �O,�b �O^4j rp
2 of 8 9/20/2016 9:03 AM
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent
http://www.desertsun.com/story/money/real-estate/20l6/O l /O7/ri sing-rents-coachel la -valley...
Conventional financial wisdom says a household should spend no more than a third of its income on housing costs, including rent, utilities and insurance.
Even with a roommate, Terwelp said that's "impossible" for her. The Banning native works four different jobs downtown, earning $13 per hour on average.
"My entire rental history, that (30 percent rule) has never been true," she said. "With air conditioning bills and the cost of rent here, that's never happened
for me."
According to census data, 58 percent of Coachella Malley renters spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, including rent and utility
payments. For comparison, only 43 percent of the valley's homeowners spend the same amount of their earnings on housing.
of renters who are cost -burdened
"C=oa
" nters are those who spend more than 30 percent of their income
onts, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. In every Coachella Malley
city except Indian Wells, more than half of renters are at least moderately
cost -burdened.
100
75
25
Japed '`Od<avG��Goa°bNoSQi\gaaa3Ae\\a �od�V16wN�a 0e° ��ea�590a9 OPOb
..ac�e��a Ga oasat� P P �aa
3 of 8 9/20/2016 9:03 AM
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent
http://www.desertsun.comistory/nwney/real-estate/? 016/01 /07/rising-rents-coache] la-val ley...
Experts: High rents can slow homebuying
Rather than pushing renters to buy homes faster, experts say high rents can actually slow the homebuying process. The more renters spend, the less
they can save for a down payment.
"Rent is really high — you're talking $1,500, $1,600 in rent. To say, `stop doing that and buy a house' — that's easier said than done, because you've got
to have a down payment," said Beverly Fitzgerald, outgoing president of the California Desert Association of Realtors.
Fitzgerald said lenders prefer buyers who can make the largest down payments possible, ideally 20 percent of the purchase price.
"I think the down payment is quite sizeable as a barrier," added Rodney Ramcharan, director of research at the University of Southern California's Lusk
Center for Real Estate. Ramcharan pointed to strict lending laws imposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which forbid banks from loaning
to people with too much debt or too little income. For securing a loan, he said, a 20 percent down payment "is pretty necessary these days."
Juliana Marroquin, 22, is saving for a down payment now. She and her husband talked to a lender last summer and learned they could only get approved
for a $100,000 loan. So they're leaving their two -bedroom apartment — $900 per month in Palm Springs — and moving back in with her in-laws.
"I've been looking at the math," Marroquin said. "If we really stick to our budget, we can do it in two years" — save for a down payment, that is.
A December 2015 survey by the National Association of Realtors found that 94 percent of renters younger than 35 want to eventually buy a home.
Agencies like the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and California Housing Finance Agency offer programs for first-time
buyers that can lower down oavments (/story/monev/oersonatfinance/2015/02/15/3-down-oavments-lure-first-time-homebuvers/23424759/l. In Riverside
County in 2014, the average down payment was 15.6 percent, according to real estate research firm RealtyTrac. More than a quarter of all down
payments were less than three percent of the purchase price.
►.. USC's Ramcharan explained that, while some buyers qualify for special programs like these, banks remain reluctant to lend to people with little savings or
ca poor credit.
4of8
9/20/2016 9:03 AM
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent
http://www.desertsun.conilstory/money/real-estatel2O l6lO l /07/rising-rents-coachel la-val ley...
"I think it's hugely different. I think it's fundamentally different," said Ramcharan, comparing today's market to that of the bubble years ago. "During the
boom, what we saw was lending standards falling quite sharply, because people tended to be very optimistic about... the path of house prices. Those
expectations are no longer there."
THE DESERT SUN: Affordable housina: Little fundino_ to meet oreat need (/storv/monev/real-estate/2015/08/21/affordable-housing-little-fundina-
meet-great-need/32157599/)
Generation rent?
In that National Association of Realtors survey, 53 percent of young adults said they couldn't afford to buy homes. But the second most common answer,
given by 19 percent of respondents, was that they simply weren't ready to commit to a house. Facing job and family changes, they needed flexibility.
And builders are starting to respond to demand. Between 2004 and 2006, around 12 percent of all units that received building permits in Riverside County
were in duplexes or apartment buildings, according to census records. Between 2012 and 2014, these units made up 25 percent of the county's new
housing.
Steve Huffman renovated two Palm Springs apartment complexes in 2015: Deepwell Apartments and Latitude 33, formerly Whispering Palms Apartments.
The second property, which sits just a block from downtown's Indian Canyon Drive and has been largely gutted and rebuilt, asks $905 for studio units and
$1,275 for two -bedrooms.
They're among the priciest rentals in Palm Springs, Huffman acknowledges. But he thinks the 121 units will be full in February.
"One thing Palm Springs lacked was multi -family housing that matched the new job base (brought in by) higher -end hotels," Huffman said. "The housing
stock for renters is extremely old. We're not targeting vacation rentals, we're targeting people that live and work and call Palm Springs their home."
Included in this market are people Huffman calls "dual renters by choice" — professionals who rent apartments as weekend homes rather than buying
condos. People who prefer to rent but still want a luxury feel "is a new phenomenon that, frankly. I think we're creating," Huffman said.
How many people rent?
Renting is most common on the edges of the Coachella Valley — more than half of
households in Desert Hot Springs rent, as do 47 percent of households in Mecca
ry and 43 percent in Palm Springs. In Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, less than a
c quarter of the population rents.
5 of 8 9/20/2016 9:03 AM
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rem
http: //www.desertsun.conilstory/money/real-estate/20l6/O 1 /07/rising-rents-coachelia-valley..
Indeed, households earning $75,000 or more per year accounted for about 60 percent of growth in the renter population since 2011, according to
Harvard's study.
In Alexis Ortega's eight -unit apartment complex, most renters are weekenders or snowbirds. Ortega said she doesn't want to rent forever, and a friend
who's a real estate agent is trying to talk her into buying a condo. But she's worried about tying herself to an investment as large as a home, especially
because she's not sure she wants to stay in Palm Springs long-term.
"For a while, the idea of buying a home didn't really appeal to me," Ortega said. "But then, as you grow older, the idea of buying a home, if it's
well -priced... And there's the reality of being a person with a partner," she continued, trailing off
N
"(Renting) works now," Ortega said. "I think the time when I start to think about other possibilities (will come), but I'm not able to make certain investments,
6 of 8 9/20/2016 9:03 AM
Millennials priced out of Palm Springs rent
http://www.deserisun.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/01 /07/rising-rents-coacheI la-val ley..
like in real estate, now."
Rosalie Murphy covers real estate and business at The Desert Sun. Reach her at rosalie.murphy@desertsun.com or on Twitter @rozmurph.
Buy Photo
(Photo: Jay Calderon/The Desert Sun)
Read or Share this story: http://desert.sn/l OSzPkX
7of8
9/20/2016 9:03 AM
ATTACHMENT 4
Palm Springs General Plan
Table 3-11
23
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 3.11
Palm Springs Subsidized Multiple -Family Housing
Form of
Subsidy
Development Name
Type of Unit
Assistance
Total Units
Terminates
Status
Sunnyview Villas
Family
Section 221(d)(4)
44
2065
Not at Risk
2950 N. Indian Canyon
- Section 8
Palos Verdes Villas
Family
LIHTC, CaIHFA, &
98 (20%VLI))
2025
t Risk
392 E. Stevens Road
RDA funds
Racquet Club
Family
Mortgage
9 units
2018
Not at Risk'
2383 E. Racquet Club
Revenue Bond
Cane de Ca los I & II
Family
Mortgage
8 units
2018
Not at Risk'
3721-3989 E. Calls de Carlos
Revenue Bond
Nightengale Manor
Family
Mortgage
10 units
2068
Not at Risk'
2951 De Anza Road
Revenue Bond
Pacific Palms Apartments
Family, Senior
MRB, LIHTC,
��
At s
423 S. Calls El Segundo
Section 8
Tahquitz Court Apartments
Family
Tax Exempt Bond
7
2023
At Risk
2890 E. Tahquitz Canyon
. (LI
Coyote Run I Apartments
Family
LIHTCIRDA
140
2023
At Risk
3601 N. Sunrise Way
Coyote Run 11 Apartments
Family
LIHTCIRDA
66
2067
Not at risk
3401 N Sunrise Way
(LI)
Vista Del Monte
1207 E Vista Chino
Senior
HUD Section 202
52
2026
Not at Risk
La VentanaHeritage Apartments
San ors
RDA Funds
136
Not at Risk
300 S Calle El Segundo
rental)
(68 LI & MID
Vista Serena
1210 E Vista Chino
Senior
Section 202
97
2026
Not at Risk
Palm Spdngs Pointe
Senior Apartments
Senior
CaIHFA, Section 8
115
2024- Just ext.
Not at Risk
3200 Bahsto Rd
(voucher)
1024-
061
Rosa Gardens Apartments
Family
LAHTCA2DAICa1H
55
2066
Not at Risk
Rancheria del Sol
Family
Section236(d)(1)
Project -Based
76
2006- Just ext.
Not at Risk
303 S. Calle El Segundo
Section 8; Title A
to 2044
Seminole Garden Apartments
Family
Section 221(d)(3)
60
2042 - Just ext.
Not at Risk
2607 S. Linden Way
LIHTC in 2002
to 2057
Vista Sunrise - New
Individuals
HOME; LIHTC;
80
2061
Not at Risk
1201 Vista Chino
Citv; CaIHFA
(VLI & LI)
Sahara Mobile Homes
Seniors,
RDA
I
254
2050+
Not at Risk
1955 S. Camino Real
Families
(127 VLI & LI)
300 S. Calls El Segundo La Ventana
Family
_RDA; MPROP
(LI & MI)
2026
Not at risk
'Housing Authority Owned. It is the City's
intent to renew income
restric8ons on these projects.
Source: City of Palm Springs, 201307 :
Caldomia Housing Partnership, Revised May 2006.
s �A'
Jn
r.{S+a{ II
Notations:
CaIHFA: California Housing Finance Authority
LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credits
RDA: Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency
MPROP: Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program
MRB: Mortgage Revenue Bond
Palm Springs 2014-2021 Housing Element: General Plan Page 7
24
Jay Thompson
From: Tim Brinkman <tim@elevationpm.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:53 PM
To: Jay Thompson; David Ready
Cc: Paul Warrin; Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kars
Subject: RE: Ordinance Prohibiting the rental of Apartments
Attachments: The Twist - The benefit of vacation rentals to the residence.docx, Signed Petition for
protection of the Twist Long Term renters.pdf
Dear Mayor, Council, City Manager and City Clerk,
The Twist
The Subcommittee created to examine the use of multiunit buildings as vacation rentals directed the Palm Springs staff
to prepare an ordinance banning such vacation rentals. Councilman Roberts stated that he has zero tolerance for
vacation rentals within any and all multiunit housing. The rationale given by Councilman Roberts is the need to protect
the long term renters in the complex. This rationale differs from the original reason for passing for the temporary
moratorium; affordable housing. The affected individuals that brought about the proposed moratorium were quickly
outed as frauds. Also, the assumed deficient supply of affordable housing was quickly debunked by citing the
abundance of vacancies among low rent units.
The new rationale for eliminating vacation rentals within multiunit properties is to protect the long-term
residents. Again, no data has been presented to justify these protections. The Twist has 18 traditional long-term
unfurnished rentals, 17 vacation rentals and 6 commercial units. Our residents are not asking for any protection from
vacationers, but rather the ability to maintain their sense of community.
The current residents benefit from the vacation renters in several ways. The residents enjoy a building maintained to a
much higher standard than would be economical at a traditional Palm Springs apartment building. Specifically, the
residents benefit from the onsite staff to handle timely issues, a higher level of maintenance and cleanliness, a daily
staged pool area, a putting green, and a vibrant community. Additionally, the residents benefit from our commercial
tenants (including a restaurant, coffee shop and Tiki bar), none of which would have been attracted to The Twist without
the vacation renters.
Without any data, the council may state that these benefits are coming at a cost to the residents; specifically, the quiet
enjoyment of their apartment. Actually the opposite is true. The residents and the vacationers agree to the same set of
house rules. Also, the vacationers provide the funding to pay onsite staff that enforces the house rules for all. The Twist
has never had a resident complaint regarding the quiet enjoyment of their apartment. Contrast this to other multi -unit
rentals where there are constant complaints regarding fellow tenants. Prior to our ownership, the apartment building
that is now The Twist was regularly causing a disturbance to its residents, and the neighboring community.
To further corroborate my point, our other multi -unit buildings have no vacation rentals. Yet each has had noise
complaints regarding their fellow tenants. That is the norm; as traditional apartments don't have effective oversite
because the economics can't justify that level of management.
All the residents of The Twist chose to live at the property knowing that 17 of the units are vacation rentals. In fact,
when word spread of the council's intention to eliminate vacationers from The Twist, the residents quickly signed
(attached) the following petition:
I am a resident of The Twist and strongly urge the Palm Springs Council to vote against the proposed ordinance banning
vacation rentals in multiunit housing. The ordinance purports to protect homeowners and renters like me. Instead, it will
lam► 3.13-
1615`16
kill the vibrancy that I benefit from living here. I have not had a complaint against vacationers, and fully understand the
benefits they bring to the property and neighborhood. Please protect my residence and vote no on the proposed bon of
vacation rentals.
The Palm Springs council members that vote for the new ordinance feel that they are getting out ahead of an issue. In
fact, they are behind it, and going in the wrong direction, eager to solve a problem when none exists; to the detriment
of our community.
The most popular residences, and highest price per square foot, are the ones that have vacationers with residents, such
as the Ritz Carlton Suites, The Four Seasons Suites and the St Regis suites. There are numerous others, but the rationale
is the same. The residents want vibrancy, amenities, services, and better maintenance than found in a building with only
long-term residents.
The vacationers also benefit by connecting with the locals. The common areas at The Twist have become very social
among both residents and vacationers. Vacationers that feel a connection with a place, return for more visits. The
residents are quick to give recommendations and several friendships have been formed.
Consequences from the ordinance passing:
1. Convert The Twist to a Hotel
The renovation was so extensive that the building is ADA compliant. We even added a working elevator to
accommodate a handicapped tenant. However, a hotel conversion will destroy The Twist community. Firstly, 18
residents that love the property, community and location will be evicted. Secondly, 33 kitchens (90%of 36) will need to
be ripped out to be compliant with R-2 zoning; leaving hotel units that lack the style and comfort so thoughtfully
designed, and depriving Palm Springs visitors of an excellent option for extended stays. Thirdly, a hotel conversion will
cause us to be non -compliant with our mortgage.
As we finished the complete remodel and renovation, Paul and I secured a 10-year non -recourse loan that locked in an
interest rate against a swap and was pooled, securitized and later sold. Thus, failing to comply with the terms of the
loan will not only cause the principal to be due, but also all the future interest payments ($21,000/month for the next
seven years, totaling $1,764,000 beyond the principal payment.) I bring this up to highlight that we made this
investment with a long-term view of Palm Springs. Thus we matched the financing to our investment.
2. Convert the entire building to long-term rentals
Unlike many California cities and towns, Palm Springs does not have a competitive rental market. Given the heavy
ceiling on rents, landlords make their income by tightly controlling cost. This is in contrast to vacation rentals that win
with design, facilities, location and amenities. Accordingly, The Twist will dramatically reduce cost. We will be forced to
take several steps to align cost with the new lower revenue. We will have to terminate three employees and six
subcontractors immediately. The repainting, glass panel cleaning, Tiki torches and pool maintenance will all be
dramatically scaled back. The parking lot beautification project will be shelved. The commercial tenants will suffer and
possibly close. In sum, a vibrant community will be destroyed.
We risked over $7.5 million on a project that helped revitalize the uptown design district and eliminated a hub of
criminal activity in the Las Palmas neighborhood. This was a building that anyone in Palm Springs with ample resources
could have purchased and renovated any time during the last 20 years, yet we were the only ones willing to save an
historic property, and a cornerstone of uptown Palm Springs. We worked tirelessly to minimize our risk by analyzing
design, preservation, construction, and residential and vacation rental trends. Also, this was a labor of love as an
opportunity to dramatically improve our neighborhood. What we didn't figure into our calculus was having to justify our
investment every four months before the Palm Springs council.
The Decision:
The Palm Springs council has the ability to do what is right for Palm Springs, and The Twist, by voting against the new
ordinance supported by Councilman Roberts. Alternatively, the council can ignore the data, and reality, by voting for the
ordinance. A vote for the ordinance is casting vacation rentals in multiunit buildings as the sacrificial Iamb to
temporarily satisfy PS -one, Shops and one councilman with a vendetta. I was introduced to Palm Springs and the
Coachella Valley as a child in the 70's. I have been fortunate, professionally, to have the resources to give back and
positively impact the town that has been a big part of my life. Please do what is right for Palm Springs, the Uptown
Design District, Old Las Palmas and The Twist by voting against this baseless ordinance.
In Parting, I am available to meet with, to speak with and/or provide any additional supporting data to help you
understand the devastating impact of this ill-conceived ordinance.
Best,
Tim Brinkman
Tim Brinkman
415-325-5062(W)
415-810-9899 (M)
tlmPelevationom.com
From: Jay Thompson [mailto:Jay.Thompson@palmsprings-ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 6:07 PM
To: Tim Brinkman <tim@elevationpm.com>; David Ready <David.Ready@palm springs-ca.gov>
Cc: Paul Warrin <paul@elevationpm.com>; Robert Moon <Robert.Moon@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ordinance Prohibiting the rental of Apartments
As usual and customary the city council agenda, staff report and supporting documents will be posted to the website
sometime this evening. We are still working on the agenda. If you are on the website subscription list for city council
meeting notifications you will receive an email as soon as the items are posted along with a link to each staff report and
the related supporting documents. Jay
From: Tim Brinkman
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:04 PM
To: Jay Thompson <Jay.Thompson@palmsprings-ca.gov>; David Ready <David.Ready@palmsprings-ca.gov>
Cc: Paul Warrin <paul@elevationpm.com>; Robert Moon <Robert.Moon@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ordinance Prohibiting the rental of Apartments
Hello Mr Thompson,
I am following up again to see if the data and information used by the subcommittee is available for public
viewing. There is nothing posted on the Palm Springs government website relating to the ordinance. We also received a
second and final notice of "Official Notice of Delinquent Administrative Citation", attached. Mr Ready stated that the
citation "will be held in abeyance until the City Council acts on the issue." Thus we have not responded to the citation,
but it is disconcerting that we continue to get notices. I have also attached the recent letter from Mr Kiehl, the Director
of Finance and Treasurer, commending us for our excellent compliance.
As one of the largest targets of the new ordinance, we should be part of the discussion, or at least be allowed to see the
data driving it.
Best, Tim
EPM
The Twist
The Subcommittee created to examine the use of multiunit buildings as vacation rentals has directed the
Palm Springs staff to prepare an ordinance banning such vacation rentals. Councilman Roberts stated
that he has zero tolerance for vacation rentals within any and all multiunit housing. The rationale given
by Councilman Roberts is the need to protect the long term renters in the complex. This rationale
differs from the original reason for passing for the temporary moratorium; affordable housing. The
affected individuals that brought about the proposed moratorium were quickly outed as frauds. Also,
the assumed deficient supply of affordable housing was quickly debunked by citing the abundance of
vacancies among low rent units.
The new rationale for eliminating vacation rentals within multiunit properties is to protect the long-term
residents. Again, no data has been presented to justify these protections. The Twist has 18 traditional
long-term unfurnished rentals, 17 vacation rentals and 6 commercial units. Our residents are not asking
for any protection from vacationers, but rather the ability to maintain their sense of community.
The current residents benefit from the vacation renters in several ways. The residents enjoy a building
maintained to a much higher standard than would be economical at a traditional Palm Springs
apartment building. Specifically, the residents benefit from the onsite staff to handle timely issues, a
higher level of maintenance and cleanliness, a daily staged pool area, a putting green, and a vibrant
community. Additionally, the residents benefit from our commercial tenants (including a restaurant,
coffee shop and Tiki bar), none of which would have been attracted to The Twist without the vacation
renters.
Without any data, the council may state that these benefits are coming at a cost to the residents;
specifically, the quiet enjoyment of their apartment. Actually the opposite is true. The residents and
the vacationers agree to the same set of house rules. Also, the vacationers provide the funding to pay
onsite staff that enforces the house rules for all. The Twist has never had a resident complaint regarding
the quiet enjoyment of their apartment. Contrast this to other multi -unit rentals where there are
constant complaints regarding fellow tenants. Prior to our ownership, the apartment building that is
now The Twist was regularly causing a disturbance to its residents, and the neighboring community.
To further corroborate my point, our other multi -unit buildings have no vacation rentals. Yet each has
had noise complaints regarding their fellow tenants. That is the norm; as traditional apartments don't
have effective oversite because the economics can'tjustify that level of management.
All the residents of The Twist chose to live at the property knowing that 17 of the units are vacation
rentals. In fact, when word spread of the council's intention to eliminate vacationers from The Twist,
the residents quickly signed (attached) the following petition:
I am a resident of The Twist and strongly urge the Palm Springs Council to vote against the proposed
ordinance banning vacation rentals in multiunit housing. The ordinance purports to protect homeowners
and renters like me. Instead, it will kill the vibrancy that I benefit from living here. I have not had a
complaint against vacationers, and fully understand the benefits they bring to the property and
neighborhood. Please protect my residence and vote no on the proposed ban of vacation rentals.
The Palm Springs council members that vote for the new ordinance feel that they are getting out ahead
of an issue. In fact, they are behind it, and going in the wrong direction, eager to solve a problem when
none exists; to the detriment of our community
The most popular residences, and highest price per square foot, are the ones that have vacationers with
residents, such as the Ritz Carlton Suites, The Four Seasons Suites and the St Regis suites. There are
numerous others, but the rationale is the same. The residents want vibrancy, amenities, services, and
better maintenance than found in a building with only long-term residents.
The vacationers also benefit by connecting with the locals. The common areas at The Twist have
become very social among both residents and vacationers. Vacationers that feel a connection with a
place, return for more visits. The residents are quick to give recommendations and several friendships
have been formed.
Consequences from the ordinance passing:
1. Convert The Twist to a Hotel
The renovation was so extensive that the building is ADA compliant. We even added a working elevator
to accommodate a handicapped tenant. However, a hotel conversion will destroy The Twist community.
Firstly, 18 residents that love the property, community and location will be evicted. Secondly, 33
kitchens (90%of 36) will need to be ripped out to be compliant with R-2 zoning; leaving hotel units that
lack the style and comfort so thoughtfully designed, and depriving Palm Springs visitors of an excellent
option for extended stays. Thirdly, a hotel conversion will cause us to be non -compliant with our
mortgage.
As we finished the complete remodel and renovation, Paul and I secured a 10-year non -recourse loan
that locked in an interest rate against a swap and was pooled, securitized and later sold. Thus, failing to
comply with the terms of the loan will not only cause the principal to be due, but also all the future
interest payments ($21,000/month for the next seven years, totaling $1,764,000 beyond the principal
payment.) I bring this up to highlight that we made this investment with a long-term view of Palm
Springs. Thus we matched the financing to our investment.
2. Convert the entire building to long-term rentals
Unlike many California cities and towns, Palm Springs does not have a competitive rental market. Given
the heavy ceiling on rents, landlords make their income by tightly controlling cost. This is in contrast to
vacation rentals that win with design, facilities, location and amenities. Accordingly, The Twist will
dramatically reduce cost. We will be forced to take several steps to align cost with the new lower
revenue. We will have to terminate three employees and six subcontractors immediately. The
repainting, glass panel cleaning, Tiki torches and pool maintenance will all be dramatically scaled back.
The parking lot beautification project will be shelved. The commercial tenants will suffer and possibly
close. In sum, a vibrant community will be destroyed.
We risked over $7.5 million on a project that helped revitalize the uptown design district and eliminated
a hub of criminal activity in the Las Palmas neighborhood. This was a building that anyone in Palm
Springs with ample resources could have purchased and renovated any time during the last 20 years, yet
we were the only ones willing to save an historic property, and a cornerstone of uptown Palm Springs.
We worked tirelessly to minimize our risk by analyzing design, preservation, construction, and
residential and vacation rental trends. Also, this was a labor of love as an opportunity to dramatically
improve our neighborhood. What we didn't figure into our calculus was having to justify our investment
every four months before the Palm Springs council.
The Decision:
The Palm Springs council has the ability to do what is right for Palm Springs, and The Twist, by voting
against the new ordinance supported by Councilman Roberts. Alternatively, the council can ignore the
data, and reality, by voting for the ordinance. A vote for the ordinance is casting vacation rentals in
multiunit buildings as the sacrificial Iamb to temporarily satisfy PS -one, Shops and one councilman with
a vendetta. I was introduced to Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley as a child in the 70's. I have been
fortunate, professionally, to have the resources to give back and positively impact the town that has
been a big part of my life. Please do what is right for Palm Springs, the Uptown Design District, Old Las
Palmas and The Twist by voting against this baseless ordinance.
In Parting, I am available to meet with, to speak with and/or provide any additional supporting data to
help you understand the devastating impact of this ill-conceived ordinance.
Best,
Tim Brinkman
Signature
The Twist
140 W Via Lola
Palm Springs, CA 92262
415-744-1475
www.TheTwistPS.com
V
,,.
resident
to protect the residents of The Twist
I am a resident of T O TT/ist and I strongly urge the Palm Springs City Council to vote against the proposed ordinance banning
vacation rentals in multiunit housing. The ordinance purports to protect homeowners and renters like me. Instead, it will kill the
vibrancy that I benefit from living here 1 have not had a complaint against vacationers, and I fully understand the benefits they bring
to the property and neighborhood. Please protect my residence and vote no on the proposed ban of vacation rentals.
Na
2 ORZIS
CIS
{ W VA ��
9 �Aovv L
13'
14 F�i�XISt�tICr�
15 �yn20 "�✓(�iF!�i
16
v
18
Unit
Date
7
2.0
Z-1 IL
PVT
z-7. (f�
Z ly
9-2-7-),6
-2-�- 6
-� 7
e77IID
1
-/
Z/O
21�
/� ( -Y
Cindy Berardi
From: John Patrick Flynn <johnpatrickflynn62@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:11 AM
To: Geoff Kors; A Roberts; Ginny Foat; CityClerk; Robert Moon
Subject: Business Under Attack In Palm Springs. Don't Invest in Palm Springs
As a 10 Year Resident of Palm Springs, who has experienced the benefits our our recent decade long
renaissance first hand, I am extremely concerned about the message our Mayor and City Council is sending.
In a recent article in the Desert Sun - Skip Descant actually used the words:
"But watch for more safe -guards against out-of-town investors"
Recent quotes by City Council Members, like JR Roberts, disparaging legitimate investors who applied for and
received permits to operate are very alarming. These investors who operate Apartment Rental Units as Vacation
Rentals did nothing wrong. They applied for permits, received them legitimately, made major investments
based on the permission granted. Now the City Council has changed their minds and is proposing shutting these
businesses down without proper warning or providing enough time for these businesses to retool to meet the
City's "new rules."
No where in any paperwork regarding these permits was it ever outlined that these granted permits were a
privilege reserved only for residents of the City. If being a resident to obtain these permits was a condition -
why was that not stated on the application? And many of the owners of these businesses ARE Palm Springs
Residents.
Short-term rentals are a privilege and not a right." said City Councilman J.R. Roberts. "And it's really a privilege for
those that live here."
"I think people who are doing this purely as an investment, and are not a resident of Palm Springs, shouldn't be
allowed," added Councilman Geoff Kors, speaking last week during a meeting of a subcommittee to explore how to
rewrite the city's vacation rentals ordinance as cries from community members have grown persistently louder with
claims of neighborhood disruptions and the erosion of a sense of community.
• There are rules set forth for proper business conduct for these businesses. The City has made little to no
effort to enforce these Best Practices.
• The proposal to shut down these businesses by January 2018 shows that the City of Palm Springs does
not respect their own rules. Reneging on these business owners is deplorable.
• Whether or not granting these permits was a good idea in the first place is not the issue. The fact is the
City is reneging on an implied promise to investors.
• What message does this send to all the tourists who reserved accommodations at these legitimate
businesses? They did nothing wrong. If you prevent these businesses from operating as of January, the
start of high season, those business owners will have to cancel all of those reservations. What a terrible
message to send to those visitors.
The City has fallen down on Code Enforcement. The City granted permits. And is now "changing their minds"
throwing the baby out with the bath water instead of enforcing their own codes. This is sending a clear message
to any type of investor that Palm Springs is an unfair business partner. Today it is Apartment Complexes who
operate as Vacation Rentals. What will it be tomorrow? Sidewalk Cafe's - too noisy? Dog Grooming Parlors -
1 1 . 113.
ions i�
too much barking? Cleaning Services - the vacuums annoy us? This sounds extreme - but it is the message you
are sending.
PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL SENDS CLEAR MESSAGE:
Business Under Attack In Palm Springs. Don't Invest in Palm Springs. We could change our minds on
anything at anytime. We will shut you down without warning. Your industry could be next.
John -Patrick
Palm Springs Resident
Direct Line: 631-327-0718
My opinion:
Issue more permits and encourage the construction of more apartment buildings AND HOTELS by reducing permit fees
while streamlining the entire process. DO NOT cease the use of existing vacation rental units.
James McKenna
660 Equinox Way
j
v.
<
Palm Springs, CA 92262
o�
-4
M
From: Brian Wilsonfmailto:norenlv(o)list.moveon.ore]
om
1
[n
> rn
Sent: Wednesday, October OS, 2016 6:44 AM
me
a
�m
St
To: macbrbnk(@aol.com
roo
Subject: Palm Springs Vacation Rentals: BIG City Council Mtg, Wednesday, October 5th, 6pm
W
2
cn
c)
QUICK CALL TO ACTION
The Palm Springs City Council will discuss their final revisions to the temporary moratorium on vacation
rentals FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS on Wednesday night, October 5th at 6pm, at the Palm Springs City
Hall.
The edited ordinance, drafted up by findings from the Palm Springs Vacation Rental Subcommittee, is now
suggesting (among other things):
1. No new vacation rental permits for apartment buildings, which consist of 2 or more units.
2. Any existing apartment buildings that have vacation rental permits will be forced to cease use as a vacation
rental by January 1, 2018.
WHY THEY ARE SUGGESTING THESE CHANGES
The Vacation Rental Subcommittee is suggesting these changes because they perceive this will help alleviate
what they see as an affordable housing crisis in the city of Palm Springs. According to the most recent US
Census data from 2010, Palm Springs has 1 t,997 multifamily units in the city, which is only slightly higher
than the number of units as there were in 1990 - 11,487 units.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM
There are approximately 53 multifamily units that currently have active vacation rental permits with the city of
Palm Springs. The city is proposing that these apartment property owners, some of whom have spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars in renovations and on furniture to outfit their buildings specifically for vacation rental
use, will now be faced with the prospect of the following choices as of Jan. 1, 2018:
1. Converting their buildings back to long term tenancy, and cutting income by as much as 40% - 60%.
2. Asking the city for a Conditional Use Permit as a hotel, which will require retrofitting and additional
significant funds, assuming the city even approves their requests.
3. Selling the property at a loss (compared to the potential value as utilized as an approved vacation rental
property), especially for 5+ unit buildings that are valued based upon a complex ratio of income against
expenses, and industry multipliers, etc. A reduction in income will have a similar proportional reduction in the
potential valuation for the property owner.
HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO
1. You can email or call the City Councilmembers, letting them know they should strongly consider allowing
these 53 or so apartment units/buildings to be granted special permission to continue their use as vacation rental
(i.e. being "grandfathered" in), and to allow their use to pass along with the property should an owner choose to
sell, so they don't lose the legitimate market value as a result of their investment in these properties. These 53
multifamily units represent only 0.004% of the total number of multifamily units in Palm Springs. This is a tiny
figure - less than one half of 1 % - of the total units! These owners should not be harshly penalized for their
hard work, upgrades and beautification of our housing stock. A reasonable compromise for community relations
is to allow these existing units and/or buildings to continue to operate as -is, and according to current ordinance
guidelines.
Councilmembers:
Geoff Kors - Geoff Kors("a,nalmsnrinesca.eov
JR Roberts - JR.Roberts(u,nalmsnrincsca.eov
Chris Mills - Chris.Mills(di nalnisnrinesca.eov
Ginny Foat - Gimiv.Foat(tilnalmsnrinasca.eiv
Mayor Robert Moon - Robert. Moon(FGnalmsnrinesca.aov
City Clerk James Thompson - Citv.Clerk(d t)almsnrinesea.cov
2. You can attend this City Council Meeting and share your opinion to the entire City Council.
Palm Springs City Hall
Council Chambers
Wednesday, October 5, 2016 @ 6:00pm.
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Each speaker has 2 minutes to speak, so prepare accordingly. You will need to turn in a speaker card before the
public comments portion of the evening begins, otherwise you will not be permitted to speak.
Remember, tomorrow nights meeting is only concerned with the portion of the vacation rental ordinance that
relates to their use in apartment/multifamily buildings. Please keep any comments focused on this portion of the
discussion.
The Vacation Rental Subcommittee continues to examine the vacation rental ordinance as it relates to single
family homes, and they have indicated they will be addressing any of those proposed changes at a later date.
Best Regards,
Brian Wilson
This message was sent to James McKenna by Brian Wilson through MoveOn's public petition website. MoveOn Civic Action does
not endorse the contents of this message. To unsubscribe or report this email as inappropriate, click here:
httre /netitions.moveon.ore;unsub.hnnl'?i-34597-5790797-a.17711
Want to make a donation to help support petitions on MoveOn.org? Hundreds of thousands of people chip in each year to support
MoveOn&E"which is how we're able to keep our petition website free and support campaigns like this one. You can become a monthly
donor by clickin4 here, or chin in a one-time eift here.
, ovetsti- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
N rr•. www.avast.com
Good morning City Clerk Thompson -
Please include this letter in the administrative record having been sent to each council member.
This is the second time I've written the council in six months regarding my business, Thirteen Palms. Five and
a half years ago my partners and 1 purchased a half occupied 5 unit apartment building in need of significant
repairs. My partners and I made a material investment and have created a successful business in Palm Springs.
Before we opened Thirteen Palms I worked directly with the city to determine how to permit the property and
all requirements necessary to operate the property as a vacation rental business. I worked directly with the
Warm Sands Neighborhood Organization Board and introduced myself to all the surrounding neighbors,
providing my personal cell phone number in case there were any issues. I have been a responsible business
owner, growing a business that is an asset to the city and the neighborhood. A number of you on the Council
have attended the Warm Sands Neighborhood Annual meeting hosted by Thirteen Palms a few years back.
I have talked with some of you directly about the issue of vacation rentals in apartment buildings and our
property in particular. I won't revisit all the arguments, as others will adequately do that. I will point out that I
have been assured by both a Councilmember and city staff that the City's intention was not to cancel permits of
existing businesses. But that is exactly what is happening.
I ask you to consider the ordinance before you and think long and hard about changing course, forcing existing
businesses to close, essentially reneging on an understanding that when operating according to City codes, a
legal and successful business can be forced out of business. If you wish to change the city's code to deny
permits for future businesses, so be it. But to change the rights you have vested in existing businesses, (casually
stating that 14 months is enough time to "amortize" an investment of several hundreds of thousands of dollars)
is unacceptable.
This is bad governance. It's untrustworthy. It's simply not operating in good faith. How am I or any other
citizen able to trust the City of Palm Springs in any future endeavor?
You will hear many arguments tonight and will have many petitioners stating their case. I only ask how you
would feel if your government granted you a right, a right that encouraged you to invest heavily, and then
decided to change direction, stripping you of that originally granted right.
I sincerely thank you for your service to the city and I hope you will seriously consider the ramifications of your
decisions in this matter.
Fred Ross, Prcp•ie-o•
962 East Pamcea Place, Palm Springs, CA 92264
N
760 413 2910 relax-athuteenpalms com
Ss
aes
-�
nm
n
0M
n
0
Cll
rm
thirteen palms comrp
b
S 1C
Tr 7l7 Z.
i
N M
XK
Aa
W
CJI
Cindy Berardi
From: Colin Sarjeant <sarj@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 7:47 AM
To: Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Tonight's hearing regarding Vacation Rental Ordinance
Mayor Moon and City Council members,
Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonight's Council meeting but I did want you to know that I am really concerned
about the proposed changes to the vacation rental ordinance.
I do understand the need to maintain our affordable housing stock and agree that we should limit conversions of
existing apartment buildings but I feel it is grossly unfair to punish those property owners that have already legally
converted their buildings to vacation rentals. These owners followed the rules, paid their fees, and spent thousands,
most likely hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading their buildings and furnishing them as vacation rentals. There is
no way they can recoup their investments as full time rentals given the low rental rates in our city. We live just down the
block from the Chuckwalla / Cottonwood apartment area where several of the buildings have been converted and
significantly upgraded. These changes have improved our neighborhood and I would hate to see them fall back.
I also have a concern with defining apartments buildings as 2 units or more. Many of our single family homes have guest
casitas that could be defined or misconstrued as a second unit. Apartments are generally defined as 5 units or more but I
think we should as the very least exclude 2 unit buildings.
We are home owners and residents of Palm Springs but we do not own any apartments or 2 unit homes so there is no
personal stake. We just feel the City needs to be fair to all residents and property owners. Rescinding approval for an
existing legally sanctioned enterprise is grossly unfair.
Thank you,
Colin
Colin Sarjeant
1400 N Opuntia Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Cindy Berardi
From: Dale Aucoin <daleaucoin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 7:24 AM
To: Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; CrtyClerk
Subject: meeting tonight
Dear City Council Member,
As a property owner in Palm Springs, I wanted to drop you a line and let you know I oppose the moratorium on
vacation rentals for apartment buildings. As I understand it the Palm Springs Vacation Rental Subcommittee, is
now suggesting (among other things):
1. No new vacation rental permits for apartment buildings, which consist of 2 or more units.
2. Any existing apartment buildings that have vacation rental permits will be forced to cease use as a vacation
rental by January 1, 2018.
This is bad for business in Palm Springs and bad for property values.
If I had known such a moratorium would be implemented, I never would have purchased property; not because
I had any intention of renting my place but because something like this makes property instantly less valuable
and more difficult to sell.
If for some reason (and I'm at a loss to figure out what the reason might be) this needs to be implemented, only
the first part should be implemented (stop issuing new rental permits), while allowing current rentals to
continue.
Thank you for your time.
Dale Aucoin
1462 S. Camino Real
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Cindy Berardi
From: Marc Rouse <marc.marc.r@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October OS, 2016 7:00 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Palm Springs Vacation Rentals
James,
As a single family home owner in the Indian Canyons Neighborhood I ask that you vote no on any further
vacation rental restrictions. I have not experienced any annoyances from these operators and believe
mechanisms are in place to prevent violations to short term rental ordinances.
I also believe that much of Palm Springs' recent commercial and residential development is due to the
availability of well -managed short term rentals (especially single family homes). Further regulation could have
significant impacts on a strong but unstable housing market, creating real pain for homeowners.
Thanks for your consideration,
Marc Rouse
1290 E Via Estrella
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Jay Thompson
From:
Geoff Kors
Sent:
Monday, October 03, 2016 4:32 PM
To:
Jay Thompson; David Ready
Subject:
Fwd: Short term rentals in apartments
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Meyer, Davis"<davis.mever(avacationnalmsnrines.com>
Date: October 3, 2016 at 16:19:47 PDT
To: "Ginnv.Foataanalmsnrinesca.eov"<Ginnv.Foatna.DalmSDrineSCa.uov>,
"Chris.mills(a,nalmsnrinesca.eov" <Chris.millsaDalmsnrinesca.eov>.
"JR.roberts(a).Dalmsnrinesca.eov" <JR.roberts(i�,Dalmsnrinesca.eov>,
"Geoff.korsa,i)almsnrin2sca.Rov" <Geof .kors(a)nalmsnrinesca.eov>
Subject: Short term rentals in apartments
Dear City Council,
I see in the proposed ordinance banning short term rentals in apartment complexes now includes all multi-
family dwellings of 2 units or more. I understand the need for affordable housing and spirit behind this
ordinance. Including all multi -family dwellings with 2 units or more has the unintended consequence of
roping in several multi -million dollar estate properties in this ban.
This has nothing to do with the casita exemption mentioned in the ordinance. These homes have, for
whatever reason, been zoned as having multiple units, which many of them no longer have in their current
state. These homes are not fit for multiple family occupancy. The ones we manage are never rented as
separate homes, they can't be.
The ordinance states specifically it is not the intention that it ban vacation rentals in estate homes. However,
by including everything with 2 units or more as "apartments' it does exactly that. Zoning regulations and
code enforcement change over time. As many of these homes have been around since the 1950's, or even
earlier, some of them come with zoning baggage that is not reflective of their current use or state.
Here are some of the homes that would lose their permits with this ordinance (they're not all managed by
us):
1076 Deepwell - httos://vacationi3almsprings.com/home detail.ph0home name=palm-springs-perfection
535 Tamarisk- httos://www.naturalretreats.com/palm-sgrinas-luxury-vacation-rentals/accommodation/la-
chureva
544 Arenas - httos://vacationr)aIms[)rinRs.com/home detail.php?home name=Palm-Springs-House-Rent-
Downtown-Center
821 Avenida Evelita - httos://vacationnalmsorings.com/home detail.php?home name=palm-sorines-
vacation-pool-house
267 W Overlook-httos://www.homeaway.com/vacation-rental/D661391vb#summary
350 Via Lola - httos://www.homeaway.com/vacation-rental/o4231704
According to the ordinance, there are 10,605 units that would be prohibited from renting short term if all
multi -family housing with 2 units or more is included. Making the restriction 5 units or more would still
prohibit vacation rentals at 8,626 units. That's a significant amount of affordable housing stock.
Keeping the restriction at 5 units or more also puts this ordinance in line with real estate property types so its
easy for real estate agents and potential buyers to know whether a property has the potential for short term
rental before purchasing.
This ordinance is supposed to be about apartments. The small change from 5 units to 2 units has unintended
consequences that the ordinance explicitly states to want to avoid.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Davis
Davis Meyer
Executive General Manager
Vacation Palm Springs by Wyndham Vacation Rentals
1276 N. Palm Canyon Drive, Suite 101
Palm Springs, CA 92262
o: +1.760.992.7799
c: +1.760.408.9758
e: Davis. Mever(alvacationoalmsorinas.com
vaca tionoalmsorinas. com
"The information in this electronic mail ("e-mail") message may contain information that is
confidential and/or privileged, or may otherwise be protected by work product or other legal
rules.
It is solely for the use of the individual(s) or the entity(ies) originally intended. Access to this
electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized review, disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of this information,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this electronic message by mistake,
and destroy all copies of the original message.
The sender believes that this e-mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan
horse, malicious code and/or other contaminants when sent.
E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free, so this message and its
attachments could have been infected, corrupted or made incomplete during transmission.
By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for
any viruses or other defects that may arise, and for taking remedial action relating to such viruses
and other defects.
Neither Wyndham Worldwide Corporation nor any of its affiliated entities is liable for any loss
or damage arising in any way from, or for errors or omissions in the contents of, this message or
its attachments.
Wyndham monitors all incoming and outgoing email communications, including the content of
emails and attachments, for purposes of security, legal compliance, training, quality assurance
and other purposes permitted by applicable law."
Cindy Berardi
From: magoto@pacbell.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:03 AM
To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; CityClerk
Subject: Apartment vacation rentals
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I am a long time visitor to Palm Springs, for over 25 years, my family has enjoyed your lovely weather
and unique homes as our vacation spot. Now that, my family is grown, and my husband passed
away a few years back, I've still continued to visit Palm Springs on my own. I have many wonderful
friends that I've been connected with through out the years. Since, it is just me, I've really enjoyed
renting an apartment instead of a home or a hotel. The reasons that an apartment works best for me
are numerous, firstly this is a very affordable option. I don't need an entire home, yet I want to be
able to cook some light meals. I have never liked chain hotels, they are overpriced and really blah in
comparison to the unique properties that I've stayed at in Palm Springs. Also, I really like the
community that I always find when I stay in a rented apartment. I really get to know the other
vacationers and we quickly bond over our love of Palm Springs and our unique dwellings. You
definitely don't get that in a hotel.
I'm sure you are all quite busy, so I'll keep this short. I was very disheartened to read that you may
be eliminating these apartment rentals as early as next year. I've always had to book about a year in
advance to be able to secure these great dwellings. I always thought that there were never enough
of these, and I'm astounded that now you want to shut them down. I will be sad if I won't be able to
visit my beloved Palm Springs in years to come. I urge you to vote no on this.
Very Truly Yours,
Louise Magoto
Cindy Berardi
From: Vincent Sassone <vsassone@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October OS, 2016 10:13 AM
To: Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; CityClerk
Subject: Regarding the moratorium on multi unit vacation rentals
Dear City Council and Mayor Moon,
The current owners of the multi unit vacation rental properties were abiding by the law when they purchased and
renovated their properties and obtained vacation rental permits. They invested in their properties and in Palm Springs
in good faith with the city government. They had no reason to believe the laws would change so severely so quickly
against them.
To force these owners to abandon their vacation rental businesses or retrofit their properties for long tern rental within
15 months seems over zealous to the point of hurtful. First, the rental units involved amount to less than 1% of the total
rentable units in the city. Second, and perhaps more important, the City Councils that preceded this one created a
situation that allowed these people to believe it was safe to invest in these properties with the vacation rental business
in mind. That this City Council believes differently about issuing new multi unit permits is one thing but I believe it has
to take some responsibility for the actions of those who've governed before.
I am not one of these owners nor do I know any of them. I am sympathetic to their situation. If these owners are
respectful of their neighbors and observe the city's noise ordinance, the right thing for the current City Council to do is
to grandfather them in.
Vincent Sassone
Cindy Berardi
From: Kenneth Garrett <kenneth garrett@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:30 AM
To: Geoff Kars; JR Roberts; Chris Mills; Ginny.Foat@palmspringsca.giv; Robert Moon;
CityClerk
Subject: apartment vacation rental moratorium
Thank you all for your service to the community.
I understand the need for affordable housing, but it seems wrong to force existing apartment buildings that do
vacation rentals to cease. I own a single-family home in town, so it's not a battle that impacts me
personally. In fact, it would probably be better for me if apartments weren't allowed to do vacation rentals. But
it just seerns wrong to take away that investment from them. And I'm not even sure it's constitutional, but
somebody else should weigh in on that.
I think the 53 existing buildings should be grandfathered, and the city should do something else to achieve its
goals for affordanble housing.
Best regards,
Ken
Cindy Berardi
From: Bruce Pederson <bruce@tastecatering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:38 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Vacation Rentals - City Council Meeting
Dear Clerk Thompson,
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the city council meeting this evening regarding new regulations that would
eliminate the use of short term rentals in apartment buildings in Palm Springs. However, I strongly urge you and other
council members to reject the proposed ban on short term rentals in the City. As a home owner in the Deepwell
neighborhood who depends, in part, on rental income from the property that my wife and I hope to retire to in the
future, I am very concerned about the loss of income and reduction in property values resulting from banning short term
rentals. While I understand that the current regulations under consideration only cover apartment buildings not
individual homes, I fear the long term intent of those supporting the ban is to use the regulations as a precedent for
banning all short term vacation rentals in the City. Not only would this be a disaster for us personally, it would have
very negative effects on property values, city tax revenue, and local service businesses that thrive on people renting
vacation properties in Palms Springs — vacationers who often stay from a week to several months at a time during the
High Season. I strongly urge you to commission an extensive independent study of the financial impact of short term
rental bans on the City, the Palm Springs economy and the future of individual home owners.
Thank You,
Bruce & McMe Pederson
Owners
1150 S. Sagebrush Rd.
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Cindy Berardi
From: Cray Martin <craymartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10.50 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Multi Family Vacation rentals
I am writing to you in regard to the forthcoming proposal for 2 plus vacation units in Palm Springs. I am potentially one
of the people that stands to pay a very significant penalty for this new proposal. I hope that the council will understand
the ramifications for individual citizens who made very big financial decisions based on the current and established laws
in the valley. I wish I could be present tomorrow evening, but unfortunately this letter will have to do. This decision by
the city, could really be life changing from my perspective.
I am a 56 year old who purchased a single family home with a detached guest house back in October 2014. My intent
was to fix it up and use it as a vacation rental. It was an abandoned property that was in really bad shape and had sit
vacant for over 18 months prior to my purchase. It was really a neighborhood eye sore. I spent over a year working full
time renovating this property from top to bottom. (October 2014- December 2015) The costs of the extensive remodel
and furnishings of the property have now exceeded $250,000. This was my full time job for 14 months last year. I am
not a wealthy man and have spent my hard earned savings and time on what I thought would be a great small
investment opportunity for my retirement. I had to borrow even more money to finish the project because of cost over
runs over the last 6 months. I have been renting it for under 10 months now and have just now begun to put a small
dent into the debt I have accrued as part of this investment. This change you are reviewing can potentially can set me
back hundreds of thousands of dollars and risk more than half of my retirement savings.
This potential new law unfairly targets folks like me. I understand there may be a perception of affordable housing
shortage in the city, but why must this be blamed on people like myself? Maybe the city should take some of the
additional revenue from the tax dollars being brought in and build their own affordable housing. I follow the rules, pay
my taxes, and it angers me that we are somehow being blamed and singled out as some sort of villains.
Minimally the folks who have spent their own sweat and cash to purchase and then fix up their properties (and as a
result, improved the surrounding neighborhoods) should certainly be allowed to be grandfathered in. These properties
have been an additional cash source to the city and county. My property taxes are more than TRIPLE the previous
owners property tax base. (as a result of my purchase and property improvements.) The additional guest taxes paid to
the city are another big source of revenue. I am also paying a disproportionate part of property taxes already in
comparison to my neighbors. I do not have a "hotel", I have a single family with a guest house.
I feel that I should also be able to sell my property down the line to another person who is buying the property for what
it currently is. (It should be able to stay a vacation rental if I ever sell) The existing multi -family rental units that are
vacation rentals in town is a very small percentage of the overall number of units. (less than .05 of the existing units) I
believe if there is any new ordinance, it should be directed to the people who buying AFTER the change. At least they
might understand what they are getting in to BEFORE investing their time and hard earned retirement savings.
I appreciate your time and consideration. Please vote NO on this planned change!
Sincerely,
Cray Martin
821 Avenida Evelita
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Cindy Berardi
From: David Crosta <davidcrosta@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:20 AM
To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; Jennifer Nelson; CityClerk
Subject: Grandfather Existing VRs to Avoid Unintended, Harmful Consequences for Our City
To the Honorable Palm Springs Mayor and City Council Members
My partner and I are residents, voters and have invested heavily to improve real estate in our city. We do not
own nor do we operate multi -family vacation rentals but are shocked and very concerned that the city is
considering singling out and penalizing those 53 that do.
While we understand the decision to limit new multi -family vacation rentals, we respectfully urge the council to
"grandfather in" existing multi -family vacation rentals and eliminate the proposed sunset period which could be
financially devastating to owners that invested in good faith and would send a dangerous signal to our real
estate market.
This erratic move could trigger a real estate decline that hurts everyone.
Palm Springs is a resort town dependent on tourism and real estate, yet the city is considering a move that
would sabotage real estate values for all property owners (regardless of which side of this debate they are on.)
By singling out and penalizing 53 existing multi -family vacation rental owners, destroying their investments
and, for many, their livelihoods, Palm Springs would send a very clear sign to our Real Estate market that our
city is erratic and unpredictable. All markets hate uncertainly and the Palm Springs Real Estate market will
react in kind.
Damaging existing owners that invested in our city in good faith will create very real legal risk.
After effectively encouraging investment in Vacation Rentals by (1) explicitly legalizing such rentals with a
detailed ordinance (2) permitting many years of "past use" and (3) collecting significant TOT and permit fees
from such rentals, Palm Springs is now considering a move which would financially devastate those that
invested. Holding aside the ethical issues with this proposed reversal, if existing owners are not "grandfathered
in," they would be forced to shut down the vacation rentals that they invested heavily to create. Past investments
will not be recovered, future opportunity cost will be significant and those owners will seek compensation for
damages from the city that encouraged them to invest in the first place.
This is completely preventable.
As a resident and property owner, I urge the council to consider the unintended consequences of these actions
and commitment to do no harm. Please eliminate the sunset period and "grandfather in" existing multi -family
vacation rentals to avoid legal risk and calm an already concerned real estate market citywide.
Sincerely,
David Crosta
Cindy Berardi
From: Tom Tom <tomtomprez@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:01 AM
To: 1R Roberts; Geoff Kors; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; CityClerk
Subject: temporary moratorium on vacation rentals FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS
I am not an apartment building owner but am concerned about tonight's vote
I am constantly amazed at the schizophrenic attitude of Palm Springs. For most of its life it has been a resort town. It has
cycles of in fashion/out of fashion but it is marketed as a resort town and I'm sure the tax dollars from vacation rentals
help a lot with the city's finances.
I can fully understand the city heavily monitoring any future applications for vacation rental licenses in apartment
buildings. But for the buildings in question the city presumably issued these vacation rental permits. Was there not good
faith on both sides? You handed out a license and took a fee.
I'm sure there are units that don't have permits, do vacation rentals, and make no contribution to the city coffers.
If the facts are true - especially that the units in question make up less than 1/2 of 1% of the total - then I believe these
units should be grandfathered in. It is morally reprehensible for the city to renege on their agreement.
Will you give the owners fair recompense? Refund their license fees, refund advertising dollars they have spent,
compensate them for rentals they have taken and have to cancel, help find new accommodation for their clients and
help with any legal charges if furious renters decide to sue for a broken contract.
What will you do if furious owners choose to sue you?
When the cycle turns as it will, and it once again becomes a sleepy retirement backwater then you may wish you had
had a rainy day fund of vacation rental tax money to help pay to resurface the roads and educate the kids.
Sincerely,
Gordon Kelsey
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
Cindy Berardi
From: Charles Zukow <charlesz@charleszukow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:11 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: Palm Springs Vacation Rentals
Dear City Clerk James Thompson,
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the city council meeting this evening regarding new regulations that would
eliminate the use of short term rentals in apartment buildings in Palm Springs. However, I strongly urge you and other
council members to reject the proposed ban on short term rentals in the City. As a home owner in the Deepwell
neighborhood who depends, in part, on rental income from the property that my wife and I hope to retire to in the
future, I am very concerned about the loss of income and reduction in property values resulting from banning short term
rentals. While I understand that the current regulations under consideration only cover apartment buildings not
individual homes, I fear the long term intent of those supporting the ban is to use the regulations as a precedent for
banning all short term vacation rentals in the City. Not only would this be a disaster for us personally, it would have
very negative effects on property values, city tax revenue, and local service businesses that thrive on people renting
vacation properties in Palms Springs —vacationers who often stay from a week to several months at a time during the
High Season. I strongly urge you to commission an extensive independent study of the financial impact of short term
rental bans on the City, the Palm Springs economy and the future of individual home owners.
Thank You,
Charles Zukow and John Ferrara
Owners
2155 No. Starr Rd.
Palm Springs, CA 92262
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Charles Zukow
Charles Zukow Associates
605 Market St., Ste. 500 • San Francisco, CA 94105
p) 415.296.0677 • f) 415.296.0663 • m) 415.309.2009
charlesz(o)cha rleszukow.com
website • facebook • twitter
A 1 A L L
Palm springs
•
From: Small Hotels of Palm Springs Board of Directors (SHOPS)
III y
IECEIY ELI
OF'14M SPkfPJG:
2616 OCT -5 PH 2: 48
JACE S
eTYTCIEH11tRK11')
RE: Palm springs city council subcommittee meeting on Vacation Rental
Meeting of October 6, 2016
Date: September 5-2016
Dear, Mayor Moon and distinguished council members;
I attended the Sub -committee meeting on September 29"', I listened to
all the public comments but in respect for your time I chose not to speak.
However, after meeting with board of directors I am submitting this
summary of our concern for your perusal.
We are deeply concerned about the out of control growth of vacation
rental in our city which not only threatens the character of our
neighborhoods but also the continued liability of our small hotels. We resent
Mr. Aftab Dada speaking about this topic on behalf of the entire Palm
Springs hotel industry, and misrepresenting Small Hotels to you. In -fact,
currently there is no representation from the small hotels at the Palm Springs
Hospitality Association Board. You must also note, contrary to Mr. Mike
McLean's assertion during the meeting, that "STR people support the local
business", these folks are partiers, and at best families that they huddle at the
house, graze on all their treat and beverages that they brought with them,
they BBQ for dinners and maybe go out to local restaurant once or on their
way out of town.... They do not support local economy as was presented.
And for the City's TOT, vacation rental's TOT comes to the city in expenses
of declining business for Small Hotels and it is in reality a movement of
TOT from one source to another.
The Small Hotel collectively employs over hundreds of people that
are contributing to local economy. Their employment can be at risk if STR
growth continues at current rate, with declining business in The Small
Hotels.
The ultimate specter could be a city with no neighbors or small hotels
as homeowners frustrated by adjacent rentals continue to sell their properties
to new vacation rental investors. Vacation rental could ultimately take over
the entire city.
It is a well known fact that the small hotel restoration of the 80s and
90s spearheaded the revival of Palm Springs. Widely recognized small
hotels in Palm Springs (over 70) are a crucial part of the character,
attractiveness and our economical viability. What would our city be if it was
solely composed of genetic chain hotels?
The vacation rentals essentially are hotels operating in single family
R-I Neighborhoods. They do not satisfy any other the requirements
normally stipulated for hotels which a re located in around specifically zone
for their use. UNLIKE HOTEL THE CRUCIAL PROBLEM IN
VACATION RENTAL IS THE LACK OF ON -SITE SUPERVISION
WHICH IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF THE NEUSSANCE THEY OFTEN
CREATE. There are many other requirements that hotels have to satisfy
ranging from provided adequate off street parking to all kinds of health and
safety regulations, including strict ADA laws concluding specific handicap
parking, pool lifts and so on. This certainly put small hotels in an unfair
situation.
New vacation rental phonon has been successfully tackled in several
other tourist communities such as, Santa Barbara and Anaheim, CA. We
recommend you look closely to them for guidance. Meanwhile it does not
seem to make sense to continue to issue 100s of new permits which could
make the solution to the problem more painful. The counsel should not be
intimated by a group of outside investors to place a memorandum on
vacation.
ZWSre'�ient, and
Owner of Villa Royale Inn
Cindy Berardi
From: Jaime Kowa] <info@jaimekowal.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:58 AM
To: CityClerk; Robert Moon; Ginny Foat; 1R Roberts; Geoff Kors; Chris Mills
Subject: Re: Council Agenda for October 5, 2016
Jaime Kowal 11821 E Amado Rd I Palm Springs CA 192262
October 5, 2016
Mr. Jay Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs CA
92262
Re: Council Agenda for October 5, 2016
Item: Proposed ordinance prohibiting the rental of apartments as vacation rentals and amending the Palm
Springs municipal code
Dear Mr Thompson and Members of the Palm Springs City Council,
My name is Jaime Kowal and I am the Owner of The Desert Collective which respectively owns and manages
The Amado and The Junipero - both multiplex apartments that have legally been converted to vacation rentals.
My partners and I pay our permit fees, TOT and comply with the vacation rental regulations. We have spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations and furniture to outfit these buildings specifically for vacation
rental use and have tailored all aspects of our business, management, software choices and staffing to fit a
specific vacation rental model. This has been an all -encompassing commitment of time and investment.
Should the ordinance be passed would be faced with the prospect of the following choices as of Jan. 1, 2018.
I . Converting the buildings back to long term tenancy, and cutting income by as much as 40% - 60%. We
would never elect to convert back to long term tenancy because of this income loss. The renovations
and improvements already made to the properties preclude us from ever making them available as
`affordable housing' because we wouldn't be able to meet our debt obligations. This ordinance is not an
effective way to preserve affordable housing due to this economic reality.
2. Asking the city for a Conditional Use Permit as a hotel, which will require over $5000 for the process
and require additional time and money to retrofit the building assuming the city even approves my
request. In my initial research with the planning department I was told I would have to remove four of
my five kitchens at The Amado and three of my kitchens at The Junipero. The Amado is an
architecturally significant building and I retrofitted the kitchens accordingly. Given the high value of
architectural preservation discussed and celebrated in Palm Springs it seems counterintuitive and
unsustainable to have to rip out the kitchens that I have so carefully preserved and altering the
integrity of the original construction that people come to see at Modernism Week.
3. Selling the property at a loss of 25-40% according to my real estate agent (compared to the potential
value as utilized as an approved vacation rental property), especially for 5+ unit buildings that are
valued based upon a complex ratio of income against expenses, and industry multipliers, etc. A
reduction in income will have a similar proportional reduction in the potential valuation for the property
owner. This inevitably will affect property values across the board for single family home owners as
well.
4. If I decide to make our properties available as furnished, long term rentals instead of applying for a CUP
then my full time General Manager would lose his job. This ordinance would directly contribute to
his unemployment.
According the the US Census numbers, the same document cited in the proposed ordinance change, there
are 11,997 multifamily units in Palm Springs, as of 2010.
The city has drafted this very aggressive document, portraying this as a way to save the affordable housing
stock in the city. However, 53 units is only 4/10ths of 1% of the total available multifamily stock in the
city. That is 0.004%? It doesn't even add up to 1 % of the total number of multifamily units. Assuming these
buildings could even convert back to affordable housing from an economic standpoint, I don't see how .004%
of the housing stock is going to have any kind of real impact on affordable housing.
And to clarify, the 53 units identified are actual units within buildings. In counting the actual buildings
immediately affected it is a total of 34 properties.
In reference to the January 1, 2018 deadline, a one year and two months amortization period simply doesn't
work. Investments are made with at least a 10 — 15 year time horizon.
Legally, this ordinance impedes on my rights as a property owner. In Arizona, a building owner that purchased
a property in Jerome, upgraded the dilapidated building, got all necessary permits, but then discovered the city
council changed their minds after she invested all that money so, she sued - and WON. Recently the State of
Arizona passed a bill stating the municipalities in the state can regulate but cannot restrict vacation rentals.
The ordinance is discriminatory because it makes several claims but doesn't actually address any of them. If
the issue is a fire hazard, then enforce the fire code. If the issue is noise, then enforce the noise ordinance. If the
issue is affordable housing, then provide a real analysis of the affordable housing which includes a definition of
affordable housing, an analysis of the current housing stock, the current vacancies, the spectrum of rents and the
earned income credits for housing. Also, an exact number of affordable housing units removed from the market
for vacation rental conversions should be stated.
All remodels or renovations remove 'affordable housing'. Every investment into a property seeks a return. Thus
a dilapidated home or apartment that is renovated will rent for more than it would in its prior
state. Philosophically to be consistent with the affordable housing argument, the council needs to prohibit all
renovations.
Changing the vacation rental ordinance for multifamily units or for single family units creates confusion in the
eyes of the public, lowers property values across the board and tarnishes the very unique and celebrated
perception of Palm Springs as a business -friendly, forward -thinking vacation destination. It punishes existing
vacation rental permit holders demanding increased investment and/or a drastic loss of revenue and livelihood.
Any vacation rental restrictions are bad for Palm Springs. This city is extremely fortunate to attract young
creative entrepreneurs to put their mark on this town and by passing an ordinance such as this, the city council
is sending a message to investors and entrepreneurs that this is not a business -friendly city. I certainly won't be
investing any more funds here and wouldn't encourage any of my colleagues to do so either with the constant
threat of emergency ordinances being passed in the night and the potential loss of of my business license that I
worked so hard for.
I request the city grandfathers in vacation rental use for current buildings for the above reasons stated
and that the permit is transferred with the sale of the building to the new owner, preserving property
values. Ideally no restrictions on vacation rentals will be placed at all. The net effect on the housing stock by
simply allowing our buildings to be forever grandfathered into the vacation rental laws is so minimal, but yet
financially significant for all of the stakeholders have invested in these buildings.
Sincerely,
Jaime Kowal
CC:
Honorable Mayor Robert Moon
Council Member Geoff Kors
Council Member J.R. Roberts
Council Member Ginny Foat
Council Member Chris Mills
Cindy Berardi
From: Brian Wilson <brianlwilson2006@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:20 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Upcoming Legislative Item 3B - Wednesday, October 5, 2016
City Clerk:
I am forwarding the following letter for the record and for the city councilmembers for tonight's meeting.
Dear Councilmembers:
I know you are kept very busy with the long list of city agenda items each week, so I will be as brief as
possible to respect your time.
In light of the discussion/vote (upcoming legislative item 313) regarding the proposed prohibition of apartment
rentals for use as vacation rentals on Wednesday, October 5, I wanted to share a few points:
1. Many of the apartment building units that are currently permitted for vacation rental use have been highly
upgraded. Some are even classified as luxury units. In light of the fact that the units/buildings in this
category will not become part of the lower or moderate income long term rental pool, has the
Council/Subcommittee considered allowing these specific, existing "vacation rental approved" and upgraded
buildings, to continue to be used as a vacation rental? Or will an existing owner of one of these buildings be
required to file a CUP in the hopes of doing so?
2. Also with regard to the highly upgraded units/buildings mentioned above, is the Vacation Rental
Subcommittee aware of the fact that many of these buildings may no longer create the income required to
meet the debt obligations (i.e. mortgage payments) of their owners, if they are required to transition from
short term to long term tenants?
Some apartment buildings currently used as vacation rentals may have been purchased in the distant past
and at values far below the current pricing. For these owners, a conversion to long term tenancy may have a
dramatic financial result, reducing their income by 50-60%, but since they may own the building outright, or
if they purchased at reduced amounts with small mortgage payments, they may be able to weather the
change more easily without the stress of a high mortgage payment.
However, several other owners I have spoken with have purchased these buildings in the past 2-4 years,
naturally at higher values than what they were 15 or more years ago. They then borrowed $200,000+ on top
of that to renovate an aging property. The mortgage payments were built upon assumptions in cash flows
(post- renovation) that are much higher than those seen with long term tenants. For this small but significant
number of building owners, they will potentially face grave consequences to be able to meet their debt loads
as a result of this change. In case you are not aware, financing is often built upon a set of debt ratios that
allows for only 6-10% profit margin after costs. By forcing these building owners to reduce their income by as
much as 50-60%, they may quickly turn upside down on their mortgage payments. It is hoped the City will
work with this small number of apartment property owners to help facilitate the consideration of a CUP, in
order to continue vacation rental usage within city guidelines. Otherwise, the City really sends an awful
message to those members of the community, many of them apartment building owners who also live here full
time, that their upgrades in aging mid century housing stock were a dreadful mistake. I hardly imagine any of
the Citv Councilmembers intended this as a consequence of trying to find answers to this complex issue.
It is understandable that the City Council is examining recent pressure on lower and middle income rental
stock, especially as it relates to affordability, and I applaud the efforts you all have made to attempt to create
a diverse community amidst strong increases in demand for lodging, rentals and purchases alike.
However, for balance, I wanted to share my points because I have personally watched a client and her parents
invest much of their retirement money into helping take a dilapidated mid century apartment building that
was in disrepair, and giving it a new lease on life. New roof, new plumbing, new kitchens, new flooring, new
air conditioning, etc. will now allow this great piece of history to last another 50 years. She mortgaged herself
to follow her dreams in a place she left her hometown for, and even managed to change her residency status
to do so. She now lives here full time. Her story may not have as much weight as that of the displaced tenant,
but this particular client has given back by investing in a dilapidated property, by setting up shop here with
other businesses that have created jobs for over a dozen people in the city, and she is now considering leaving
due to this ordinance change and the damage it will cause her. I hope this is being given some consideration
as you weigh both sides of the issue in an attempt to find some balance, which I understand, is a difficult
task.
Thank you for spending a few moments of your valuable time to read this.
Best Regards,
Brian Wilson
Cindy Berardi
From: Mark Rice <mrice002@dc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:35 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Short Term Vacation Rentals
Dear Members of the Palm Springs City Council:
I understand that a study session on vacation rentals is scheduled for October 19th.
Cathedral City's vacation rental ordinance may be of help in amending the current Palm Springs Ordinance.
Cathedral City requires that the owner of a vacation rental unit obtain both a business license AND the vacation rental
permit. The permit number must be listed on any advertisements - meaning that it would have to be listed on the ad in a
service like Airbnb. This would make it much easier for people to identify and report problems related to a vacation
rental.
Cathedral City also requires that if the vacation rental is in a homeowner's association, the applicant for a vacation rental
permit must provide evidence from the HOA that such a use is allowed under their documents.
This last is particularly important to HOAs that are apartment style developments as opposed to single home
developments. While it's fairly easy to identify a single home that is occupied by people throwing loud parties, etc., it
becomes much harder in an apartment style HOA where the partying and obnoxious behavior is mostly located around
pools and other facilities without the ability to identify which apartment the offending parties occupy.
In the case of my association, we have 476 apartments in 13 buildings.
We have six swimming pools and 8 spas. I am a member of the Board of Directors. Our most common problem is with
loud parties late at night at one of our pools. We've had vacationers break into pools after they've been locked for the
night. We've had vacationers bringing glass beverage containers and glasses into our pool enclosure, which are
expressly prohibited. (Several months ago I was stepping into a pool for a swim, and my foot came down on a piece of
broken glass - apparently from a party the night before. Not only did 1 have to be treated for the gash on the bottom of
my foot, but we had to close the pool and take steps to make sure it was free of any other glass before it could be re-
opened for use by our residents.) But these people won't identify the apartment that they're staying at - as excessive
alcohol contributes to a belligerent attitude which means they won't cooperate with other residents, our security guards
- and frankly, these are non -emergency calls to the police, and once they know that someone is likely to call the police
they vacate the pool area long before an officer could arrive on such a call. So when the police arrive, no one knows
which of the 476 apartments these people are in.
Our association does not allow use for hotel or itinerant purposes. But we have difficulty identifying those who are
doing exactly that. Airbnb and others don't require the "host" to list a last name, an exact address, or a license number.
With those identifiers - or any one of them - we'd have a much better chance of finding the apartments that are being
used for this prohibited purpose. If the city required evidence provided by the HOA that vacation rentals are allowed in
their documents, business and vacation rental licenses would not be issued to people who have property in an HOA
which restricts or prohibits such use. This would be a tremendous help to us - and many others. I've become aware that
vacation rental agencies have solicited business by sending invitations to entire homeowner associations - every
member - asking them to list their apartment or home as a vacation rental - with complete disregard for, and/or willful
ignorance of, the associations'
policy on rentals. A phone call or letter to the association or its management company could tell anyone what the policy
is. But it would be so much better if no license for operating a vacation rental in an HOA is issued without proof -
provided by the association - that such use is not a violation of the CC&Rs, Bylaws, or other governing documents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours,
Mark Rice
2820 N Arcadia Ct. #B214
Palm Springs, CA 92262
760-323-9288
Cindy Berardi
From:
tract' boyd <tracyboydl@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:53 PM
To:
CityClerk
Cc:
Krickette Wozniak
Subject:
Please maintain future vacation rental permits + retain "Apartments" as "5+ units".
Dear City Clerk Thomson
My partner and I are long time contributors to the local Palm Springs tourism economy through frequent travel to the area. We have several
friends and family who visit all year long, each selecting various accommodation avenues as well as buying/selling properties, however, all
bringing tourism dollars to the community, supporting local jobs, boosting the economy.
Recently, we decided to personally invest further into the Palm Springs community via selecting a triplex property to purchase, specifically
based on our research to ensure compliant under the City's original Ordinance No. 1897 -
httn://www.acode.us/codc /�almsnrines/revision,/1897.ndf which stated "Apartment" meaning to be a residential unit in a multi -family
development of five (5) or more dwelling units where each unit is rented or leased for occupancy as a residence for one individual or family.
Under the newly proposed plan being discussed this evening of"Apartments" being defined as "2+ units", we would be in a position of
having to consider halting investment in the community.
We believe the Palm Springs Vacation Rentals Ordinance should allow owners to use their multi -units up to 5 units as vacation rentals.
Limited risk to affordable housing is not related to the low number of multi unit buildings with five or under units in the area, it's related to
those with commercial lending related 5 to 20+ units. This is where larger socio-economic impact is felt, not within smaller buildings,
predominantly purchased by families who like to personally visit and bring money into the community when selecting to subsidize their
purchase by renting to friends/family To that end, we'd like to request consideration as to the definition of "Apartments" to remain defined as
"5+ units".
Of the 11,997 multi family units in the city, 53 of them have active vacation rentals. If this is low, seek accurate numbers and provide
consequences to those lacking permits. A nice compromise would be to work on ensuring proper permits for all unit types, generating
even more revenue for the city. Only grandfathering current permit holders for a limited duration as a compromise does not equal progress.
It eliminates the ability for others in the future to invest in the community and promote tourism.
WE PERSONALLY VOTE NO ON THE ORDINANCE CHANGES YET CANNOT BE THERE IN PERSON. We believe the amazing
things have happened in Palm Springs due to properly regulated vacation rentals, which has caused the city to thrive culturally and
financially. Let's continue on this path.
Thank you for your reasonable consideration to ensure investments & tourism continues in Palm Springs -
Tracy Boyd and Krickette Wozniak
Seattle, Washington
Cindy Berardi
From: info@psvrta.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 2:12 PM
To: CityClerk; David Ready
Cc: Robert Moon; Ginny.Foat@palmspringsca.giv, Chris Mills; JR Roberts; Geoff Kors
Subject: Item 36 - Vacation Rental Tourism Association
Dear Council and Staff,
The Vacation Rental Tourism Association does not support the Multi -Family ordinance as drafted. The
initial proposal that was discussed in the subcommittee was to craft an ordinance for properties with 5 or
more units. The staff report quotes a vacation rental manager stating "we do not necessarily oppose
regulations regarding apartments", however anything said during subcommittee or otherwise, by any
member of the VRTA, would now be taken out of context as the language and restrictions have changed
from what was was initially being discussed.
On existing apartments with a vacation rental certificate it is our belief that the operators who have
registered with the city and have been in compliance should be grandfathered in and be allowed to
continue to operate within the current vacation rental ordinance. These 53 multifamily units represent
only 0.004% of the total number of multifamily units in Palm Springs and will not create an additional
hardship on affordability in Palm Springs.
Allowing operators who have invested significant funds to upgrade and update their properties to continue
to rent is a reasonable compromise that we feel the council should consider including in the proposed
regulations. If the City feels they have made an error in allowing vacation rental registrations to be made
to operators of apartments, the fix should not be retroactive. Going backwards and trying to rewrite
history by including these operators, is unnecessary and unproven as a necessary part of the solution. It
also sends a very poor message to those who would invest in Palm Springs going forward.
Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter.
Regards,
The Vacation Rental Tourism Association
Acme House Co
Altamira Vacation Rentals
Dry Heats Resorts
McLean Company
Palm Springs Resort Homes
Private Villa Management
PSP Property Care
Oasis Rentals
Oranj Palm
Relax PS
Vacation Palm Springs
Cindy Berardi
From: George <georgekn@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 2:34 PM
To: Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; CityClerk
Subject: In support of restrictions on VR
Hello everyone —
As a year round resident of Palm Springs, I fully support anything you can and will do to limit vacation rentals
in Palm Springs, including the current proposals to limit them for apt buildings. Unfortunately, our HOA in
Alexander Estates ll, didn't stipulate VR so it's been open season in our neighborhood. It's unfortunate that
residential neighborhoods are being overrun with residences being treated like a hotel.
Like all registered voters, I will be watching how each of you vote both tonight and going forward in the efforts
to take back our neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
George Knott
2720 Alexander Club Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
"Saving one dog won't change the world, but it will change the world for that one dog."
please visit
www.aalaosdelsol.orci
htti)://www.sagehounds.com
htto://siRhthoundundereround.com/htti)/
http://lhbgaIgorescue.org
Cindy Berardi
From: Drew Benavente <benavente818@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 2:43 PM
To: Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; CityClerk; Geoff Kors; JR Roberts
Subject: Prohibiting Vacation Rentals _ Are any of the Council Members Financially
October 5, 2016
Mr. Jay Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs CA
92262
ReCouncil Agenda for October 5, 2016
Item: Proposed ordinance prohibiting the rental of apartments as vacation rentals and amending the Palm Springs municipal
code
Dear Mr Thompson and Members of the Palm Springs City Council,
I have a few questions and a few statements. I'll start with the big one looming in my head. Are any of the Council Members
Financially
attached to any of the 3 Hotels being built in Palm Springs at the moment? Either directly or as consultants? Who brought up
this proposal
initially would be the most likely candidate representing a bigger interest. The only persons I can perceive not caring for
Vacation Rentals are
some of these New Hotels being built or possibly some of these old hotels that have excisted and not wanting competetion by
way of Vacation Rentals.
ask this because I don't see why there appears to be a push to limit or completely get rid of vacation rentals in Palm Springs.
I see some of the issues that need to be addressed concerning Vacation Rentals but feel the Positives far outweigh any of the
negatives,
especially since the negatives can be addressed and fixed.
In the last 18 months myself and a few friends have purchased 6 homes in Palm Springs. We did so expecting to turn them in
to Vacation Rentals.
Why are Vacation Rentals so beneficial to us and the city of Palm Springs
1) we are able to have the property generate revenue that gets applied to the mortgage
2) That means we are buying property in Palm Springs and hope
to buy many more, unless this proposal passes
3) Persons like me and my investors are raising the overall property value since we are willing to pay more knowing
it's a worthy investment
4) Property Tax, more homes get purchased and at a higher value mean more property Taxes for the City
5) We have in these 6 homes we
have purchased in the last 18 months spent an average of 20k in just furniture bought locally, also paid contractors locally for
upgrades and additions and we are constantly restocking the homes and making improvements. Plus Maid service. We have
put a lot of local people to work. All this money goes right back in to the community.
6) Now personally we are Independents, we don't care for either of the major parties or do we believe in big government or large
amounts of government involvement or regulations. But I do see one key thing that does need to be address concerning
Vacation Rentals. And let me be very specific. I'm not talking about residential homes, not family homes, not townhomes, not
condos but actual Apartments aka units designed to be rented on a monthly bases contingent on a lease agreement of 6 months
to a year.
Allowing Vacation Rentals to occur in Apartment buildings designed to be rented on a Monthly bases contingent on a lease
agreement of 6 months to a year, does drive the price of each Apartment Unit up to such a degree that it might no longer be
affordable to your average Palm Springs family. What needs to be addressed and properly laid out is what constitutes an
Apartment. I would say it is a building that was originally designed and built to generate revenue by way of monthly
rentals of Units contingent on a 6 month to a year lease agreement.
With this definition Standard family homes, townhomes, condos would not qualify as Apartments and they would still be able to
operate as Vacation Rentals. Also, family homes, townhomes and condos are built typically in a manner in which they are more
sturdy and importantly better insulation and sound proofing
P.S. another point of interest is Vacation Rentals for persons like me and my investors work wonderfully because we actually
use the condos ourselves for friends and family far more often than we rent it out via any form of Vacation Rental app or
website. It gives us the liberty to use our properties ourselves. Plus, if you limit Vacation Rentals to terms of 30 days or more
you immediately run the risk of squatters. Since with all Vacation Rentals once a person stays on a property beyond 29 days all
the laws that apply towards tenant rights apply and you can end up with squatters. There is the famous case of this that took
place last year, right here in Palm Springs. Myself and my investors are looking at opening two business in Palm Springs in the
coming year, outside of just purchasing homes. And I'm actually headed to city hall next week to get business licenses.
Appreciate your time. Hope you weigh everything I shared and all others which I'm sure are reaching out to you. I hope a decision is not
made to make the easy decision of
Prohibiting all Vacation Rentals merely because it's the easier path. Because I assure you it's not the better path for Palm Springs, sometimes
the best path takes a little work. And I do hope none of the Council Members are being swayed by their personal stake or interest in these
New Hotels and Old Hotels that are operating or will soon operate in Palm Springs. I am currently in contact with other home owners in
palm springs and also reaching out to real estate agents and we are putting together a organization to keep Vacation Rentals operating in Palm
Springs. By the way, how are we made aware of what Council Members voted one way or the other?
sincerely,
Andrew Benavente
Bom and Raised in Palm Springs.
BLASDEL GUINAN
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
P.O. Box 1747
Palm Springs, California 92263
Telephone (760) 320-0111 / Facsimile (760) 320-0211
Diane C. Blasdel, Esq.
diane@badeserflow.com
October 5, 2016
City Council
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Eric J. Guinan, Esq.`
eric@bodesertlow.com
'Ako atlatllle7 to pracllce In WwNnglon
Re: Tonight's Agenda Item: Proposed Ordinance Prohibiting the Rental of Apartments
as Vacation Rentals and Amending the Palm Springs Municipal Code .
To The Councilpersons of the City of Palm Springs:
Please be advised that our offices have been retained to represent and protect the
interests of several owners of various apartment complexes located within the City of Palm
Springs, including, but not limited to, Thirteen Palms, LLC. Each of our clients have valid permits
for short term vacation rentals of their apartment units and hereby object to the proposed
Ordinance being considered this evening. Our clients respectfully request that the City Council
take the following issues, facts and concerns into consideration before voting on the proposed
Ordinance:
Revoking vacation rental permits from apartment, duplex and triplex owners
ONLY, exceeds the scope of Council's authority and/or constitutes an abuse of its
discretion. Further, the Ordinance is arbitrary and capricious in nature and is not
supported by any substantial evidence. For example, why are condominium units
not included? The proposed Ordinance is discriminatory in nature and is under -
inclusive of the various other types of properties who also enjoy short term
vacation rental permits.
2. Owners have vastly improved the condition of these properties, putting millions of
dollars of renovations and improvements into the properfies,.including, but not
limited to, the removal of architectural barriers for persons with disabilities. If you
require these owners to cease operating the complexes as short term rentals, rest
assured, the rents on these properties will not automatically become "affordable"
to renters. The rents will be HIGHER due to the quality of the premises and the
amenities which have been incorporated into the premises as a result of the
owners' investments into these properties. This premise is directly supported by the
information contained in the Staff Report as it pertains to the renovations
performed at Latitude 33 "being remodeled to higher rent properties." What
is/as/Zc/
r-rz" 3.6
BLASDEL GUINAN LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
October 5, 2016
Pcge 2
evidence is before the Council to support the assumption that by revoking short
term vacation rental permits from apartment complex owners somehow said units
will become "affordable" or increase the number of affordable housing units
available?
3. The Staff Report and the Agenda define the subject matter for this Ordinance as
a "proposed ordinance prohibiting the rental of apartments as vacation rentals."
That is not entirely accurate. The proposed ordinance will also impact every
owner of every duplex, triplex, and property with a guest casita or secondary
structure, in this City. We do not believe the subject matter of this Ordinance has
been adequately and fully identified on the Agenda to the public.
4. The Staff Report cites to 63 permitted small hotels (under 25 rooms) that "may
provide a similar lodging experience to the tourist." (Staff Report, pg. 4, final
sentence.) This is not necessarily accurate - a hotel room cannot have a kitchen.
Some vacation renters do wish to have the use of a kitchen, without the cost of
renting an entire single family residence.
5. The City will suffer tax losses. There will be a decrease in transient occupancy
taxes, sales tax, a decrease in income to the businesses supported by the
vacation renters, and the like.
6. The City will suffer job losses. All of the apartment complex owners hire employees
and third party vendors to manage and operate their properties. These individuals
and third parties will lose their jobs and/or these owners' accounts.
7. The owners maybe subjected to financing issues with their lenders. For example,
one of our clients has an SBA loan for their business. If their permit is revoked, and
they are forced to rent out the units to "long term renters,", then the property will
incur a lower debt coverage ratio as an apartment building and our client could
be faced with a situation in which their loan is called by the lender. Another
client could be found to be in default by their lender if they opted to convert their
property to a hotel open to the public.
8. Addressing the vacation rental program in a piecemeal type fashion is not
efficient, nor reasonable, and can and will lead to unfair, inconsistent and
discriminatory treatment of owners of real property dependent upon the type of
property they own.
9. As with a number of the restrictions currently in place and being discussed, there
will be great difficulty in the enforcement of any Ordinance enacted.
10. The Subcommittee and City Council are proffering this Ordinance on the basis
that it is necessary in order to "maintain and increase affordable housing." If this is
the case, why does the ordinance allow for an apartment complex owner to
convert the complex into a hotel? The goal of creating affordable housing units
cannot be achieved by such a hotel conversion, To suggest that "option" makes
the purported goal of this ban illusory in nature,
BLASDEL GUINAN LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
October 5, 2016
Page 3
11. Also on the issue of hotel conversion, it would not be economically feasible for the
smaller complexes to convert. Kitchens would have to be removed, destroying
the property owner's investment in same. Finally, the Ordinance cites to January
1, 2018, as the being the cessation date for apartment units to be used as short
term vacation rentals, and that such time between now and then provides a
"reasonable amortization period for the owners of such apartment units within
which they may recoup the costs they reasonably invested in each such
apartment unit for the use as a vacation rental." There is absolutely no evidence
before this Council which supports the premise that such a short "amortization
period" enables these owners to see a return on their investment.
12. There is no data or substantial evidence before the Council that there is a
shortage of affordable apartment units in the City. In fact, evidence has been
previously provided to the City to the contrary.
13. Statistics show that a majority, if not all, of the noise complaints lodged by
homeowners against vacation rentals involve single family residential units NOT
apartment units.
14. The Staff Report references that this Ordinance may adversely impact 53
properties which consist of approximately 143 units. (There are actually only
approximately 34 properties at issue, as many of the properties are listed multiple
times due to multiple units on the same property.) To require said properties to
cease operating as short term vacation rentals, will not scratch the surface of the
alleged and unsubstantiated shortage of affordable housing in this City.
According to the U.S. Census numbers, the some document cited by Staff in the
Staff Report, there were 11,997 multifamily units in Palm Springs, as of 2010, This
number has remained relatively unchanged for the past twenty years, with 11,487
multifamily units in Palm Springs in 19901 Accordingly, if there were 11,997 units
available in Palm Springs in 2010, and the number of units which may be
impacted by this Ordinance equates to 143 (per attachment 2 to the Staff
Report), then the enactment of this Ordinance will only "save" approximately
1.2% of the multifamily units available within the City of Palm Springs, Enactment
of this Ordinance is not the solution to any alleged shortage of "affordable
housing."
15. If this Ordinance passes, the City will have drastically reduced the value of
numerous properties by restricting the use of said properties which may result in a
"taking" of these owners' property rights. The impact of requiring these owners to
put their properties to a particular, required use - long term apartment rentals - will
result in less operating income every month. It is our position that these properties
owners have vested rights to utilize their apartment properties as short term
vacation rentals, and as such, they are entitled to continue said use of the
properties as same.
16. If the City has concerns with short term vacation rentals of apartment units
separate and apart from other types of housing, then those concerns should be
specifically identified, a complete analysis should be prepared as to each
concern, including mechanisms and options for addressing the concern which
BLASDEL GUINAN LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
October 5, 2016
Page 4
are supported by evidence. For example, if the concern is fire safety, ADA
compliance, or noise, then apply and enforce the City's Municipal Code and the
State's statutory law applicable to each identified concern. If the issue is
affordable housing, then the City should prepare a full and complete analysis of
the number of existing affordable housing units in the City of Palm Springs, the
estimated need which exists in the City, vacancies, monthly rental amounts
charged, and related information necessary to enable a comprehensive
understanding and exploration of the issue of "affordable housing."
Based upon the foregoing, and all other comments and objections received on this item,
it is respectfully requested that the Council vote against passage of this Ordinance in its entirety.
Restricting short term rentals of apartment units is not the solution to the City's shortage of
affordable housing units, if, in fact, one exists, In the alternative, it is respectfully suggested that
the Ordinance be revised so as to allow the existing permitted properties to be "grandfathered
in" (including after any sale to a third party buyer) due to the level of investment and
commitment the owners have made to their properties, the local businesses, this City and their
guests. Thank you for your attention, time and consideration of these issues.
Very truly yours,
BLASDEL GUINAN LAWYERS
h�� &.
Diane C. Blasde
DCB/js
cc: Clients
Cindy Berardi
From: Doug Cortez <dhc@pobox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; Chris Mills;
"'Ginny.Foat@palmspringsca.gov:"'@IMSVA01.pal msprings-ca.gov, Robert Moon;
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Palm Springs Vacation Rentals: BIG City Council Mtg, Wednesday, October 5th, 6pm
Dear Council members and Mayor:
My suggestions on this agenda item:
1. With certain exceptions, Apartment Buildings in multifamily zones, should be licensed for long term (over 28 days)
rentals. They are part of the housing stock, and not for use as surrogates for hotels.
2. Currently, the City has approved some apartment buildings for vacation rentals. They should honor those licenses and
not abruptly cancel those licenses. An abrupt cancelation might be unconstitutional under the 5 the amendment takings
clause.
3. If the City wants to transition apartment buildings to long term rentals only, it must be done is a fair way that respects
property owners that have been granted licenses. income rental investors who invested based on vacation rental
approvals deserve time to recover their added investments.
4. The transition plant should include honoring existing vacation rental licenses. Licenses should remain valid until the
property changes ownership, .. or for a period not to exceed 5 years, whichever is less. This would give property owners
a reasonable time period to recoup their investment in a vacation rental apartment building and adequate time to
manage the transition to long term rental income business.
5. Converting an apartment building to a hotel or vacation rentals should not be prohibited. However, it should be
subject to issuance of a conditional use permit provided the conversion complies with the City General Plan and zoning
laws.
Thank you for listening to my thoughts and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Douglas H. Cortez
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone:949-715-5509
Mobile: 949-697-7536
DHC(&POBox.com
- October 5, 2016
t Via Email and US Mail
City of Palm Springs, c/o City Clerk
City Council of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
c itvcicrkfii!Dalmsurines-ca.eov
RECEIVED
CiIY OF P`LHSPRING7
Law( cb l B� A May
JAHES THOHPS,,=
CITY CLERK
RE: Proposed Ordinance Prohibiting the Rental of Apartments as Vacation Rentals
and Amending the Palm Springs Municipal Code
1 submit these comments on behalf of Protect Our Neighborhood ("PON" ), a community
group based in Palm Springs in connection with the City's ongoing reconsideration of
t SO4 Marsh street vacation rental regulation. As the City acknowledges, the rapid growth of the vacation
Snn t.ws flbispu rental industry in Palm Springs has created ongoing negative impacts on residents of
t ai,iorn,a 93401 Palm Springs. While the City seems focused on the serious impacts on the City's stock
ph 805-593-0926 of affordable housing, the City has simply ignored the impact on residential
rav 805-593-094r, neighborhoods which are seriously affected by the proliferation of vacation rentals. The
impacts on these neighborhoods include noise, trash and traffic.
babaknatie}lalsbegl„bat n As more full explained below, the City's ongoing practice of permitting the conversion
�, )' P Y' € € P P €
of single-family residences and apartments to vacation rental units violates the City's
own zoning ordinance, which does not permit commercial use of residences without
administrative review and appropriate permit. I strongly urge you to at a minimum
impose an outright ban on ALL vacation rental conversions until the full impact of the
industry is better understood and adequate regulation and safeguards are adopted to
protect the neighborhoods from the adverse impacts of short-term rentals.
The vacation rental industry is taking over Palm Springs.
As past Staff Reports have explained, the number of vacation rental conversions in Palm
Springs has sky -rocketed in recent years. The City further recognizes that the City does
not possess adequate affordable housing, including, but not limited to, apartments and
condos.
If you google '-vacation rental palm springs" you would quickly find out that vacationers
have the option of picking from hundreds, if not thousands, of vacation rentals in Palm
Springs. The City is, of course, well aware of this phenomena because, at least in theory,
almost all vacation rentals must be registered with the City and pay "TOT" taxes.
Whether there is full compliance with the City Ordinance requiring registration of all
short-term rental units is anyone's guess.
Given the rampant proliferation of vacation rentals, it is not surprising that the stock of
residential rentals in Palm Springs has been severely depleted. A quick search of the
l�►� 3- a.
1015111-
available rentals shows there are only a few apartments available for rent, and virtually no single-
family homes. The evidence points to the vacation rental industry as the culprit.
Across the State many communities worst hit by the tsunami of vacation rentals are beginning to
understand that as the vacation rental industry digs its claws into neighborhoods, long-term
residents and newly transplanted residents alike are squeezed out'. This is why many Cities have
taken measures to stop or at least slow down the conversion of their housing stock to vacation
rentals while they try to come up with a regulatory solution to the problem.
The City Council itself seems to understand that the proliferation of vacation rentals is capable of
causing a housing shortage in Palm Springs. This is evident from the fact, for example, that the
City enacted and extended an urgency Ordinance to temporarily ban the conversion of apartments
to vacation rentals to (I ) ensure a reasonable balance between the availability of rental and
ownership housing in the City and maintaining opportunities for individual choice in the tenure,
type, cost, and location of single-family residences; (2) maintain an adequate supply of housing
affordable to low income residents; and (3) avoid displacement of and undue hardship to residents
of the City who may be required to move from the community due to the shortage of low income
housing caused in party by the conversions of apartment units to vacation rentals." April 20, 2016
Staff Report p. 3.
Now the City is proposing to ban conversion of all apartments, but still does not propose to extend
the ban to single-family residences. The City has never explained why the stated purpose of the
protecting affordable rentals would not be served by extending the scope of the Ordinance's ban on
vacation rentals to include single-family residences. These housing types provide available and
affordable housing to low income residents of the City, particularly larger families or groups of
room -mates who may require larger, multi -bedroom homes and may prefer to have access to a
yard. The City also ignores the proliferation of vacation rentals has substantially increased the
value of single-family residences, which in turn drives up the price of all rentals throughout the
City.
The proposed Resolution includes a finding that:
There is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare
because conversions of apartment units to vacation rentals could displace apartment
residents and drive these residents out of Palm Springs, eroding the City's resident
socio-economic population mix but also adversely impact City business that rely on
residents in that mix as a valuable employee pool.
By the same logic, the City should also conclude that the ongoing conversion of single-family
residences to vacation rentals also displaces "single-family residents' (likely middle-class
families), thereby eroding the City's resident socio-economic population mix and disadvantage
those City businesses that rely on such residents.
' See, Los Angeles Times, "Airbnb and other short-term rentals worsen housing shortage, critics
sue." March It, 2015 !, http://wNvw.latirnes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-airbnb-housing-market-
20150311-story. html)
The proposed Resolution also includes the following finding:
D. The City Council specifically finds there is a reasonable relationship between the
conversion of apartment units to vacation rentals and the diminution in the supply
of affordable housing thereby creating undue hardships for residents displaced by
the conversion to vacation rentals and will otherwise adversely affect the
availability and cost of affordable housing throughout the City.
By the same logic, unabated conversion of single-family units to vacation rentals would diminish
the supply of both affordable single-family units, as well as apartments and condos. Conversion of
single family units to vacation rentals, which will likely proliferate even more after the ban on
conversion of apartments, will create an undue hardship on residents who currently rent such
residences and will have a cascading impact on residential rental costs throughout the City.
In short, there is no substantial evidence or adequate explanation supporting the conclusion that
conversion of single family units to vacation rental would not have the same or similar impacts as
those created by the conversion of apartments. In fact, the City has never adequately explained the
distinction it has attempted to draw between single-family homes and apartments. To continue to
allow the conversion of single family homes the City must point to evidence and analysis that
shows the City's housing stock is not being adversely affected.
Allowing vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods violates the City's zoning ordinance.
The City's zoning ordinance bans most commercial activities in residential zones. PSMC
§5.25.070, for example, directs that owners of vacation rentals "shall use reasonably prudent
business practices to ensure that the Vacation Rental unit complies with all applicable codes ...'
There is no question that vacation rentals, especially those being managed in large numbers by
large management companies, are commercial in nature. They pay TOT taxes, and are otherwise
regulated as commercial businesses.
With the exception of small day cares, commercial use of properties in single-family residential
zones is specifically prohibited. PSMC §92.01.02 . Certain other activities may be allowed by
Land Use Permit. PSMC §92.01.02 (C). More intense activities, such as child care centers require
a Conditional Use Permit. PSMC §92.01.02 (D). Yet, the evidence shows that many of SFRs
currently used as vacation rentals are owned and operated by commercial operators who have
purchased the SFRs specifically to engage in the business of vacation rentals. The City has
ignored the fact these management companies are engaged in commercial operations that may not
be conducted in single-family residential neighborhoods without a permit.
Further, the use of a dwelling "may not change the character of nor adversely affect the uses
permitted in that zone of which it is a part." Code §5.22.010. Just like apartment complexes with
four or more units, vacation rentals can change the character of the neighborhoods in which they
sit. Vacation rentals change the character of the neighborhood by putting a strain on parking,
increasing traffic, increasing outdoor activity and noise, creating unreasonable disturbances, and
displacing residents by eliminating available housing. Vacation rentals place temporary visitors
who are disconnected from the neighborhood and do not engage in community activities, in
residential, single-family neighborhoods. Many of these rentals are investor -owned or operated by
commercial operators, further disconnecting the SFRs from the community and putting the
stability of neighborhoods at risk.
Consistent with the City's Municipal Code, the ban of vacation rentals should be extended to SFRs
in order to maintain the integrity of single-family residential neighborhoods. In the alternative, at a
minimum, the ban on vacation rentals should be extended to any residential unit that is not
otherwise primarily used by a single family or individual. Moreover, like the City of San
Francisco, Palm Springs should place a limit (eg. 90 days) on the number of days any unit may be
used as a vacation rental per year.
There are better alternatives available to the Ordinance as it stands.
The issue of vacation rentals displacing city residents is not unique to Palm Springs: many cities
are now faced with establishing regulations that balance providing visitors with alternative lodging
opportunities and providing adequate affordable housing to its residents.
In establishing a permit program for owners of residential dwellings who rent the units for short-
term rental (as defined), the City of Anaheim used an alternative approach by disallowing short-
term rentals in certain zoning districts. According to Anaheim Ordinance No. 6299 which defines
Short -Term Rental as "the rental of a dwelling or a portion thereof, by the owner to another person
or group of persons for occupancy, dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes for a period less than
thirty (30) consecutive calendar days," bans short-term rentals for any property within single-
family residential zones, multiple -family residential zones, or any other zoning district in the city
in which residential uses are a permitted or conditionally permitted use." Anaheim Ordinance No.
6299.
The City of Anaheim used a zoning approach to carve out where vacation rentals would be
compatible with the integrity of neighborhoods and minimized the strain on the resident socio-
economic population and housing mix. While there are many available alternatives, an approach
such as this would allow the City to remain consistent with its underlying residential zoning
standards in regulating vacation rentals. "Development standards are designed to provide
protection and enhancement of the natural and urban setting consistent with the goals of the
general plan." Code §92.01.00. (Emphasis added.).
Low income families need protection from the conversion of housing stock into vacation rentals
and communities need protection from the commercial activity to maintain their essential
character.
Extending the vacation rental ban to Single Family Residences is consistent with the City's
General Plan.
The overarching purpose of the Ordinance is clearly to protect residential neighborhoods and
housing markets and the displacement of low income households by placing restrictions on the
vacation rental market while balancing the rental options and homeowner's rights. The City's
General Plan instructs under HS1.8: to "Protect established single-family residential
neighborhoods from the transition, intensification, and encroachment of uses that detract and/or
change the character of the neighborhood." By allowing vacation rentals to continue in SFRs
without limit, family -friendly residential neighborhoods are experiencing transient, commercial
tourism instead of the long-term, stable residential inhabitance offered by the zoning code. It is the
City COLIncil's responsibility to ensure the General Plan is being accomplished and this includes
banning vacation rentals in SFRs.
Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, I urge you to include SFRs in the approval of the Proposed Urgency
Ordinance extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1891.
Sincerely,
Babak Naficy
Babak Naficy,
Counsel for Protect Our Neighborhood
Jay Thompson
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
Tim Erkins <timothybe@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, October 05, 2016 4:30 PM
n rr`rlYFQ
CITY OF PALM SPRING,
2116 OCT -5 PM 4: 55
1R Roberts; Geoff Kors
Jay Thompson; Tim Erkins JAMCCIEI7TSY CLERKt .
Vacation Rentals: Commercial Activity Butting Heads with CC&Rs
High
From the "California Western Law Review 5-1-2015":
htto://scholarlvcommons.law.cwsi.edu/cRi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1522&context=cwlr
It's not uncommon for people to think that vacation rentals are just another form of renting. This law review does a good job of
breaking it down. I'll paraphrase here:
• Property law is an intrinsic body of law rooted in the American legal system.
• In regards to the difference between a vacation rental and a traditional rental, it's the difference between possessing a property
(as with a lease) orjust having the right to use it (as with a license).
• A lease is a contract by which the owner transfers the right to use and occupy the property in exchange for payment. A tenant
is given full and exclusive legal possession of the premises.
• A license is an authority to use another's land, without having any right of possession. A vacation renter has only the right to
use the premises, with no rights of possession.
• When the owner supervises and maintains direct control over the use of a property, the person renting is a lodger and not a
tenant.
• A traditional example of a license relationship is that of a hotel guest and hotel owner. A traditional example of a lease
relationship is that of a landlord and tenant.
Cindy Berardi
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
September 14, 2016
Robert Moon, Mayor
Phyllis Klocek <pklocek@dc.rr.com>
Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:32 PM
Chris Mills, Mayor Pro Tern
Ginny Foat, Councilmember
Geoff Kors, Councilmember
J.R. Roberts, Councilmember
CityClerk
Sylvia Crockett; Michael Ziskind
Short Term Rentals 091416
High
City. Clerk(a':palmsprinQsca. gov
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
G7 i' UUVED
OF Pt LM SpKINGt
291i SEP 15 AM 8: 36
"t.h1:S THOMPSr.,.
CITY CLERK
Subsequent to my letter dated September 6, 2016, I have had the opportunity to consider other home
owner input and did further research.
This has caused me to make a more specific statement for resolution of the short term rental issue. I
believe that homes which are R 1 zoned
for "residential only" be banned from having short term rentals. The City has allowed commercial business
to proliferate in residential areas.
The City has acknowledged that these home rentals are "commercial' enterprises by its own requirement
that the owner secure a business
license:
5.25.060 Vacation Rental Registration Requirements
(6) `Evidence of a valid business license issued by the City for the separate business of operating Vacation
Rentals ..."
This recommended adjustment will require a judicious approach by the City and may have to be spread
over some years for current landlords,
but there are ways to do this. Minimally, there should be no additional permits allowed. I am looking
forward to your concurrence in this
regard. I would appreciate receiving an acknowledgement of receipt of this email.
Phyllis Klocek
982 E. Marion Way
Palm Springs, CA 92264
pklocek(d'dc. rr, com
Cindy Berardi
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
September 6, 2016
Robert Moon, Mayor
Phyllis Klocek <pklocek@dc.rr.com>
Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:53 AM
CityClerk
Sylvia Crockett
Short Term Rentals
Twin Palms Rentals 090616jpg
Chris Mills, Mayor Pro Tern
Ginny Foat, Councilmember
Geoff Kors, Councilmember
J.R. Roberts, Councilmember
Citv.Clc&a pal msprinpsca.gov
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
As a year-round resident in Palm Springs for 12 years, I would like to offer my comments and
concerns about the vacation home rental situation. I have a home in the Twin Palms Neighborhood. It is a
free standing, single family home zoned for R-1, residential. There is a short-term rental home next
door. I have spoken with and have a good relationship with the owner. Having said that, I am extremely
disturbed by the proliferation of these rental homes and view them as commercial enterprises and in
conflict with the zoning ordinance (as I understand it). I do not view all of Palm Springs as a "resort
community". I purchased my home as a full-time retirement property. I felt that the Palm Springs' quiet
and beautiful residential areas around the center of the thriving business and tourist core had kept the
"village" atmosphere whole and compelling.
I have attached a drawing of the Twin Palms Neighborhood, identifying the single
residences. There are 172 homes in this area not including the high density Homeowners Associations in
the neighborhood (Ocotillo Lodge, etc.). These are the mid-century modern homes constructed in the
early days of Palm Springs. There are 40 homes that offer short-term rentals. (My source data was the
August 2016 rental listing provided by the City, plus VRBO and AirBnB searches). That is 23% of this
portion of this outlined neighborhood. This density is outrageous. My apology to the Protect Our
Neighborhood organization but I believe that for evaluation, the rental numbers need to be drilled down
much lower, but I appreciate and thank them for their efforts so far.
I believe that the quiet, beautiful and historic neighborhoods have to be protected from this
commercial onslaught. Not only do the total numbers of rentals need to be regulated, but control of
existing rentals needs to be established and ordinances enforced by the City.
I would appreciate receiving an acknowledgement of receipt of this email. I look forward to
appropriate oversight and positive resolution on this matter.
Phyllis Klocek
982 E. Marion Way
Palm Springs, CA 92264
pklocck(a dc.rr.com
E Palm Canvon Ur
a:
1 --—————
--— -Tv*rr ofms-Br-1
1 j O
7 i331
I
M'N'
I
--•
am
-- --,
M
a
M'
V1 �_u°
a
boa one
LaTolraRcr — — —
—1
Nwion
..
;n'.
I
10
`♦ �tig �� �_ / /
Ini
\ Ila-
-R
°0
Twin Palms Will
Palms Spring
172 Homes Se
40 Short -Term Rental:
As of 09M
(Discard any prior
2
I would appreciate receiving an acknowledgement of receipt of this email. I look forward to
appropriate oversight and positive resolution on this matter.
Phyllis Klocek
982 E. Marion Way
Palm Springs, CA 92264
pklocek(&.dc. rr. com
E Palm Canyon I)r _
m
v
Q
{ -----------T»rn-Ptllrrts$r—
{ '32� '33�
1
.. ' i351 i07 i��or,i
CM'9B'
'25, 185991.0 A � i0 �
a cc
o V110 �i� Q
m:261
M 1 5
( :13 i :14:Z �77 Iv 1
laTolTand- — — — — —I
15 :16 18 I 1
1 �21 �22� '390240381 � 341
--'--' I- _,I_
" --- -' 1
I - M4r pry e(
{ o n i za I kdy a
I _ --'
:231 .L
-'
\ dni 37' G� d'Q1'
'04'
1201
% \ _83
I �
Twin Palms Neigl
Palms Spring
rr 172 Homes Se
F.
40 Short -Term Rental:
As of 09/05
(Discard any prior
2
�GyA& l
Cindy Berardi
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear J.R. and Geoff:
Michael Frick - SPEAKING.com <mike@speaking.com>
Thursday, October 06, 2016 12:05 PM
Geoff Kors; JR Roberts
Ginny Foat; Douglas C. Holland; David Ready, Robert Moon; Chris Mills, CityClerk
Thank You for Your Work on STRsl :-)
Good morning :-) I watched the City Council meeting online last night (first time ever seeing a council
meeting online!). Thank you so much for taking a stand to help protect apartment/apartment buildings from
conversion into small hotels.
J.R: I really appreciated your comment about focusing on the long-term perspective for the city of Palm
Springs —and that one of the mandates of the City Council is to protect its residents. And clarifying that renting
a house as a part-time, short term vacation rental is a privilege, not a right.
Geoff: I agree that phasing out STRs in single family residential neighborhoods should continue to be
considered as a viable option.
The STR issue has been quite a journey for all of us... and now it's onto the meat of the matter: single family
homes. I've given the STR issue a lot of extra thought during the past week since the last sub -committee
meeting... putting myself in your unenviable shoes and trying to find the right balance between STRs and
residential neighborhoods.
Along with my partner, Kyle, we are full time residents of Palm Springs. We both run small businesses that
have national and international clients... we bring money into Palm Springs and spend it on everything from
frequent restaurant visits and various services to the hundreds of thousands of dollars we have recently invested
in remodeling our home.
We have put down deep roots here because we love our neighborhood / neighbors, our friends and the great
quality of life. If you want to attract and retain more people like us, than the quality of life that Palm Springs
provides its residents will be of the utmost importance. Frankly, if we end up getting surrounded by more STRs
that destroy our quality of life, we will sadly be driven from Palm Springs —like many people who have already
and/or are currently contemplating. Yes, the stakes are high.
The decision before you is historic and has enormous implications for the future direction of Palm Springs. Do
we want to continue descending into just becoming a tourist/party town or will we become much more than
that? Palm Springs has been evolving... we have more full-time residents than ever before and we can attract /
grow a more diverse business / economy with technology and sustainability industry jobs.
With the new downtown, possible COD west campus and other initiatives, Palm Springs can continue setting a
course to become a real, full-time, viable community with a high quality of life, attracting new citizens who will
contribute to the local economy and stable vibrancy of our community. We truly are at a crucial crossroads
about the overall vision for the future of our community.
Six months ago, I knew little about STRs. Then, the house behind us was turned into an STR and I was
introduced to the specter of living next to a full-time mini hotel.
My initial reaction was that there must be a way to mitigate the direct negative consequences of the STR behind
us, i.e. enforcement of existing noise rules, etc. And, I was not in favor of phasing out STRs from our
neighborhoods completely because I thought that would be a drastic action for what seemed like a simple,
personal issue with the one STR behind us. And, I had no idea about the history of STRs, their skyrocketing
growth and how they have been undermining our community.
But, after weighing all the pros & cons of keeping STRs in our residential zones, attending VR sub-comittee
meetings, doing copious amounts of research and seeing what other cities are doing, it really seems that phasing
out STRs in our residential neighborhoods is the only way to truly protect affordable housing, safety and quality
of life. Why did I come to this conclusion?
1) Enforcement / Limiting STRs:
It seems that many of the best enforcement options for limiting STRs are, realistically, unenforceable. A good
example is the possible regulation of only allowing part or full time residents to own one STR each. Or a limit
on the number of STR nights per year. How could such schemes be enforced?
Money is a powerful motivator and a corrupting influence in situations like this... so I'm not hopeful that any
penalties / regulations / enforcement could stop the proliferation of STRs and long-term negative effects. But,
maybe there is still hope this route could work, time will tell (presuming the Council goes this route).
Can residents simply learn to live with STRs? With almost 30% of STRs receiving complaints in 2015 and the
complaints continuing to increase in 2016, it does not seem likely. We have talked with many of our friends
and neighbors and most don't know about the STR hotline, they don't know that music is not allowed outdoors,
they don't know what the quiet hours or acceptable noise levels are and/or have been told to call the rental
company / owner first. So, these complaints are grossly under -reported. Once there is more education and the
hotline is the sole way for neighbors to report STR violations, you will see a huge uptick in complaints.
Can STR vacation renter behavior be controlled with more stringent penalties and enforcement? Possibly, but
the STR weekend warrior renter comes here to party / hang around the house around the clock and will, by the
very nature of the rental, be loud, smoke, create trash, traffic and generally disturb the neighborhood. Yes, there
are many good renters, but just a few bad renters a month ruins quality of life. How can we tell people to come
to Palm Springs and enjoy their vacation and then fine them when they act like they are on vacation? I just don't
see a good balance here.
Side comment about noise, this is a health and safetv issue too:
httn://www.medscane.com/Niewarticle/554566 3
http://bmb.oxfordjoumals.org/content/68/l/243.full
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise
2) Tourism Economy / Real Estate:
The pro-STR crowd uses tourism as the main reason why STRs should be allowed. Contrary to what some have
commonly parroted on this talking point, the tourism industry will not collapse if we restore our R1 zoned
residential neighborhoods back to what they have been traditionally: non-commercial zones. We do not need
to sell off our neighborhoods to the highest bidders in order to be successful economically.
What we do need to do is look at these numbers more carefully for the big picture. The city should do a study
on the opportunity costs for STRs in residential neighborhoods. What does a resident contribute economically
versus an STR customer? 1 think you'll find that residents contribute far more to the local economy than
transient customers of these "single -family -home" hotels. Residents are the true lifeblood of the city... and our
presence in single family neighborhoods goes far beyond financial considerations... we are what keeps the city
alive and running!
Is the smaller amount of STR TOT from single family homes worth all the costs for enforcement /
administration, extra spending on safety, the misery it creates for neighbors, loss of affordable housing and the
loss of residents? This is the trade-off, this is the balance.
There are hundreds of new hotel rooms coming online. Small hotels have already told you they are hurting
economically because of STRs.
There is a clear and viable answer to creating single family home STR housing stock if that's what one smaller
segment of the tourist population wants: Palm Springs still has lots of vacant land and new projects being
proposed. Make some of these new projects STR zones from the outset.
The Palm Springs housing market hit it highest point in 2005 / 2006, before the STR market really took off and
before the permitting process was even in place. So, what really is the effect of STR investors in our residential
family neighborhoods? And, are STR investors creating an artificial bubble now that will collapse the real
estate market once saturation hits, or when there is another economic downturn?
Ouick look at the maior revenue streams and possible effects of removine single familv home STRs:
---> Property taxes: no loss here, people will continue paying property taxes, whether an STR or not.
___> Sales and use taxes / Measure 7 tax: residents and hotel visitors contribute a lot more to this number than
the "stay at the STR home" crowd. Why do hotel visitors contribute more? Because they eat out and get out
more and don't just hang around their STR house.
___> TOT: yes, this number might go down slightly due to a smaller percentage of current STR customers
that will not come to Palm Springs if the whole house rental option is not offered. Again, does the small loss of
TOT justify the huge amount of misery and additional economic costs that STRs create for our community?
Palm Springs should not be giving away the farm to the large hotels in the form of TOT rebates. Recapture
some of that TOT from new hotel rooms.
As you know, police and safety are one of the highest expenditures in the city. So, much of this TOT money is
being eaten up by the increased need for policing.
Small hotels will experience an upswing, so any loss in STR TOT will be partially offset by an increase in small
hotel stays.
And, replace some of the lost STR full house stock with STR zoned projects (see above) to increase TOT.
3) Safety:
Palm Springs now has the highest crime rate in the valley... and very high compared to national numbers
overall. One of the reasons stated by the police department is because of tourism and the effects it has on the
stability of our area and how STRs undermine neighborhood watch efforts.
The issue of visitor safety is also at stake... are the homes they are renting up to code and safe?
4) Hollowing out of our neighborhoods / loss of community / affordable housing:
The city has heard many testimonies from people who have left, or are considering, leaving Palm Springs due to
the loss of the essential, traditional neighborhood feeling and because of the nuisance STRs create. Do we want
to continue pushing out our residents?
Lack of affordable housing:
httn://www.desertsun.com/storv/monev/real-estate/2016/01 /07/risin2-rents-coachella-vallev-home-
nrices/74706340/
Every house that is converted to an STR takes a longer -term rental off the market... for either residents OR our
longer -term snow bird renters.
As you know, many other cities have decided to phase out STRs in their communities because they have
weighed the opportunity costs of STRs and came to the conclusion that they were not worth letting continue. If
you decide the phasing STRs out in our residential neighborhoods is the clearest way to save our City, then
you'll end up taking a lot of heat from the pro-STR crowd. They are loud and scared of losing their cash
cow. They have made all sorts of wild claims about the economic Armageddon that will ensue if STRs are
phased out. It's simply not true. We have much more to gain by phasing out STRs in the longer term, than
the short-term gains they may have offered a minority of property owners. You will be on the right side of
history.
The current STR ordinance has done little to limit STRs, eliminate the bad apples or mitigate their negative
consequences. If you do decide to try new regulations and enforce STR rules that will actually be effective, the
city will need to have a strong resolve and be prepared for a restructuring of the STR industry.
Since 30% of STRs have complaints logged on them over the course of a single year and problem STRs are
vastly under -reported, you can expect that at least 30% of current STRs will probably end up needing to have
their permits revoked. The city will need to stand strong against the protests it will receive from these owners
and the STR agencies.
Thank you both again for all your incredible work on the sub -committee... you are really doing Palm Springs a
great service and this is the best example of community action. We are looking forward to hearing your
continued deliberation at the next STR sub -committee meeting.
All my best,
Michael Frick and Kyle Hammons
Michael Frick
CEO
SPEAKING.com
MikeCaD.Speakina.com
Office: 760-656-8770. ext. 101
Fax: (888) 489-9464
Leadership, Innovation, Marketing, Motivational Blog:
httr)://SPEAKING.com/bloa/
10059 Boulder Knolls Dr. October 7, 2016
Escondido CA 92026
City Council of Palm Springs
Re: 937 Sundance Circle N Palm Springs
Dear Council members:
I understand that you are once again discussing the Vacation Rental Ordinance under the
pressure of the Protect Our Neighborhoods movement.
It is quite amazing that a modest number of people try to push their thoughts onto the
whole Town.
Perhaps these people forget that it wasn't long ago that Palm Springs was not what it was
years ago. Without the injection of new money, and people who have come to the Town,
Palm Springs would still be only a shadow of it's former self.
Many of the properties that are now in the rental market, were homes that had been
allowed to deteriorate and were not a complement to their neighborhood.
The new people in Palm Springs, whether permanent residents or those who rent their
homes on a seasonal basis, have all contributed to the revitalization of the Town. We all
spend money on goods and services, and your restaurants have never had it better.
Remember that people on vacation, always spend money and contribute to the upscale
feeling of Palm Springs.
Do these Protect Our Neighborhood people spend a lot of money in local restaurants .
buy lots of seasonal clothing to take home for their summer, spend money on gifts for
friends and family etc etc.
We look forward to retiring in Palm Springs,
incerely
c
i
Ian Lewis
Cindy Berardi
From: Les Starks <recipeforhealing@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:03 AM
To: Geoff Kors; 1R Roberts; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; CityClerk
Subject: Palm Springs Vacation Rental support
Dear Vacation Rental Subcommittee and City Council
For the duration of our vacation rental condo ownership
PS Villas 11 One Bedroom #M204 (102415) - McLean Company Rentals
we have never had one noise complaint. Our place is always immaculately maintained, with super -clean
windows, polished floors, and attention to every detail-- like the finest accommodations, even though it's only
536 square feet. Our condo, like every other condo in the complex is the size of a small, one bedroom hotel
room-- just perfect for a vacation rental. We rent our condo (we only have one) whenever we are lucky enough
to have paying guests. We rely on the monthly checks we receive from the McLean Company, and the inability
to rent our property would create a financial hardship for us.
Our guests spend their money in Palm Springs, frequenting local restaurants and stores, and buying all the food
and supplies visitors must buy.
We bought our condo specifically as vacation rental investment, and if there had been any vacation rental
restriction we would have never considered purchasing the property. We carefully and completely updated and
refurnished it in Palm Springs Modern style, with vintage photos of landscapes in the Palm Springs Indian
Canyons and attention to every minor detail.
We only wish our neighbors were so responsible. Some owners, especially those with long term lease tenants,
tend to forget about and neglect their properties inside and out, adversely affecting our entire community and
leaving us at risk of lower property values and crime. Vacation rentals have always been the most attractive,
well maintained residences in our community, serving to improve the overall aesthetic and keep our property
values from de-escalating. Vacation rentals are the heart and soul of the neighborhood, and we owners will
suffer if they ever disappear, as we desperately need them to protect property values and preserve the integrity
of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Les Starks and Jerilyn M. Vogelsang
15981 Snow Creek Road
Whitewater, CA 92282
760-327-2722
Cindy Berardi
From: miller.getaways <miller.getaways@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 1:36 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Palm Springs vacation rentals -going forward
I hope you will consider letting people who are current vacation landlords remain as such.
We offer a valuable service to the Canadians for their vacations every year. I certainly understand no new
vacation rentals that's understandable but people who are 10 years plus vacation rental landlords do offer an
important service to the Canadian we have many people that come back year after year.
thank you for listening please pass this on if you can.
Ken and Rhonda Miller
Sent from my %ervoti. Samsung Galaxy timartphone
-�4, V4lav<"
On Monday the Sonoma City Council agreed to halt
short-term rentals while the city reviews their impact
on affordable housing inventory. We ask you do the
same.
Today there are 104 single-family homes for sale under
$400,000 in Palm Springs. Not even 1% of our 13,000
homes. Most for -sales are located in the fastest growing
VR areas in the city ... like Demuth Park and Desert Park
Estates. Almost all of them are being marketed as Rental
Opportunities. Other affordable areas in the city have
already been saturated with STRs, such as Racquet Club
Estates ,TREND, and Movie Colony East.
My question is this: Is 104 homes for sale under
$400,000 a good number or not? I don't know. If these
104 become short term rentals, then how many are left
for family's wanting to permanently live here?
In regard to rentals, when I searched for 2+ bedroom
rentals under $2,000 a month
I could only find 21 homes and 23 apartments city-wide
for rent. That seems extremely low.
Tonite, hopefully, you're going to free up a lot more
apartments for rent.
Please take this opportunity to add back 1,982 single
family homes as well.
3.6
I
STR Growth by N'Org
June 30, 2015 vs June 30, 2016
Demuth Park
11
23
109.09%
The Mesa
19
37
94.74%
lWarm Sands
39
66
7
69.23%
1 Desert Park Estates
19
32
68.42%
Andreas Hills
10
15
50.00%
Sonora Sunrise
10
15
50.00%
ISunmor
23
33
43.48%
�Little Tuscany
36
49
36.11%
Indian Canyons
31
42
35.48%
Movie Colony East
98
130
2
32.65%
[Tahquitz River Estates
84
108
4
28.57%
]Vista Norte
40
51
10
27.50%
Araby Commons
15
19
26.67%
101d Las Palmas
36
45
25.00%
[Racquet Club West
36
45
25.00%
]Sunrise Park
81
100
5
23.46%
�Gene Autry
23
28
21.74%
AEI Mirador
21
25
19.05%
Canyon Corridor
17
20
17.65%
�Racquet Club Estates
101
118
3
16.83%
�Los Compadres
30
35
16.67%
The Movie Colony
25
29
16.00%
IHistoric Tennis Club 1
21
24
1
14.29%
Little Beverly Hills
17
19
11.76%
IDeepwell Estates
1
52
58
9
11.54%
AEI Rancho Vista
23
25
8.70%
Vista Las Palmas 1
60
1 64
1 8 1
6.67%
Sunrise Vista Chino 1
21
1 20
-4.76%
No Neigbhorhood Org
358
325
1
-9.22%
Midtown
73
66
7
-9.59%
Twin Palms
58
48
-17.24%
Mountain Gate
8
6
-25.00%
Park View Mobile '
0
0
n/a
Desert Highland
3
0
n/a
Four Seasons
1
0
n/a
Racquet Club South
19
0
n/a
I Lawrence Crosley
0
2
n/a
jEscena
0
1 3
1
n/a
Melody Ranch
0
1 10
1
n/a
Ranch Club Estates
0
1 23
1
n/a
ITacquitz Creek Golf 1
0
1 68 1
6 1
n/a
TOTALsj
1536
1 1873 1
1
21.94%
Prepared by Protect Our Neighborhoods 2016
STIR Growth by N'Org
June 30, 2015 vs June 30, 2016
Baristo
17
47
176.47%
Demuth Park
11
23
109.090A
The Mesa
19
37
94.740/6
Warm Sands
39
66
7
69.23%
1Desert Park Estates
19
32
68.42%
Andreas Hills
10
15
50.00%
Sonora Sunrise
10
15
50.000/0
ISunmor
23
33
43.48%
1 Little Tuscany
36
49
36.11%
Indian Canyons
31
42
35.48%
1 Movie Colony East
98
130
2
32.65%
ITahquitzRiver Estates
84
108
4
28.57%
Vista Norte
40
51
10
27.50%
Araby Commons
15
19
26.67%
101d Las Palmas
36
45
25.00%
1 Racquet Club West
36
45
25.00%
Sunrise Park
81
1 100
1 5 1
23.46%
Gene Autry
23
28
21.74%
El Mirador
21
25
19.05%
Canyon Corridor
17
20
17.65%
Racquet Club Estates
101
118
3
16.83%
Los Compadres
30
35
16.67%
The Movie Colony
25
29
16.00%
IHistoric Tennis Club (
21
1 24
1 1
14.29%
Little Beverly Hills
17
19
1
11.76%
[Deepwell Estates
52
58
9
11.54%
IEI Rancho Vista
23
25
8.70%
Vista Las Palmas 1
60
1 64 1
8
6.67%
Sunrise Vista Chino 1
21
1 20 I
-4.76%
INo Neigbhorhood Org
358
325 I
1
-9.22%
Midtown
73
66 1
7 1
-9.590A
Twin Palms 1
58
1 48 I
I
-17.24%
Mountain Gate
8
6
-25.00%
Park View Mobile
0
0
n/a
Desert Highland
3
0
n/a
Four Seasons
1
0
n/a
Racquet Club South
19
0
n/a
I Lawrence Crosley
0
2
n/a
jEscena 1
0
3 1
1
n/a
IMelody Ranch 1
0
10 1
1
n/a
Ranch Club Estates 1
0
23 1
n/a
ITacquitz Creek Golf 1
0
68 1
6
n/a
TOTALSI
1536
1 1873 1
1
21.94%
Prepared by Protect Our Neighborhoods 2016