HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/2011 - STAFF REPORTS - 00 (2) Once 1745
1n the Context of
Event Permits 011-003 A 011-M
Palm Springs Municipal Code 92-01-02A specifically prohibits "commercial uses" in RI
single family residential zones. However,Mr.Ewing states that Council "has determined
that certain businesses are allowed in residential zones, including home
occupations—subject to certain restrictions—and events—subject to Event House
permits." (page 05, Administrative Appeals Board Staff Report, 1350 Ladera Circle,
September 20,2011). The first of these two categories(home occupations) are subject to
very stringent conditions which Mr. Ewing spells out on page 06 of the Administrative
Appeals Board Staff Report for 845 W. Chino Canyon Road dated September 20, 2011:
Staff notes that business activities in R-1 zones are limited to home occupations where no
business-related activities should be evident to the neighbors—" A footnote refers to
PSMC 5.22.05.10 "A home occupation shall not be permitted if it causes any increase in
pedestrian or vehicular traffic." The only other business activity permitted in a
residential zone is "events—subject to Event House permits."
Unlike"home occupations" Event House activities are highly visible to the neighbors and
cause considerable increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic. If these events had been
limited to three a year, as was proposed in the July 30, 2008 draft of Ordinance 1745,
then, possibly, these disturbances to the peace and calm of other residents might be
acceptable but it is the stated aim of both Tri-Villa Trust of 1350 Ladera Circle and KH
Holdings of 845 W. China Canyon Road to run a full-scale,full time business in a R-I-A
zone. Mr. Lewis, Agent for Tri-Villa Trust, wants 1350 Ladera Drive to reopen as an
Event House. His plan is for daily events, including setup and teardown from 930 a.m.
to 10:00pm and tours from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This application was denied by Mr.
Ewing but nonetheless indicates the scope and scale of Mr. Lewis' business plan. Mr.
Fontana rails at a limitation of one day per week of paid tours (email to Craig Ewing
dated August 22,2011 page 7 ) pointing out he can give as many free tours as he likes.
In a letter to the City Clerk dated September 1, 2011, Laura Whittier of KH Holdings
complains that "The Planning Department, by its actions, continues to unjustly damage
the business momentum and good will...and...undermine the business plans of KH/LW
for the Presley Estate."(pg 30). In a previous Appeal Mr. Fontana pleaded that KH is his
sole source of income and therefore the City should grant him a one year Event Permit
The question at issue is: are such stated ambitions compatible with the limited scope and
the original intent of Ordinance 1745?
Meanwhile, the City's Planning Department is in the unenviable position of trying to
achieve a balance between business activity and "...the primary function of single family
neighborhoods: to provide a peaceful quiet place for people to reside, separate from the
noise associated with commercial activities."(page 5, 1350 Ladera Circle Staff Report)
What criteria are to be used in seeking a balance between a commercial activity and a
resident's enjoyment of peace and quiet? "... commercial events are to be allowed when
Pleb W 7-�e/c 14 L
they can be conducted to cause the least possible damage to residential properties."
(page 6) Why should commercial events be allowed to cause any damage to residential
properties?
As noted in 5.75.040, 'Free' tours do not require a permit. Whatever the original intent
of this Exception it now needs to be viewed in the context of multiple daily tours, six or
seven days a week. In terms of the disturbance caused—the shattering of peace and quiet
in the residential area in question—whether the tours are free or paid for is no consolation
to the distracted residents. A wedding is planned and there is insufficient time to apply
for an Event Permit. If Mr. Fontana waives his fee, no permit is required, the wedding
goes forward but the disturbance to the neighborhood is identical. Mr. Fontana claims he
gives free tours all the time;the City says it cannot monitor Mr.Fontana's activities. The
City limits Mr.Fontana's tours to one day a week, but does not stipulate which day. Who
is to know which tours are free and which are paid for? Or is that just a confidential
matter between Mr. Fontana and the Internal Revenue Service? Also, if Mr. Fontana is
under no obligation to inform his neighbors which day of the week tours are to take
place, how are his neighbors to make plans to evacuate the neighborhood, with its
associated noise, vehicular and pedestrian traffic,on the day of the tour?
Under the section Purpose and Intent(5.75.010), the City states it intends "to maintain
harmonious relations between the community or neighborhood and those engaged in
such activities." The opposite has occurred and, in each case under Appeal, there has
been a major outcry among the neighborhoods against those organizing these events.
Nineteen (19) individuals wrote or emailed the city requesting EHP 11-003 be denied.
None wrote in support of the applicant. In the case of EHP 11-004,(21)wrote to the City
requesting denial, (4) wrote in support. There is also a petition on file supporting the
applicant. This petition has (21) names, including the (4) individuals who wrote to the
City in support of the applicant.These statistics contradict Mr. Fontana's claim that the
vast majority of neighbors support him. Those residents who took the time and trouble to
write to the City wrote in favor of denial by a margin of more than 5:1. Tri-Villa Trust,
who claim in their letter to Neighborhood Residents dated June 3,2011: "We and other
homes in Palm Springs have successfully proven that an event house can peacefully co-
exist within a neighborhood"in fact unleashed a deluge of written complaints and could
not muster a single letter(other than the owner's)in support of its activities_
5.75.010 The City allows such events to be staged in residential areas of the City so
long as such events do not unreasonably interfere with the public health and safety of the
residents or unreasonably endanger any property within the City. This definition,
apparently the major factor in determining whether a permit should be granted, is vague
and misses the essential point: the disturbance, inconvenience and destruction of peace
and tranquility caused,not by an occasional event but by multiple events,free or paid for,
virtually every day of the week.
5.75.075 (k) The City Manager, or his designee, "shall have the authority to impose
additional standard conditions to achieve the objectives of this Chapter." But does either
party have authority to remove conditions (one permit per event;60 day notice for each
event)originally imposed by Council? (5.75.050)These two conditions were considered
by Staff to be "probably one of the more significant changes from the earlier draft of the
ordinance." (Staff Report dated July 30, 2008, page 3, paragraph B). Both conditions
were included in the final ordinance approved and passed into law on September 17,
2008. They were both eliminated by Staff because of the possibility that multiple events
might"create confusion for notice recipients". (pg 02) Does Staff have the authority to
take such action? If so, "A list of all such additional conditions shall be maintained and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk and such offices as the City Manager designates."
5.75.075 (k). As of September 19, 2011, there was no such list of additional conditions
or"Administrative Options"taken by Mr.Ewing on file in the City Clerk's Office.
At the end of each of the two staff reports dated September 20,2011,there is a note:
Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact(page 6 in each case).
This is certainly true but it is worth quoting the following comment from Ron Siegel's
email to Craig Ewing dated August 09, 2011. (page 53 of the 845 W. Chino Canyon
Road Staff Report):
"Our creation of the VRO and the ERO was a compromise that was largely driven by the
TOT income provided by the Vacation Rentals. No such income is provided by the Event
Rentals in Palm Springs."
The reference by Laura Whittier to "international countries who are willing to increase
their promotion of Palm Springs in support of having The Presley Estate open to its fans
and tourists" (page 30) is unsubstantiated and subjective as are "the increase in tax
revenues and fees" (page 11) claimed by the Tri-Villa Trust (page 11). The only
quantifiable income to the City from Event Houses is in the form of permit fees—hardly
enough to balance the workload of the Planning Department in monitoring and
administering Ordinance 1745.
In the tight of the above, we appeal to Council to review this Ordinance and modify it,as
appropriate,in the light of three years operational experience
John&Virginia Goodrich,440 W. Chino Canyon Road,Palm Springs CA 92262