Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1360 - Amnd Ch 5.10 Short-term Rentals (STR)ORDINANCE NO. 1360 STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: November 19, 2020 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration for approval of a recommendation from the City Council Subcommittee on Short -Term Rentals amending Municipal Code Chapter 5.10 Short -Term Rentals related to Planned Residential zoning districts. Recommendation 1. Waive further reading and pass to second reading Ordinance No. 1360, amending Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Chapter 5.10 Short - Term Rentals (STRs) implementing the following: • Require the issuance of new STR permits in PR zones to be supported by written approval from an HOA having jurisdiction over the property. • Existing STR permits within the PR zones (excluding On -Site Owner STR Permits) without such a written approval letter shall terminate, and such uses permanently cease operation after December 31, 2021. Citv Council Subcommittee Recommendation At the regular meeting of August 27, 2020, Councilmember Jonathan requested, with concurrence from Mayor Pro Tern Kelly, a re-examination of STR policies as they apply to PR neighborhoods that for all intents and purposes function the same as R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. No request was made for re-examination of any other part of the City's STR policies. The Council appointed Jonathan and Kelly to a subcommittee to examine the matter and bring back recommendations. At its meetings of September 24 and October 22, 2020, the City Council Subcommittee on STRs met to discuss the current permits issued, complaint history, and operational requirements. After careful study of all public input, and taking into account all policy directions set by the City Council in 2017, the subcommittee is recommending to require an authorizing letter from a governing HOA for STR permits in PR zones and phase -out non -conforming permits. This policy amendment allows for developments with HOAs to control their own policies, while offering protections to those who do not. The November 19, 2020 — CC Staff Report Amendments to Chapter 5.10 STRs PR zones Page 2 of 6 recommendation also includes a one-year phase out for all 69 existing STR permits within the PR zones, without written approval from an HOA having jurisdiction over the property until December31, 2021. Executive Summary Approval of staffs' recommendation would implement new regulations for STRs within the PR zones for properties not governed by an HOA. Staff believes the STR Subcommittee's recommendation strikes a balance between offering the protections desired by PR zoning districts that lack a formal HOA, and preserving the ability to rent on a short term basis throughout the balance of the City (75% +/-). The recommendation provides a 1-year sunset clause for existing permit holders. Backaround Analvsis In 2012, the City Council added Chapter 5.10 Short -Term Rentals creating the current Short -Term Rental Ordinance, and repealed requirements of STRs from Chapter 25 - Zoning that required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The creation of the STR Ordinance was the first time that homeowners could rent their home for less than 27 consecutive days with a three-day, two -night minimum stay, without going through a public hearing to obtain a CUP. In 2017, during the yearlong city-wide policy update, the City created a subcommittee made up of numerous stakeholders and members of the public that discussed extensively four (4) main topics; (Enforcement/Penalties; Operational Requirements; Communication; and Density for the R-1 and R-2 zones. The City Council held three separate public hearing meetings (October 26, November 16, and December 14, 2017). The City Council adopted an ordinance implementing new policy standards for STR operations including enforcement and operational/communication requirements. Enforcement By in large, enforcement was the largest topic of discussion during the 2017 policy update. Many residents stated that the City needed to do a better job with enforcement. The City Council approved the following: • Stricter fines ($1,000, $3,000, and $5,000) for owners, renters, and management companies. • Stricter fines ($5,000) for a non -license STR. • Three (3) strikes within one year result in loss of the permit. • A swing shift Code Compliance Officer who works evening hours. • Hired a third party consulting company to manage a 24/7 hotline and comb through advertising websites looking for non -permitted STR listings. November 19, 2020 — CC Staff Report Amendments to Chapter 5.10 STRs PR zones Page 3 of 6 Operational and Communication Requirements Operational requirements were created because many residents stated that the,previous ordinance lacked accountability of the owners, operators, and renters. Below is a summary of what was added to the new ordinance: Prior to occupancy of an STR unit the operator must comply with the following: • Meet and greet the renter on -site and obtain his or her name, address, and a copy of a valid government -issued identification. • Provide the renter with a copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure. • Provide the renter with information about the STR regulations. • Require the renter to execute a formal acknowledgment in the form acceptable by the City that he or she is legally responsible for compliance of all occupants of the STR unit and their guests, with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the STR unit. Provide the Responsible Person with the Operator's 24-hour availability information. • Provide the renter with a copy of the maximum number of overnight occupants and the maximum number of daytime occupants as permitted pursuant to the chapter. • Provide the Responsible Person with a copy of trash pick-up day and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash on the exterior of the property. • Include in the Good Neighbor Brochure that no music will be played outdoors after 10:00 P.M. In 2017, the City had 1,228 STRs permits, with 276 in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Part of the 2017 updated standards included not issuing any new STR permits in the R-1 and R-2 zones and phasing out all existing STR permits in those zones by December 31, 2019. Towards the end of the 2017 policy update, staff and the City Council were alerted of several PR neighborhoods that do not have a governing HOA. The City Council directed staff to monitor these areas and provide updates if any trends became alarming. In 2019, a slight uptick in new STR permits within the PR zones without active HOAs was evident. Staff prepared informational reports to the City Council stating that staff does not see an alarming concern with the volume of new STR permits. However, in 2020, the volume of complaints to the STR hotline and emails to the City Council office escalated significantly. At its regular meeting of August 27, 2020, Councilmember Jonathan requested that staff review a known zoning irregularity within PR zoning districts that do not have a governing HOA as it relates to STR use. Councilmember Kelly added her concurrence to that effort, however, she expressed the need to bring forward an interim urgency ordinance, placing a moratorium on the issuance of STR permits within Planned Residential zoning districts. Councilmember Jonathan concurred that both are important. November 19, 2020 — CC Staff Report Amendments to Chapter 5.10 STRs PR zones Page 4 of 6 At its next regularly scheduled meeting of September 10, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1357, which established a temporary moratorium on issuing new STR permits within all PR zoning districts unless approved by the governing HOA. The City Council also authorized the STR subcommittee, which includes Councilmembers Kelly and Jonathan to work with staff and present a recommendation to the entire City Council. At its meeting of October 15, 2020, the City Council extended the 45-day interim urgency ordinance, which placed a moratorium on issuing new STR permits within all PR zoning districts unless approved by the governing HOA. The extended moratorium will remain in place until a subsequent ordinance becomes effective. The moratorium will allow existing permitted STIR properties within the affected zoning district to continue operating. Analysis At its peak the City had 1,365 (in 2019) active STR permits; however, currently only has 779. Below is a chart showing the various zoning districts, total percentage of housing stock per zone throughout the City, and total number of STRs within each zone. Zoning Total Percentage Total STR Permits Designation of Housing Stock (779) throughout the City P.R. 68% 709 R-1 16% 8 R-2 6% 12 R-3 6% 41 RE 2% 6 HPR 2% 3 *Active permits represent on -site owner permits & granted Hardship Extensions In 2018, staff was directed to monitor STR use in the PR neighborhoods without an active HOA, and report to the City Council if there are any alarming trends. Below are four known neighborhoods that staff has been monitoring. Shepherd Lane - The neighborhood is mostly off of Shepherd Lane, north of Frank Sinatra Drive, west of Portola Avenue, and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Hovlev Lane West - This neighborhood is east of Monterey Avenue and west of Portola Avenue. • The Grove - This neighborhood is west of Deep Canyon Road, south of Fred Waring Drive, and north of Highway 111. November 19, 2020 — CC Staff Report Amendments to Chapter 5.10 STRs PR zones Page 5 of 6 North Deer) Canvon - These neighborhoods are east of Deep Canyon Road, west of Palm Desert High School, north of Fred Waring Drive, and south of the Whitewater Storm Channel. The PR zone provides maximum flexibility to the initial developer, ranging from large planned communities to developments that function the same as R-1 or R-2 single family zoning districts. Areas such as the Hovley Lane West, Shepherd Lane, and ungated developments along Deep Canyon Road (The Grove) are good examples of neighborhoods that are zoned PR, but share many commonalities with the R-1 or R-2 zoning districts. Below is a chart showing the four PR neighborhoods and the total number of STR permits. PR Neighborhoods . Total STR Permits (69) Shepherd Lane 29 Hovley Lane West 28 The Grove 3 North Deep Canyon 9 The PR zone makes up 68% of the City's housing stock. The areas listed above represents approximately 220 acres of the total 8,600 acres of PR zoned properties within the City. Eliminating STRs from these areas is a small percentage (2.5%) of the total PR zoning designation. Additionally, when combined with other allowed zones STR use remains available in approximately 75% of the City. On -Site Owner STR Permit The STR subcommittee is recommending no change to existing policy regarding these permits within the R-1 and R-2 zones, and now the PR zones without HOA STR authorization. This permit pertains to an owner who is living in and present within the main unit to rent one (1) or more bedroom(s), or an attached/detached casita. This permit still requires all additional information as outlined within the proposed ordinance, including paying the transient occupancy tax. The owner must also demonstrate regular occupancy during the rental period, which may be by neighbor verification or other means sufficient to the City. Public Input Over the last couple of months, the City has received numerous emails, phone calls, and letters from residents within the four PR neighborhoods stating that STRs are ruining their quality of life. Code Compliance has received a large amount of calls for potential STR violations. Many of the violations have been resolved, while some have generated administrative fines. November 19, 2020 — CC Staff Report Amendments to Chapter 5.10 STRs PR zones Page 6 of 6 Additionally, over the last couple of weeks staff has received emails and phone calls from existing STR operators calling on the City to broaden its public input strategy and find workable solutions. The STR subcommittee did not find that forming a large committee warranted this time around as in 2017. The STR subcommittee along with the City Council already studied this topic at great length, and found that the comments from both parties (residents and STR operators) are the exact same comments/ideas as in 2017. The STIR subcommittee's recommendation is based on the 2017 City Council policy that STRs are not compatible within R-1 and R-2-neighborhoods or their equivalent. Fiscal Analvsis A potential reduction in Transient Occupancy Tax revenue during the moratorium cannot be accurately quantified and a guess would be speculative at best. Similarly to the 2017 policy update the City Council Subcommittee has attempted to strike a balance between quality of life within residential neighborhoods and the ability to rent on a short term basis within much of the remaining housing stock (75%+/-). LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Andy Firestine Robert W. Ryan Stendell Andy Firestine Hargreaves Dir. of Community Janet Moore Assistant City City Attorney Development Director of Finance Manaqer Interim City Manager, Randy Bynder: Randy gynde4- ATTACHMENT: Draft Ordinance No. 1360 Draft Red Lined Version of the Ordinance Letter/legal notice to all PR STR Permit Holders Legal Notice to the Desert Sun ORDINANCE NO. 1360 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.10 SHORT-TERM RENTALS RELATED TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Palm Desert ("City') by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City has the police power to regulate the use of land and property within the City in a manner designed to promote public convenience and general prosperity, as well as public health, welfare, and safety; and WHEREAS, adoption and enforcement of regulations and other land use regulations lies within the City's police powers; and WHEREAS, the City Council established an Short -Term Rental Subcommittee, comprised of elected officials, and City staff, to review the existing ordinance and to make recommendations for changes on how the City should regulate short-term rentals in the Planned Residential zones; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert; California, did on the 19'h day of November, 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommendations from the Short -Term Rental Committee amending Chapter 5.10 Short -Term Rentals related to the Planned Residential zones throughout the City, including elimination of certain Short Term Rentals in Planned Residential zones in specified time frames; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California has determined that the amendments to Municipal Code Chapters 5.10, are consistent with the General Plan and applicable state law; and WHEREAS, the City has found that effective enforcement of regulations on short term rentals is only feasible if there is an active Homeowner Association that is willing and able to do so on behalf of its member residences; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve said ordinance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California as follows: SECTION 1. Adoption of Recitals. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings in support of the following regulations and further finds that the following regulations, including the eventual elimination of certain short term rentals in Planned Residential zones, unless approved by the Homeowners' Association are beneficial and appropriate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and businesses of Palm Desert within the City limits. ORDINANCE NO. 1360 SECTION 2. Adoption of amended Chapter 5.10 "Short -Term Rentals" of the Citv's Zonina Ordinance as identified in "Exhibit A". SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase in this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one (1) or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, or invalid, or ineffective. SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act Finding. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the amendments to Chapter 5.10 is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)3 in that the amendments to further regulate the use of short-term rentals will not have a significant negative impact on the environment. SECTION 5. Publication. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in The Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of November. 2020, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: GRACE L. ROCHA, ACTING CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 2 GINA NESTANDE, MAYOR ORDINANCE NO. 1360 Exhibit "A" Title 5 BUSINESS TAXES. LICENSES AND REGULATIONS Chapter 5.10 SHORT-TERM RENTALS 5.10.010 Title. This chapter shall be referred to as the "Short -Term Rental Ordinance." (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). 5.10.020 Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate privately -owned residential dwellings used as Short -Term Rental Units, ensure that transient occupancy taxes (TOT) are paid and collected, and minimize the potential negative effects of Short -Term Rental Units on surrounding residential neighborhoods. B. This chapter is not intended to allow any residential property Owner to violate any private conditions, covenants, and restrictions applicable to the Owner's property that may prohibit the Owner from using his or her property as a Short -Term Rental Unit, as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). C. The City reserves the right to change the regulations provided in this chapter at any time, including discontinuing the issuance of Short -Term Rental Units permits, notwithstanding any impacts to existing or future short-term permit holders. Anyone accepting a Short -Term Rental Units permit pursuant to this chapter acknowledges and accepts that possibility. 5.10.030 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them by this section: "Actively Operating" means a short-term rental that is rented outtoccupied for a total of more than 18 days per calendar year. "Apartment" means a rented room or set of rooms that is part of a residential building and is used as a place to live. "Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations" means any laws, rules, regulations and codes (whether local, state, or federal) pertaining'to the use and occupancy of a privately -owned dwelling unit as a short-term rental. "Applicant" means a person applying for a Short -Term Rental Unit permit, and a temporary Short -Term Rental Permit, or renewal of either permit. ORDINANCE NO. 1360 "City Manager" means the City manager of the City, or his or her designee. "Good Neighbor Brochure" means a document prepared by the City, as may be revised from time to time that summarizes the general rules of conduct, consideration and respect pertaining to the use and occupancy of Short -Term Rental Units. "Mixed Residential District (R-2)" means to provide moderate intensity and density (3.0 — 10.0 du/ac) for neighborhood development, and are characterized by a variety of housing choices and mixed -uses with buildings organized around formal and walkable streetscapes with high levels of pedestrian connectivity. "Multifamily Residential District (R-3)" means to provide suitable areas for moderate to higher intensity and density (7.0 —40.0 du/ac) for residential development and small-scale commercial activity, and is characterized by higher density residential development and mixed -uses in proximity to retail commercial services with buildings organized around formal streetscapes with a variety of plazas and other pedestrian amenities and open spaces that are highly connected to surrounding development. "Operator" means an individual or business entity who is designated as the Owner's agent to act on the Owner's behalf to insure compliance with this Chapter. "Operator' may be the "Owner." "On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental" means a Short -Term Rental Unit where an Owner who is living and present within the main unit during the rental duration rents one (1) or more bedroom(s) or a detached/attached casita. "On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permit" is a permit issued for an "On Site Owner Short -Term Rental." "Owner" means any person or entity having fee -title ownership and/or appearing on the last equalized assessment roll of Riverside County showing controlling interest of the Short -Term Rental Unit. "Planned Residential District (P.R.)" means to provide for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0 — 40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities, and is characterized as providing for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments and is organized around formal, walkable, and highly connected streetscapes. "Property" means the actual single-family house or other residential dwelling unit, including all of its improved real property, which is used as a short-term residential rental. "Responsible Person" means a Short -Term Rental Unit occupant who is at least 25 years of age and who is legally responsible for ensuring that all occupants of the short-term rd ORDINANCE NO. 1360 rental unit and/or their guests comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit. "Short -Term Rental Permit" is a permit for a Short -Term Rental Unit. "Short -Term Rental Unit" means a privately -owned residential dwelling (not a hotel, motel, or timeshare), including, without limitation, a single-family detached or multiple -family attached unit (not including apartments), second unit dwelling, lodging or rooming house, condominium, duplex, triplex, quadplex, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or any portion of such dwellings, rented for occupancy for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes for any period less than 27 consecutive days. "Single -Family Residential District (R-1)" means to encourage the preservation and development of traditional residential neighborhoods, and provides for low intensity development (2.0 — 8.0 du/ac) generally characterized by single-family homes on medium-sized lots organized around formal and walkable streetscapes. "Transient" means any person who seeks to rent or who does rent a privately -owned residential unit for a period less than 27 consecutive days. "Transient Occupancy Registration Permit" means a permit that allows the use of a privately -owned residential dwelling as a short-term rental unit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.28, Transient Occupancy Tax, respectively. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). "Transient Occupancy Tax" means the tax levied by the City in accordance with Chapter 3.28 of the Municipal Code. This tax is levied upon individuals or businesses engaged in the rental of sleeping accommodations to the public. 5.10.040 Authorized agent or representative. A. An Owner shall designate an Operator to act on the Owner's behalf to insure compliance with the requirements of this chapter. B. Notwithstanding subsection `A', the Owner shall not be relieved from any personal responsibility or personal liability for noncompliance with any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit, regardless of whether such noncompliance was committed by the Owner or Operator or the occupants of the Owner's short-term rental unit or their guests. ORDINANCE NO. 1360 5.10.050 Short -Term Rental Permit; On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permit - Required. An Owner must obtain one of the following types of Short -Term Rental Permits and a Transient Occupancy Registration Permit prior to advertising or renting any privately owned residential dwelling to any transient for a period less than 27 consecutive days: A. Short -Term Rental Permit. B. On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental. 5.10.060 Short -Term 'rental permit for all types - Application and processing requirements. A. The applicant must submit the following information on an application form provided by the City: 1. The name, address, valid email address, and telephone number of the Owner of the subject short-term rental unit. 2. The name, address, valid email address, and telephone number of the Operator of the subject Short -Term Rental Unit. 3. The address of the proposed short-term rental unit. 4. The number of bedrooms and the applicable overnight and daytime occupancy limit of the proposed short-term rental unit. 5. Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure. 6. Other information as the City Manager deems reasonably necessary to administer this chapter. B. A Short -Term Rental Permit will not be granted for properties that do not qualify under Section 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit — Prohibited in R-1, R-2, and PR zones unless approved by the homeowners' association. C. A short-term rental permit application shall be accompanied by payment of an application processing fee established by resolution of the City Council. D. Within 30 days of a change of property ownership, change of Operator, or any other change in material facts pertaining to the information contained in the Short - Term Rental Permit, the Operator shall submit an application and requisite application fee for a new short-term rental permit, if continued short-term rental is desired, which permit must be obtained prior to continuing to rent the subject unit as a Short -Term Rental Unit. E. A Short -Term Rental Permit shall not be issued or renewed if there are unresolved City code compliance cases, outstanding City fines or fees, or City liens on the property. Z ORDINANCE NO. 1360 F. A Short -Term Rental Permit must be renewed annually to remain valid. Failure to renew a Short -Term Rental Permit within 30 calendar days of the expiration date will result in the Short -Term Rental Permit being terminated. G. Short -Term Rental Permit renewals are subject to any intervening changes in this Chapter 5.10 and renewal shall be denied if the short-term rental no longer qualifies under the requirements of this chapter, unless specifically exempted therefrom. A Short -Term Rental Permit shall not be renewed if the unit has not been Actively Operating in the prior calendar year. An Owner or Operator that is denied a renewal for failure to actively operate may apply for a new Short -Term Rental Permit, if otherwise qualified under this chapter. H. A Short -Term Rental Permit shall not be granted for apartments, as defined in this chapter. The City may conduct an inspection of the Short -Term Rental Unit prior to issuing a new permit and prior to issuing any renewal permit. A short-term rental permit application may be denied if the applicant has had a prior short-term rental permit suspended or revoked. K. The Tax Administrator, as defined in Section 3.28.020(E), shall issue the short-term rental permit, which will incorporate a transient occupancy registration permit, as provided in Section 3.28.060, if the applicant satisfies the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 3.28. 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit — Prohibited in R-1, R-2, and PR zones, unless approved by the Homeowners' Association The City shall prohibit the issuance of new Short -Term Rental Permits within the R-1 and R-2 zones, and the PR zones under certain circumstances as described below. These requirements do not apply to On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permits. A. A new Short -Term Rental Permit within the R-1 zone will not be issued. B. A new Short -Term Rental Permit within the R-2 zone will not be issued. C. A new Short -Term Rental Permit within the PR zones will not be issued unless issuance of the permit is approved in writing by the homeowners' association having jurisdiction over the property. D. Existing Short -Term Rental Permits in PR zones may be renewed if otherwise qualified, but all such Short -Term Rental Permits shall terminate, and such uses permanently cease operation, by December 31, 2021, unless the issuance of the permit is approved in writing by the homeowners' association having jurisdiction over the property. ORDINANCE NO. 1360 E. If an existing permit is revoked pursuant to this chapter, and the Short -Term Rental Unit is located in the R-1 or R-2 zones, then a new permit will not be issued. A new permit may be issued in the PR zones only if the permit complies with Section 5.10.070(C) and (D). 5.10.080 On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permit — Additional application and processing requirements. A. The Owner shall demonstrate regular occupancy, which may be by neighbor verification or other means sufficient, in the discretion of the Tax Administrator, to demonstrate regular and continuous owner -occupancy prior to and during the rental period. 5.10.090 Operational requirements for all types of Short -Term Rental Permits. A. While a Short -Term Rental Unit is rented, the Operator shall be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the purpose of responding within 30 minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants or guests of the Short -Term Rental Unit. B. Upon notification that the Responsible Person and/or any occupant and/or guest of the short-term rental unit has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit, the Operator shall promptly respond within 30 minutes in an appropriate manner to immediately halt or prevent a recurrence of such conduct by the Responsible Person and/or any occupants and/or guests. Failure of the Operator to respond to calls or complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants and/or guests of the Short -Term Rental Unit within 30 minutes and in an appropriate manner shall render the Operator subject to all administrative, legal and equitable remedies available to the City, up to and including Short -Term Rental Permit revocation. C. The Operator shall post the current short-term rental permit number on, or in, any advertisement appearing in any newspaper, magazine, brochure, television trade paper, Internet website, etc., that promotes the availability or existence of a short-term rental unit in a place or location deemed acceptable by the City Manager. In the instance of audio -only advertising of the same, the short-term rental permit number shall be read as part of any advertising. The following shall be clearly identified in any advertisement: 1) the maximum overnight occupancy of the Short -Term Rental Unit; 2) requirements for compliance with the City's noise standards and regulations; and 3) a statement that the Short -Term Rental Unit occupants shall respect the neighbors' privacy and enjoyment of their property. D. The Operator shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the occupants and/or guests of the short-term rental unit do not create unreasonable noise in violation of Palm Desert Municipal Code, (PDMC,) Chapter 9.24, ORDINANCE NO. 1360 Noise Control or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit. The short-term rental unit shall be used in a manner that complies with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit, including Chapter 3.28. (Transient Occupancy Tax.). E. Occupants of the short-term rental unit shall comply with all standards and regulations of the PDMC, including and especially Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, Gatherings or Other Similar Events. F. Minimum Number of Days and Nights for Rent or Lease. The minimum duration of a short-term rental unit is three days, two nights. Less than three-day, two -night rentals or leases are prohibited. G. Maximum Number of Occupants. The maximum number of overnight guests and residents for a short-term rental unit shall not exceed two persons per bedroom. Additional daytime guests are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., with the additional maximum daytime guests not to exceed two persons per bedroom with a maximum of 20 guests allowed for five bedrooms or more. The following table illustrates the maximum number of occupants. If the use is On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental, the Owner shall be deemed to occupy at least one bedroom, which shall diminish the number of bedrooms for overnight guests accordingly: Number of Total of Overnight Total Daytime Bedrooms Occupants Occupants (Including Number of Overnight Occupants) 1 2 4 2 4 8 3 6 12 j 4 8 16 5 10 20 6 12 20 7 14 20 H. A short-term rental unit shall not change the residential character of the outside appearance of the residence, either by the use of colors, materials, lighting, or any advertising mechanism. I. No property use shall cross over any property line. J. All parking associated with a short-term rental unit shall be entirely on -site, in the garage, carport, and driveway or otherwise off of the public street. L`] ORDINANCE NO. 1360 K. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on the use of any given short-term rental unit to ensure that any potential secondary effects unique to the subject short-term rental unit are avoided or adequately mitigated. L. Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection by the City's authorized waste hauler, and only on scheduled trash collection days. The Operator shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Chapter 8.16 (Solid Waste) of the PDMC. M. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the Operator shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 3.28 of the PDMC concerning TOT, including, but not limited to, submission of a monthly TOT return in accordance with Section 3.28.070 of Chapter 3.28 of the PDMC, which shall be filed monthly even if the short-term rental unit was not rented during each such month. 5.10.100 Procedures for operators and renters. A. Prior to occupancy of a short-term rental unit the Operator shall: 1. Meet and greet the Responsible Person on -site and obtain his or her name, address, and a copy of a valid government identification. 2. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure. 3. Provide the Responsible Person information about the short- term rental regulations. 4. Require such Responsible Person to execute a formal acknowledgement in the form acceptable by the City that he or she is legally responsible for compliance of all occupants of the short-term rental unit and their guests with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term rental unit. This information shall be maintained by the Operator for a period of three years and be made readily available upon request of any officer of the City responsible for the enforcement of any provision of the PDMC or any other applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term rental unit. 5. Provide the Responsible Person with the Operator's 24-hour availability information. 6. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of the maximum number of overnight occupants and the maximum number of daytime occupants as permitted pursuant to the chapter. 7. Post a copy of the short-term rental permit and a copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure in a conspicuous place within the short-term rental unit. 8. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of trash pick-up day and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash on the exterior of the property. 9. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of the PDMC, Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, 10 ORDINANCE NO. 1360 Gatherings or Other Similar Events. 10. Explain to the Responsible Person that the occupant and Owner may be cited or fined by the City in accordance with this chapter and/or Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, Gatherings or Other Similar Events, and 11.Provide a copy that no radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, compact disk player, loudspeaker, karaoke machine, sound amplifier, or any machine, device or equipment that produces or reproduces any sound shall be used outside or be audible from beyond the property boundaries of any short-term rental unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. 5.10.110 Recordkeeping duties. The Operator shall maintain for a period of three years, records in such form as the Tax Administrator (as defined in, and required by, Chapter 3.28) may require to determine the amount of TOT owed to the City. The Tax Administrator shall have the right to inspect such records at all reasonable times. Such records shall be maintained at the Owner or Operator's premises or shall be available for delivery to the Tax Administrator within one week after request, which may be subject to the subpoena pursuant to Section 3.28.110. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). 5.10.120 Violations. A. Additional Conditions. A violation of any provision of this chapter by any of the occupants, Owner(s) or the Operator shall authorize the City Manager to impose additional conditions on the use of any given short-term rental unit to ensure that any potential additional violations are avoided. B. Permit Modification, Suspension and Revocation. A violation of any provision of this chapter by any of the occupants, Owner(s) or the Operator shall constitute grounds for modification, suspension and/or revocation of the Short -Term Rental Permit and/or any affiliated licenses or permits pursuant to the provisions set forth in this chapter. 1. Whenever any Operator fails to comply with any provision of this chapter, the City Manager upon hearing, after giving the Operator and/or Owner 10 days' notice in writing specifying the time and place of hearing and requiring him or her to show cause why the short-term rental permit should not be revoked, may modify, suspend or revoke the permit held by the Operator. 2. The City Manager shall give to the Operator and/or Owner written notice of the modification, suspension or revocation of the permit. The notices required in this section may be served personally or by mail. 3. The Tax Administrator shall not issue a new short-term rental permit after the revocation of a permit unless he or she is satisfied that the former holder of the permit will comply with the provisions of this chapter and the unit complies with 11 ORDINANCE NO. 1360 Section 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit — Additional application and processing requirements. During the period of time while such a permit is suspended, revoked or otherwise not validly in effect, the use of the dwelling as a Short -Term Rental Unit is prohibited. C. Notice of Violation. The City may issue a notice of violation to any occupant, Owner(s) or Operator, pursuant to this chapter, if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. D. Administrative Citation.. The City may issue an administrative citation to the property Owner(s) pursuant to Chapter 8.81 (Administrative Citation) of the municipal code if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained. Nothing in this section shall preclude the City from also issuing an infraction citation upon the occurrence of the same offense on the same day to any occupant, Owner(s) or the Operator. Unless otherwise provided herein, any person issued an administrative citation pursuant to this chapter shall for each separate violation be subject to: 1) an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed one -thousand dollars ($1,000) for the first citation; 2) an'administrative fine in an amount not to exceed three -thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second citation issued for the same offense within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense; and 3) a fine in an amount not to exceed five -thousand dollars ($5,000) and an immediate revocation of the Short -Term Rental Permit for a period of two years for the third citation within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense. If the property is zoned R-1 or R-2, then Section 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit — Prohibited in R-1 and R-2 zones applies. E. Notwithstanding the above, operating a short-term rental unit without a validly issued short-term rental permit shall be subject to a fine in an amount of five - thousand dollars ($5,000) for the first citation and each additional citation, and the City has the right to refuse the issuance of any new or renewed Short -Term Rental Permit for the cited Property and/or to the cited Owner and/or Operator anywhere else within the City. F. Infraction. The City may issue an infraction citation to any occupant, Owner(s) or Operator, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1.08, Citations for Code Violations, including, but not limited to, the imposition of any and all criminal penalties set forth therein if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. Unless otherwise provided herein, any person convicted of an infraction shall, for each separate violation of this chapter be subject to: 1) a fine in an amount not to exceed one -thousand dollars ($1,000) for a first conviction of an offense; 2) a fine in an amount not to exceed three - thousand .dollars ($3,000) for a second conviction of the same offense within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense; and 3) a fine in an amount not to exceed five -thousand dollars ($5,000) for the third conviction of the same offense within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense. 12 ORDINANCE NO. 1360 G. Public Nuisance. It shall be a public nuisance for any person to commit, cause or maintain a violation of this chapter, which shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, Gatherings or Other Similar Events. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). 13 Exhibit "A" Title 5 BUSINESS TAXES. LICENSES AND REGULATIONS Chapter 5.10 SHORT-TERM RENTALS 5.10.010 Title. This chapter shall be referred to as the "Short -Term Rental Ordinance." (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). 5.10.020 Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate privately -owned residential dwellings used as Short -Term Rental Units, ensure that transient occupancy taxes (TOT) are paid and collected, and minimize the potential negative effects of Short -Term Rental Units on surrounding residential neighborhoods. B. This chapter is not intended to allow any residential property Owner to violate any private conditions, covenants, and restrictions applicable to the Owner's property that may prohibit the Owner from using his or her property as a Short -Term Rental Unit, as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). C. The City reserves the right to change the regulations provided in this chapter at any time, including discontinuing the issuance of Short -Term Rental Units permits, notwithstanding any impacts to existing or future short-term permit holders. Anyone accepting a Short -Term Rental Units permit pursuant to this chapter acknowledges and accepts that possibility. 5.10.030 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them by this section: "Actively Operating" means a short-term rental that is rented cut/occupied for a total of more than 18 days per calendar year. "Apartment" means a rented room or set of rooms that is part of a residential building and is used as a place to live. "Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations" means any laws, rules, regulations and codes (whether local, state, or federal) pertaining to the use and occupancy of a privately -owned dwelling unit as a short-term rental. "Applicant" means a person applying for a Short -Term Rental Unit permit, and a temporary Short -Term Rental Permit, or renewal of either permit. "City Manager' means the City manager of the City, or his or her designee. "Good Neighbor Brochure" means a document prepared by the City, as may be revised from time to time that summarizes the general rules of conduct, consideration and respect pertaining to the use and occupancy of Short -Term Rental Units. "Mixed Residential District (R-2)" means to provide moderate intensity and density (3.0 — 10.0 du/ac) for neighborhood development, and are characterized by a variety of housing choices and mixed -uses with buildings organized around formal and walkable streetscapes with high levels of pedestrian connectivity. "Multifamily Residential District (R-3)" means to provide suitable areas for moderate to higher intensity and density (7.0 — 40.0 du/ac) for residential development and small-scale commercial activity, and is characterized by higher density residential development and mixed -uses in proximity to retail commercial services with buildings organized around formal streetscapes with a variety of plazas and other pedestrian amenities and open spaces that are highly connected to surrounding development. "Operator" means an individual or business entity who is designated as the Owners agent to act on the Owners behalf to insure compliance with this Chapter. "Operator' may be the "Owner." "On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental" means a Short -Term Rental Unit where an Owner who is living and present within the main unit during the rental duration rents one (1) or more bedroom(s) or a detached/attached casita. "On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permit" is a permit issued for an "On Site Owner Short -Term Rental." "Owner" means any person or entity having fee -title ownership and/or appearing on the last equalized assessment roll of Riverside County showing controlling interest of the Short -Term Rental Unit. "Planned Residential District (P.R.)" means to provide for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0 — 40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities, and is characterized as providing for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments and is organized around formal, walkable, and highly connected streetscapes. "Property" means the actual single-family house or other residential dwelling unit, including all of its improved real property, which is used as a short-term residential rental. "Responsible Person" means a Short -Term Rental Unit occupant who is at least 25 years of age and who is legally responsible for ensuring that all occupants of the short-term rental unit and/or their guests comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit. "Short -Term Rental Permit" is a permit for a Short -Term Rental Unit. "Short -Term Rental Unit" means a privately -owned residential dwelling (not a hotel, motel, or timeshare), including, without limitation, a single-family detached or multiple -family attached unit (not including apartments), second unit dwelling, lodging or rooming house, condominium, duplex, triplex, quadplex, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or any portion of such dwellings, rented for occupancy for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes for any period less than 27 consecutive days. "Single -Family Residential District (R-1)" means to encourage the preservation and development of traditional residential neighborhoods, and provides for low intensity development (2.0 — 8.0 du/ac) generally characterized by single-family homes on medium-sized lots organized around formal and walkable streetscapes. , "Transient" means any person who seeks to rent or who does rent a privately -owned residential unit for a period less than 27 consecutive days. "Transient Occupancy Registration Permit" means a permit that allows the use of a privately -owned residential dwelling as a short-term rental unit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.28, Transient Occupancy Tax, respectively. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). 'Transient Occupancy Tax" means the tax levied by the City in accordance with Chapter 3.28 of the Municipal Code. This tax is levied upon individuals or businesses engaged in the rental of sleeping accommodations to the public. 5.10.040 Authorized agent or representative. A. An Owner shall designate an Operator to act on the Owner's behalf to insure compliance with the requirements of this chapter. B. Notwithstanding subsection'A', the Owner shall not be relieved from any personal responsibility or personal liability for noncompliance with any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit, regardless of whether such noncompliance was committed by the Owner or Operatoror the occupants of the Owner's short-term rental unit or their guests. 5.10.050 Short -Term Rental Permit; On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permit - Required. An Owner must obtain one of the following types of Short -Term Rental Permits and a Transient Occupancy Registration Permit prior to advertising or renting any privately - owned residential dwelling to any transient for a period less than 27 consecutive days: A. Short -Term Rental Permit. B. On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental. 5.10.060 Short -Term rental permit for all types - Application and processing requirements. A. The applicant must submit the following information on an application form provided by the City: 1. The name, address, valid email address, and telephone number of the Owner of the subject short-term rental unit. 2. The name, address, valid email address, and telephone number of the Operator of the subject Short -Term Rental Unit. 3. The address of the proposed short-term rental unit. 4. The number of bedrooms and the applicable overnight and daytime occupancy limit of the proposed short-term rental unit. 5. Acknowledgement of receipt and inspection of a copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure. 6. Mai' ng labels fmm a title company for all awneFs of pFE)peFty within 200 h'-'RdFpd- feet of the proposed Short TeFFR R=ta! VnWs V. tFuA. line. Mail ng labels are 76. Other information as the City Manager deems reasonably necessary to administer this chapter. B. A Short -Term Rental Permit will not be granted for properties that do not qualify under Section 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit - Prohibited in R-1, and R-2, and PR zones unless aoDroved by the homeowners' association. IN - ---- - - - - - - - ----- - - - -- -- -- - -- - - -- -- - -............--- - FAMN nEmt C. A short-term rental permit application shall be accompanied by payment of an application processing fee established by resolution of the City Council. D. Within 30 days of a change of property ownership, change of Operator, or any other change in material facts pertaining to the information contained in the Short - Term Rental Permit, the Operator shall submit an application and requisite application fee for a new short-term rental permit, if continued short-term rental is desired, which permit must be obtained prior to continuing to rent the subject unit as a Short -Term Rental Unit. E. A Short -Term Rental Permit shall not be issued or renewed if there are unresolved City code compliance cases, outstanding City fines or fees, or City liens on the property. F. A Short -Term Rental Permit must be renewed annually to remain valid. Failure to renew a Short -Term Rental Permit within 30 calendar days of the expiration date will result in the Short -Term Rental Permit being terminated. G. Short -Term Rental Permit renewals are subject to any intervening changes in this Chapter 5.10 and renewal shall be denied if the short-term rental no longer qualifies under the requirements of this chapter, unless specifically exempted therefrom. A Short -Term Rental Permit shall not be renewed if the unit has not been Actively Operating in the prior calendar year. An Owner or Operator that is denied a renewal for failure to actively operate may apply for a new Short -Term Rental Permit, if otherwise qualified under this chapter. H. A Short -Term Rental Permit shall not be granted for apartments, as defined in this chapter. I. The City may conduct an inspection of the Short -Term Rental Unit prior to issuing a new permit and prior to issuing any renewal permit. J. A short-term rental permit application may be denied if the applicant has had a prior short-term rental permit suspended or revoked. K. The Tax Administrator, as defined in Section 3.28.020(E), shall issue the short-term rental permit, which will incorporate a transient occupancy registration permit, as provided in Section 3.28.060, if the applicant satisfies the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 3.28. 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit — Prohibited in R-1,+ara-R-2, and PR zones, unless approved by the Homeowners' Association, The City shall prohibit the issuance of new Short -Term Rental Permits within the R-1 and and R-2 zones. and the PR zones under certain circumstances as of the Gity-as described below. These requirements do not apply to On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permits. A. A new Short -Term Rental Permit within the R-1 zone will not be issued. B. A new Short -Term Rental Permit within the R-2 zone will not be issued. � - - I Formatted: list Paragraph, Left, No bullets or numbering, Pattem: Clear B-.C. A new Short -Term Rental Permit within the PR zones will not be issued unless issuance of the permit is aooroved in writing by the homeowners' association havina iurisdiction over the Drool C.D_Existing Short -Term Rental Permits in PR 1 and 2 zones may be renewed if otherwise qualified, but all such Short -Term Rental Permits shall terminate, and such uses permanently cease operation, by December 31, 2021. unless the issuance of the Dermit is aooroved in writina by the homeowners' association having iurisdiction over the orooertv. 3& D-.E_If an existing permit is revoked pursuant to this chapter, and the Short -Term Rental Unit is located in the R-1 or R-2 zones, then a new permit will not be issued. A new Dermit may be issued in the PR zones onlv if the permit complies with Section 5.10.070(C) and (D). used as a long term residence, a long teFm FerldeRt a! rental, or for any other lawful! 5.10.080 On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental Permit — Additional application and processing requirements. A. The Owner shall demonstrate regular occupancy, which may be by neighbor verification or other means sufficient, in the discretion of the Tax Administrator, to demonstrate regular and continuous owner -occupancy prior to and during the rental period. 5.10.090 Operational requirements for all types of Short -Term Rental Permits. A. While a Short -Term Rental Unit is rented, the Operator shall be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the purpose of responding within 30 minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants or guests of the Short -Term Rental Unit. B. Upon notification that the Responsible Person and/or any occupant and/or guest of the short-term rental unit has created unreasonable noise or disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed violations of any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit, the Operator shall promptly respond within 30 minutes in an appropriate manner to immediately halt or prevent a recurrence of such conduct by the Responsible Person and/or any occupants and/or guests. Failure of the Operator to respond to calls or complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants and/or guests of the Short -Term Rental Unit within 30 minutes and in an appropriate manner shall renderthe Operator subject to all administrative, legal and equitable remedies available to the City, up to and including Short -Term Rental Permit revocation. C. The Operator shall post the current short-term rental permit number on, or in, any advertisement appearing in any newspaper, magazine, brochure, television trade paper, Internet website, etc.; that promotes the availability or existence of a short-term rental unit in a place or location deemed acceptable by the City Manager. In the instance of audio -only advertising of the same, the short-term rental permit number shall be read as part of any advertising. The following shall be clearly identified in any advertisement: 1) the maximum overnight occupancy of the Short -Term Rental Unit; 2) requirements for compliance with the City's noise standards and regulations; and 3) a statement that the Short -Term Rental Unit occupants shall respect the neighbors' privacy and enjoyment of their property. D. The Operator shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the occupants and/or guests of the short-term rental unit do not create unreasonable noise in violation of Palm Desert Municipal Code, (PDMC,) Chapter 9.24, Noise Control or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit. The short-term rental unit shall be used in a manner that complies with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term rental unit, including Chapter 3.28. (Transient Occupancy Tax.) E. Occupants of the short-term rental unit shall comply with all standards and regulations of the PDMC, including and especially Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, Gatherings or Other Similar Events. F. Minimum Number of Days and Nights for Rent or Lease. The minimum duration of a short-term rental unit is three days, two nights. Less than three-day, two -night rentals or leases are prohibited. G. Maximum Number of Occupants. The maximum number of overnight guests and residents for a short-term rental unit shall not exceed two persons per bedroom. Additional daytime guests are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., with the additional maximum daytime guests not to exceed two persons per bedroom with a maximum of 20 guests allowed for five bedrooms or more. The following table illustrates the maximum number of occupants. If the use is On -Site Owner Short -Term Rental, the Owner shall be deemed to occupy at least one bedroom, which shall diminish the number of bedrooms for overnight guests accordingly: Number of Total of Overnight Total Daytime Bedrooms Occupants Occupants (Including Number of Overnight Occupants) 1 2 4 2 4 8 3 6 12 4 8 16 5 10 20 6 12 20 7 14 20 H. A short-term rental unit shall not change the residential character of the outside appearance of the residence, either by the use of colors, materials, lighting, or any advertising mechanism. I. No property use shall cross over any property line.' J. All parking associated with a short-term rental unit shall be entirely on -site, in the garage, carport, and driveway or otherwise off of the public street. K. The City Manager shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on the use of any given short-term rental unit to ensure that any potential secondary effects unique to the subject short-term rental unit are avoided or adequately mitigated. L. Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection by the City's authorized waste hauler, and only on scheduled trash collection days. The Operator shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Chapter 8.16 (Solid Waste) of the PDMC. M. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the Operator shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 3.28 of the PDMC concerning TOT, including, but not limited to, submission of a monthly TOT return in accordance with Section 3.28.070 of Chapter 3.28 of the PDMC, which shall be filed monthly even if the short-term rental unit was not rented during each such month. 5.10.100 Procedures for operators and renters. A. Prior to occupancy of a short-term rental unit the Operator shall: 1. Meet and greet the Responsible Person on -site and obtain his or her name, address, and a copy of a valid government identification. 2. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure. 3. Provide the Responsible Person information about the short- term rental regulations. 4. Require such Responsible Person to execute a formal acknowledgement in the form acceptable by the City that he or she is legally responsible for compliance of all occupants of the short-term rental unit and their guests with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term rental unit. This information shall be maintained by the Operator for a period of three years and be made readily available upon request of any officer of the City responsible for the enforcement of any provision of the PDMC or anyother applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term rental unit. 5. Provide the Responsible Person with the Operator's 24-hour availability information. 6. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of the maximum number of overnight occupants and the maximum number of daytime occupants as permitted pursuant to the chapter. 7. Post a copy of the short-term rental permit and a copy of the Good Neighbor Brochure in a conspicuous place within the short-term rental unit. 8. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of trash pick-up day and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to leaving or storing trash on the exterior of the property. 9. Provide the Responsible Person a copy of the PDMC, Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, Gatherings or Other Similar Events. 10. Explain to the Responsible Person that the occupant and Owner maybe cited or fined by the City in accordance with this chapter and/or Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, Gatherings or Other Similar Events, and 11.Provide a copy that no radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, compact disk player, loudspeaker, karaoke machine, sound amplifier, or any machine, device or equipment that produces or reproduces any sound shall be used outside or be audible from beyond the property boundaries of any short-term rental unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. 5.10.110 Recordkeeping duties. The Operator shall maintain for a period of three years, records in such form as the Tax Administrator (as defined in, and required by, Chapter 3.28) may require to determine the 10 amount of TOT owed to the City. The Tax Administrator shall have the right to inspect such records at all reasonable times. Such records shall be maintained at the Owner or Operator's premises or shall be available for delivery to the Tax Administrator within one week after request, which may be subject to the subpoena pursuant to Section 3.28.110. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). 5.10.120 Violations. A. Additional Conditions. A violation of any provision of this chapter by any of the occupants, Owner(s) or the Operator shall authorize the City Manager to impose additional conditions on the use of any given short-term rental unit to ensure that any potential additional violations are avoided. B. Permit Modification, Suspension and Revocation. A violation of any provision of this chapter by any of the occupants, Owner(s) or the Operator shall constitute grounds for modification, suspension and/or revocation of the Short -Term Rental Permit and/or any affiliated licenses or permits pursuant to the provisions set forth in this chapter. 1. Whenever any Operator fails to comply with any provision of this chapter, the City Manager upon hearing, after giving the Operator and/or Owner 10 days' notice in writing specifying the time and place of hearing and requiring him or her to show cause why the short-term rental permit should not be revoked, may modify, suspend or revoke the permit held by the Operator. 2. The City Manager shall give to the Operator and/or Owner written notice of the modification, suspension or revocation of the permit. The notices required in this section may be served personally or by mail. 3. The Tax Administrator shall not issue a new short-term rental permit after the revocation of a permit unless he or she is satisfied that the former holder of the permit will comply with the provisions of this chapter and the unit complies with Section 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit — Additional application and processing requirements. During the period of time while such a permit is suspended, revoked or otherwise not validly in effect, the use of the dwelling as a Short -Term Rental Unit is prohibited. C. Notice of Violation. The City may issue a notice of violation to any occupant, Owner(s) or Operator, pursuant to this chapter, if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. D. Administrative Citation. The City may issue an administrative citation to the property Owner(s) pursuant to Chapter 8.81 (Administrative Citation) of the municipal code if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained. Nothing in this section shall preclude the City from also issuing an infraction citation upon the occurrence of the same offense on the same day to 11 any occupant, Owner(s) or the Operator. Unless otherwise provided herein, any person issued an administrative citation pursuant to this chapter shall for each separate violation be subject to: 1) an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed one -thousand dollars ($1,000) for the first citation; 2) an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed three -thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second citation issued for the same offense within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense; and 3) a fine in an amount not to exceed five -thousand dollars ($5,000) and an immediate revocation of the Short -Term Rental Permit for a period of two years for the third citation within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense. If the property is zoned R-1 or R-2, then Section 5.10.070 Short -Term Rental Permit — Prohibited in R-1 and R-2 zones applies. E. Notwithstanding the above, operating a short-term rental unit without a validly issued short-term rental permit shall be subject to a fine in an amount of five - thousand dollars ($5,000) for the first citation and each additional citation, and the City has the right to refuse the issuance of any new or renewed Short -Term Rental Permit for the cited Property and/or to the cited Owner and/or Operator anywhere else within the City. F. Infraction. The City may issue an infraction citation to any occupant, Owner(s) or Operator, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1.08, Citations for Code Violations, including, but not limited to, the imposition of any and all criminal penalties set forth therein if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. Unless otherwise provided herein, any person convicted of an infraction shall, for each separate violation of this chapter be subject to: 1) a fine in an amount not to exceed one -thousand dollars ($1,000) for a first conviction of an offense; 2) a fine in an amount not to exceed three - thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second conviction of the same offense within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense; and 3) a fine in an amount not to exceed five -thousand dollars ($5,000) for the third conviction of the same offense within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense. G. Public Nuisance. It shall be a public nuisance for any person to commit, cause or maintain a violation of this chapter, which shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.24, Noise Control, and Chapter 9.25, Multiple Responses to Loud or Unruly Parties, Gatherings or Other Similar Events. (Ord. 1236 § 2, 2012). 12 IIIY 01 P 0 1 M 0 [ i [ R I 73-5Lo FRED WARING DRIvE PALM DEs F.RT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6i E 1 nfo*Ci ryofpal mdcscrt. org November 2, 2020 Subject: Short -Term Rentals: POTENTIAL CHANGES IN PERMIT REQUIREMENTS To Whom it May Concern: You are receiving this letter because the City's records indicate that you have a valid Short -Term Rental (STR) permit within the Planned Residential (PR) zoning district. As discussed more fully below, the City Council will be considering modifications to its STR regulations as it relates to certain properties that are zoned Planned Residential. If you are located within a neighborhood, and your homeowner's association (HOA) allows STRs then you will not be impacted, unless your HOA modifies their rules and regulations. At its meeting of September 10 and October 22, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1357, which established a temporary moratorium on issuing new STR permits within all PR zoning districts unless approved by the governing HOA. The areas listed below are under particular examination because they have a planned residential zoning designation but do not have an HOA, and function more like single family (R1/R2) zoned properties. However, permits in all PR zones may be affected if your HOA does not permit STRs, as described further below. • Sheoherd Lane: The neighborhood is mostly off of Shepherd Lane, north of Frank Sinatra Drive, west of Portola Avenue, and south of Gerald Ford Drive. • Hovlev Lane West: This neighborhood is east of Monterey Avenue and west of Portola Avenue. • The Grove: This neighborhood is west of Deep Canyon Road, south of Fred Waring Drive, and north of Highway 111. • North DeeD Canvon (Lavender Way. Columbine Drive. Coral Bells Circle. Strawf lower Circle, Davlilv Circle. Waterlily Circle. Amaryllis Way. and Moss Rose Drivel: This neighborhood is east of Deep Canyon Road, west of Palm Desert High School, north of Fred Waring Drive, and south of the Whitewater Storm Channel. 0 Any other PR zones that do not have an HOA. Short -Term Rental Permits November 2, 2020 Page 2 At upcoming City Council meetings, staff will propose recommendations to the City Council, including amending the existing STIR Ordinance pertaining to properties within all the PR zones. The proposed amendments include the following: • Prohibiting new STIR permits within all PR zones unless approved in writing by the HOA. • Phasing out existing permits, unless they are approved by the HOA, within a prescribed amount of time. At the upcoming City Council meetings, you may share any objections or concerns during those meetings. The proposed 2020 schedule for City Council consideration is: • November 19: City Council meeting to present the STIR subcommittee recommendation and first reading of proposed Ordinance to implement the amendments • December 8: Second Reading of Ordinance (if approved) • January 7: Ordinance Effective The public hearing will be held before the City Council on November 19, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City's emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: httos://www. citvofoalmdesert. oro/our-citv/mavor-and-city-cou ncil-/city-council-meeting-information- center. The meeting will be open to the public, and public testimony will be taken. If you are unable to attend the meeting and would like to voice your concerns, please send me an email at kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org or a written letter at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260, and I will provide your correspondence to the City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 346-0611, Extension 485. Sincerely, f�' / �tXn ✓J KEVIN SWARTZ ASSOCIATE PLANNER CIIY I PIIN I M RI CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.10 SHORT-TERM RENTALS RELATED TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated study of impacts. Project Location/Description: Proiect Location: All Planned Residential Zoning Districts Proiect Descriation: Approval of staffs recommendation will implement new regulations for STRs within the PR zones for properties not governed by an HOA. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the first reading of the STR Ordinance and pass to second reading. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the City Council on November 19, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City's emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: httos://www.citvofpalmdesert.ora/our-citv/mavor-and- citv-cou ncil-/citv-cou nci I-meetina-information-center. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from November 6, 2020, to November 19, 2020. Public Review: The plans and related documents are available for public review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Mr. Kevin Swartz. Please submit written comments to the City Council. If any group challenges the action in court, the issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the City Council hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611, Extension 485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN GRACE ROCHA, Acting City Clerk November 6, 2020 Palm Desert City Council Sanchez, Gloria From: Mike startire <startire@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:50 AM To: Sanchez, Gloria Subject: Fw: STIR OWNER Hi Gloria, hope you're doing well and staying safe. I would like to have my letter read out loud by a staff member at the next City Council meeting. Is this possible? Thank you. Michael Baronian, President Star Tire Center, Inc. Complete Auto Repair 3475 Peck rd, El Monte, Ca 91731 P(626)442-3180 F 626-442-8343 12130 Washington Blvd, Whittier, Ca 90606 P(562)646-3240 Email (startire@pacbell.net) Website (startirecenter.com) ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Mike startire <startire@pacbell.net> To: councilmeetingcomments@cityofpalmdesert.org <councilmeetingcomments@cityofpalmdesert.org> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020, 10:50:44 AM PDT Subject: STR OWNER To Palm Desert City Council/City Manager Since my wife and I were children our parents always had homes in the Palm Desert area. We as a family decided to keep that tradition and after we got married decided to buy our own. Since 2003 we have bought 3 different homes over the years. Now we own 2 in the Hovley Ln. W area and to pay our bills we rent them out. We are very diligent about keeping our homes clean and presentable. We adhere to all the rules and regulations that the city has imposed throughout the years and demand it from all our guests. Everyone would rather drive then fly for their week long vacations since Covid 19 hit. We stopped all STRs when the City asked us too. Then when the STRs were reinstated, we have been renting our homes nonstop not realizing the change of people renting, hence party people. We put a stop to that immediately. We are heavily screening all guests. Making them sign contracts that they will be responsible for any fines. We have now controlled the partying. Both our houses have never been issued tickets because we have been on top of getting in touch with our guests. Now we only rent our houses to families and business people like we were renting before covid. We always keep in contact with our guests, they ask for church and temples in the area, they ask for shopping and restaurants in Palm Desert. They come to play tennis and golf. All our guests rather stay in private homes as apposed to hotels. They come as a family and they would rather spend their money in the restaurants and shops in Palm Desert. If the STRs are banned in Palm Desert they will just find homes to rent in other cities, which will take revenues away from Palm Desert. All STRs in Palm Desert have a cleaning crew, pool man, gardeners, handymen etc. that they have come once, twice sometimes three times a week for maintenance. If STRs are banned all these business owners who live in Palm Desert will be severely impacted. Most STR owners depend on rental income to provide for there families. With this in mind, in the event an adverse decision is made against STRs, we as homeowners will be forced to seek other means of paying our bills. We would like to have the opportunity to show you that most STR owners are willing and able to work with the city and neighbors to make it beneficial for all. Let's get rid of the bad STR owners, make harsh fines and continue bringing revenue to Palm Desert. America is the land of opportunity and freedom. Please don't take this away from our families. For most STR owners, this is the only income to provide for their families. We hope and pray that you give us that chance. Michael and Irma Baronian. Michael Baronian, President Star Tire Center, Inc. Complete Auto Repair 3475 Peck rd, El Monte, Ca 91731 P (626)442-3180 F 626-442-8343 12130 Washington Blvd, Whittier, Ca 90606 P (562)646-3240 Email (startire@pacbell.net) Website (startirecenter.com) Sanchez, Gloria From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:22 AM To: Rocha, Grace Cc: Sanchez, Gloria Subject: FW: My letter asking to allow Short Term Rentals to continue in the city of Palm Desert Hello, This person would like this letter read at the No 19" CC meeting. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph:760,346.0611 Direct:760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Gina Miller <gina.m.millerll@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2020 5:51 PM To: Nestande, Gina <gnestande@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Kelly, Kathleen <kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Information Mail <info@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Harnik, Jan <jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Swartz, Kevin <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Jonathan, Sabby<sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Weber, Susan Marie <sweber@cityofpa Imdesert.org> Subject: My letter asking to allow Short Term Rentals to continue in the city of Palm Desert Dear Mayor, City Council Members and the City of Palm Desert My name is Gina Miller. I am a proud owner of a Short Term Rental home in the beautiful city of Palm Desert. I'm writing you this letter to ask you to please stop the ban of STR's in the city of Palm Desert. Having a STR is a privilege that I don't take for granted. I have always been respectful to my neighbors and so have my guests. I have never had any complaints from my neighbors. Some of my neighbors love renting my house from me when they have out of town family or guests come to town for them to stay there. A lot of people like to rent a home when they come to Palm Desert instead of staying at a hotel. It feels like a home away from home for them.They can enjoy their family all staying together, or their friends staying together. They can enjoy having a kitchen, a family room to gather in and their own private pool. I have wonderful people that come from all over the united states that come to Palm Desert and stay at my home. Golfers, tennis players, concert goers and many people that like to travel. These guests bring so much business to the city. I'm always recommending restaurants, shopping areas and entertainment places for them to enjoy when they come to town. With every guest that books a stay at my home, I call them, I welcome them and I go over all the house rules with them. The rules are no loud noise, no loud music, no music after IOpm., no more than 3 cars total (2 out of the 3 cars must be parked in the garage), no pets and no smoking. Everyone has been so respectful to me, my home and the rules. This STR is my main source of income .It will be a huge financial hardship on me and all the people I give jobs to that help me run my STR so smoothly. The cleaning lady, the pool service company, the repair man and the gardener will also have their income compromised. I bought this home because having STR's was allowed. I never thought it would be banned. If STR'S are banned it will be devastating to me and to many other STR owners that I know personally. I am asking you to please not ban this, instead maybe set some city rules to go by. If some STR's are causing issues in some neighborhoods maybe fine them or ban them if they don't comply with your rules. Please don't punish the ones who will comply with your rules and standards and who love having this privilege. Please read my letter out loud at the November 19th council meeting. My property is located at 74138 Chinook Circle e. Palm Desert THank you so very much! Gina Miller Broker Associate (323) 516-3382 Gina.m.milleril (Wamail.com Ca1BRE #o1957586 KING REALTY GROUP INC. Sanchez, Gloria From: philippe@carballodesign.com Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: CouncilMeeting Comments; Bynder, Randy, Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; harnik@cityofpalmdesert.org; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Cc: info@vronpd.org Subject: letter to be added for consideration during the 11/19 council meeting Dear Mayor and City Council, I am Philippe Carballo, an individual home owner located 40613 Meadow Lane in Palm Desert. I am luckily located in a neighborhood where STR are authorized. I am writing to you as I heard that some people are organizing a feud against STR rights in Palm Desert. I can assure you that current regular owners living full time on site already generate noises in their everyday life that could be disputable. Why should we care more about possible STR disturbances than homeowner ones? Regulations and compliance surveillance are already in place to take care of possible disrespectful people. I lost my job back in March and this house is my only chance to generate incomes with my permit on hand as my unemployment rights are about to end. Unfortunately I haven't been able to rent out my place since then but I am counting on this Fall season for potential incomes as I do not see bright future for employment opportunities. I am afraid I would have to sell my house like many others with the possible consequences we know on the city real-estate and incomes. I can assure you that I take all precautions to make sure possible renters do not disturb neighbors. I am calling out home owner rights to let us use our properties for possible vacation rentals while respecting our neighbors and their right to enjoy their house. Please do not let angry people get into the middle of potential incomes for many struggling home owners in these trouble times. Thank you for your consideration. Philippe Carballo 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Mike McCrea Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 2:59 PM To: CouncilMeeting Comments; Nestande, Gina; Harnik, Jan; Weber, Susan Marie; Jonathan, Sabby; Kelly, Kathleen; Information Mail; Bynder, Randy; Karina Quintanilla Cc: info@vronpd.org Subject: Letter from Homeowner to be added to 11/19 Council Meeting AND Request to be read out loud. Dear City of Palm Desert Council Members, I purchased a home in Palm Desert 2 years ago in foreclosure condition. I spent 100's of thousands of dollars on the renovation to make it a top notch home with the assumption I was allowed to rent as the city issued me a permit with no plans to ban at the time. My family plans to use it for ourselves as a second home until we are at retirement age but in the meantime we would like to offer it available for short term rentals on occasion. We have a history of running a VRBO in Sedona and never without any complaints and were surprised to discover the dialogue happening now with the City of Palm Desert. SUGGESTION FOR CHANGE IN RULES TO AVOID THE "PARTY RENTALS" From my experience and many others 2 or 3 night stays can bring up more nuisance complaints. Please consider rather than an outright ban to change the minimum stay from 2 nights to a 5 night minimum stay. This would appease both parties. SUGGESTION FOR CHANGE IN RULES TO ALLOW CURRENT HOMES TO KEEP PERMIT - GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. The grandfather clause will allow for current STR to continue operating through a future rental ban. If they are out of compliance and nuisance they will follow the 3 strike rule. This will allow me and other owners who depend on this income to keep a stable life. In addition it will keep our staff employed. From the complaints issued it seems to be from a few particular homes. Basically ruining it for all of us at this point. There is owner's and managers who live out of the area and do not have the experience to be a STR manager but they will shortly be phased out with 3 strikes and a ban. We should as a community allow short term rentals in Palm Desert for the following reasons: (1) This is a known vacation destination, it is foreseeable this community was one for vacationers to come to. I'm struggling to understand people who are surprised by shorter term vacationers to the area. I bet most of the people here at one point were one of those people which is how they ended up here, myself included. (2) Allowing short term rentals keeps the area attractive and people on top of their home with respect to upkeep and maintenance. It also generates future ownership interest for others like myself who came here as a vacationer before acquiring ownership (NEVER with any complaint or issue I might add). When I looked at homes for sale in Palm Desert, every home that was a STR was in immaculate shape while the other homes that were not STRs were overwhelmingly in poorer shape, outdated and not as appealing. It was a comment both me and my husband made it was so apparent to us both. (3) I've heard the argument made that STR owners live elsewhere and take the money away from the community. If you did a thorough analysis you'd find that we probably employ more locals for the significant upkeep undertaken than most primary residents. In addition to the tourist revenue we help generate that a primary resident would not. Without rentals in Palm Desert, who will go to the shops and restaurants and golf courses at the same frequency as today? (4) While I can understand the frustration of a terrible temporary tenant, the ideal thing is that they are temporary and it's extremely rare to have consistent terrible STIR tenants next door to you. If so, that's a particular unique case that requires further investigation and should definitely be handled. It's not something to warrant a complete ban. True and legitimate data (not manufactured data to support a self serving position) must be presented to support allegations of consistent violations. In some Tahoe neighborhoods there were cases where one neighbor simply made up issues harassed property managers and the fire department because they just didn't want STRs, or even tourists to Tahoe at all, for that matter. In some cases no one was even in the home when complaints were made about a tenant! We must ensure all complaints are legitimized as real and reasonable. (5) As mentioned, the benefit of a one-off bad tenant is that they will soon be leaving. We can not say as much for any annoying longer term primary residents. If you limit STRs, watch home prices decrease, subpar owners come in, and watch out for what long term neighbors you could end up stuck with every day! We must be careful what we wish for on that front. I implore you all to connect the dots into the longer tail future and not be so shortsighted so as to fail to see the trickle down effect you will create by banning STRs in the community that will hurt us ALL in the end. Instead, let's just focus on the bad cases and how to improve them. I of course wouldn't want any resident to be frustrated by obnoxious renters, but there are steps to take to avoid that. We must in parallel ensure the primary resident is also being reasonable in what bothers them too and whether they are possibly just as annoying. Kids splashing in a pool, or some very light music consistent with City rules in one's yard (not party music) can't be reasonable causes for complaints. Please let us focus on more oversight on rentals and less on reducing all of our home values, employment and revenue in Palm Desert, and the full right of enjoyment and rights to our own homes. Otherwise, we will find ourselves engaged in costly litigation that will negatively impact us all in the end and put a dark cloud over our community. Let's instead come together and find a way to keep our skies sunny for all (5 night min stay AND/OR grandfather clause). Thank You, Michael McCrea Sanchez, Gloria From: Sara Kirillov <realtorsarak@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:10 PM To: Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments Cc: Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Subject: Letter for 11/19 Meeting Re: Short Term Rentals Hello Randy et al, Please see below letter and add for consideration during the 11/19/2020 council meeting. Please also read my email aloud for consideration during the meeting re: Short Term Rentals. Please kindly confirm receipt. . Hello, I understand a ban on short term.rentals is being considered. I write to you as a concerned Palm Desert native, long time resident of over 20 years and small business owner who strongly OPPOSES any ban on short term rentals and highly encourages the City to reconsider. I grew up in the Desert and have a strong appreciation and respect for our City. My siblings and I actually grew up on Hovely Lane West, where a ban is being discussed specifically. Let's take a show of hands, I'd like to know how many people: - Have lived here the majority of their lives and/or grew up here? **Ask to raise hands. - Have relocated here? I am willing to bet the majority of you have relocated to the Desert at some point in time. I am also willing to bet that your first introduction to the Desert was likely a "trip to the Desert" where YOU too stayed at a vacation rental, whether that be for a weekend or a few weeks while you explored the valley, learned about the neighborhoods and perhaps even found a home to buy. While we do have full-time residents, we cannot forget that our valley is first and foremost a resort destination of the world. By living in a resort destination, that means we as locals must accept that there will be more traffic on our roads in the winter months, that businesses often close for the summer and that our vacationers/visitors are what strongly support our economy. The valley has very little industry besides tourism/hospitality and we are a secondary real estate market. Without our visitors, our communities will suffer severely, demolishing what little industry we do have!! Short term rentals (STR) bolster our local economy at micro and macro levels; banning or any further restrictions would directly and negatively impact our businesses and livelihood. Not everyone wants to stay at a hotel for obvious social distancing reasons and families seek kitchens and living areas with privacy away from other travelers. Forcing visitors to stay at a (likely much more expensive) hotel, will reduce their available funds to invest in our local economy via shopping, restaurants/bars, excursions/attractions, etc. Banning STRs will abolish the 11 % transient occupancy tax (TOT) that's collected as well. I urge you to consider the secondary, trickle down affects on local businesses who will not have customers to serve. The economic negative impact is vast. STR can also help decrease the rate of foreclosures where a homeowner may need to temporarily rent their home here and there to offset financial hardships incurred from COVID. Would you rather have a STR on your block or a neglected foreclosure eye sore that welcomes loiters and squatters? Great news for the City: rentals already pay an I I % tax which can be directly reinvested to help our full-time residents enjoy better roads, parks and schools. Instead of imposing restrictions and bans, I suggest the City outline clearer expectations of STR's to protect full time residents and to not cut local businesses at the knees by making it difficult for tourists to even visit Palm Desert. I request we keep short term rentals operational and pass no new restrictions, allowing our small businesses to flourish. HOA's (if any) should be the only determining board to enact STR rules. The City should allow homeowners the full right to enjoy their homes however they choose. Our valley is home to some but for many, we mustn't forget it is also a well deserved vacation, a long-time planned trip, a destination wedding or a family reunion. Please do not impose STR bans or restrictions in our City. Respectfully, Sara Kirillov 760-218-6070 sarakirillov@gmail.com Sanchez, Gloria From: Mary Suarez Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 5:31 AM To: Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie; info@vronpd.org Subject: STR's Hello City Council Members, My name is Mary Suarez and my husband and I are RESIDENTS of Palm Desert and we LIVE ON Corte Placitas, right off Hovley Lane. We also OWN (2) Short Term Rentals off Hovley Lane, one on Meadow and one on Centennial Circle. We bought Centennial back in 2016, lived there for almost 2 years then began to Short Term Rent it and we've NEVER HAD ONE ISSUE, EVER with our home at 40935 Centennial Circle. When we bought our home on Meadow Lane, (40500) it was going to be our permanent residence, however after fixing it up it was too small for us so we decided to buy another house on Corte Placitas and make that house our residence and we would just STR Meadow lane. Well, ever since that decision, we've had neighbors who decided that they didn't want a STIR so they did nothing but create problems. My husband and I have been renting our homes out for over 14 years and we've literally never had an issue, EVER, until Meadow Lane and the people who have nothing better to do than to create problems simply because they do NOT WANT ANY STR's on their street! Our guests follow ALL RULES set by the City and by US! We're VERY STRICT and extremely clean and conscientious of EVERYTHING GOING on at both our STR's. We walk every morning past both homes and make sure guests are following ALL rules and regulations. The following is what ALL RENTERS MUST SIGN BEFORE WE ALLOW THEM TO STAY IN OUR HOMES: RULES OF THE HOUSE AND PALM DESERT ORDINANCES: Palm Desert has a STRICT ordinance that prohibits ANY NOISE OUTSIDE past I O:OOPM and before 10:00AM. There is NO music playing past I O:OOPM or before 10:o0AM outside whatsoever. No loud voices, even "harmless" playing around, if it's PAST IOPM, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE. If you are going to play music during the day, please be respectful and keep it at a normal volume. Also, you MUST PARK your cars IN THE GARAGE OR ON THE DRIVEWAY ONLY. There is NO street parking allowed, ever. You are only allowed 2 cars MAX at the house at any given time. You can be fined for not abiding by these rules. There is a fine of $1,000 (MINIMUM) that the city of Palm Desert can impose to the guest staying at the property if the police or any authority is called to the home for noise or any other violation in the ordinance. A copy of the ordinance and the Palm Desert RULES and REGULATIONS can be found in the kitchen, along with other reading material on the island. If you are found to be guilty of any ordinance break, you will be asked to leave the property immediately and any deposit will be forfeited, and you will be responsible for any fines the city would impose. Palm Desert just PASSED this strict law regarding Short Term Rentals. The city is currently trying to shut down ALL short term rentals in Palm Desert, so you have no options other than staying in a hotel when you come visit! Code enforcement is active and strictly enforcing ANY breach or break of these rules. Please do your part and help us keep our vacation homes in tack, so you can continue to enjoy these homes in our desert. This house's use is intended for RELAXATION AND QUIET GETAWAYS FOR family and friends ONLY. IT IS NOT A PARTY HOUSE AND ANY INDICATION OF SUCH WILL BE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL FROM THE PROPERTY. We ask that you follow our GOLDEN RULE, which is: PLEASE TREAT OUR HOME AS IF IT WERE YOUR OWN, THAT INCLUDES YOUR RESPECT AND COURTESY TO OUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS. If you abide by the "Golden Rule", everything will be perfect! Pick up all trash and put it in the bins. There are trash cans on the side of the house as well as the yard. Leave the property the way you found it, PLEASE. Also, clean off the grill after EACH USE. Put all floats and toys BACK WHERE YOU FOUND THEM. If you take out the kids table and chairs, please make sure it's put away when you leave; that goes for anything you take out. Any furniture you move inside the house, please make sure it's put back exactly the way it was when you arrived. Please follow checkout instructions when leaving. Strict check in, checkout times must be adhered to, to be respectful to the next guest checking in, unless you have made arrangements to check in/out early/late. THANK YOU! With the above RULES AND REGULATIONS needing to be signed off by the guest, NO ONE HAS EVER HAD A PROBLEM SIGNING IT! Maybe this is why we have NO ISSUES with our renters! WE enforce our own rules, UPFRONT in advance before they even come! ENFORCEMENT IS KEY! The beautiful families who rent our homes are gracious, caring, kind, CONSIDERATE and EXTREMELY RESPECTFUL, UNLIKE some of our 'actual' neighbors, who park cars (more than 4 at a time on the street, every single night), don't take care of their property, moan and complain about other neighbors... THAT'S crazy to me! We had 'anonymous' people calling in about our house on Meadow, FOR LITERALLY NO REASON! Mike the officer who showed up a number of times, met with us there and he was even baffled! I think one of the very first things that needs to happen is NO MORE ANONYMOUS CALLERS! If you TRULY have a complaint, CALL YOUR NEIGHBOR, but if they're too cowardly to do that, then they at least should HAVE TO STATE WHO THEY ARE when calling the city! That seems only fair.... anonymous callers should not be taken serious — ANONYMOUS CALLS SHOULD NOT EVEN BETAKEN! I think THAT ALONE could save so much time and we can start to see who's complaining just to get rid of STR's off Hovley. These people just DON'T WANT STR's period, there is NO valid reasoning! I'm sorry, but that is crazy.. We first started coming to this valley over 30 years ago..... and about 20 years ago, we started renting STR'5.... it's what brought us here full time! I've had 3 families who've made PALM DESERT their permanent residence, BECAUSE THEY rented from us first! STR's are part of this valley and with responsible owners, such as ourselves, we enhance the city, bringing in revenue and making the Coachella Valley a highly desirable destination location! We live in a'resort community'! Our homes are some of the cleanest, tightist, most efficiently run homes off Hovley Lane. We are GREAT neighbors and we LOVE LIVING OFF OF HOVLEY LANE AS RESIDENCE.... there is never any issues we see or hear, but if there were, WE'D LOCATE THE OWENRS and talk to them. We want to be part of the solution.... there's too much segregation and disharmony in our world, especially now. Let's work together to live IN harmony and fix any'real' issues that might be going on and put a STOP to any pseudo made up creations people want to manufacturer just because they don't want a STR on their street! The few STR owners who break rules, allow parties and simply just don't care NEED TO GO AWAY! The KEY to STR's is ENFORCEMENT..... PLEASE, let's make strict, enforceable rules for STR owners to follow; you'll see a big difference as MOST (STR owners) are good people wanting to do the right thing and are willing to do whatever it takes to HELP keep our neighborhoods beautiful! Let's not 'cut down the entire apple tree, just because of a few bad apples', let's get rid of the 'bad' STR owners and enforce rules and regulations. I'd be more than happy to help in any way I can. I appreciate you reading this and taking time to analyze it. PLEASE, let's ENFORCE RULES and all live in harmony! It can be done, IF YOU ALLOW US TO prove the model. Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from each and every one of you. Thank you, Mary Suarez Palm Desert Resident Sanchez, Gloria From: Scott St John Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 8:11 AM To: Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments Cc: Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Subject: Short Term Rentals Dear City Council of Palm Desert and City Manager, We have been a multiple property owner in Palm Desert for over 5 years. We love the city and the valley, and have been coming here since the late 80's. The purpose of this letter is to let you know that we support the idea of Short Term Rentals in the city. We do not support the reduction and eventual elimination of the ability to rent our two homes for periods under 28 days. Perhaps if you heard a little bit about our situation you might understand better. We purchased our first home there in Monterey CC as an investment and for personal enjoyment. We remodeled the home using local contractors, and use a local housekeeping company. We can only afford to own this home if we rent the home for short term rentals. Long term rentals are only possible in the winter, and we use the home off and on during that time period. We hope to retire to the other home we own in Chaparral CC, and use the Monterey home as an income source. This has been our dream for 10 years prior to ur purchase. Now it seems that this dream will come to an end, if you eliminate STR. We will be forced to sell our investment, likely at a reduced price if the future of STR is eliminated. We take great care to provide a home that is unique and enjoyable for visitors. It is a different experience than a hotel stay and we have never had any complaints against us by the neighbors, security to the city/police. We hope that you will consider the rights of all property owners with your decisions. If you ban STR in this city you will reduce property values, hurt local businesses/retail and destroy future home sales. The only real issue some residents have is the noise and parking because of parties at some STR units. And as you well know, most of these are R1 type homes with large backyards/pools. And if these homeowners do not police their own guests, then they and the guests should be held to account by the city and local ordinance. Why punish the many STR owners that do a great job of representing the city and conforming to noise and parking ordinances. There are many STR owners that are going to be banding together to keep STR as a legal option in Palm Desert. We plan to make our voicers heard and become more polictal in the process. I hope you will properly listen to their concerns and consider the future of the city going forward. Thank you for you time. Scott St John Kathryn St John Sanchez, Gloria From: AI Pearson Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:02 PM To: Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Cc: Cody Carlson; Al Pearson Subject: Please Do Not Block Short Term Rentals Dear Mayor, City Manager, and City Council members, The purpose of this letter is to ask you to continue to allow short term rentals. Please add this letter for consideration during the November 19, 2020 Council meeting. These short term rentals benefit many people. • The city of Palm Desert through Transient Occupancy Tax collections. • The businesses of Palm Desert, from the revenue visitors spend. • The property managers, housekeepers, and maintenance people that short term rental owners employ. • The property owners. Without this rental revenue, many, like us, would not be able to afford a property that we can use personally for a couple of months a year. We use our condo about 60 days per year, and rent it for about 150 days per year. The result of stopping short term rentals in our case would be that we would have to sell the property. We assume other owners will also have to sell. Real Estate values will drop. Palm Desert will host fewer visitors. less revenue will arrive at the city and it's businesses. Jobs supporting these rentals will be lost. We understand the hotel industry would prefer short term rentals to be stopped. We understand that there are some complaints. We ask you to deal specifically with those complaints by verification and follow up with appropriate measures. Certainly some of the TOT collection could be allocated to resolving complaints. We strongly encourage you to verify the magnitude of the complaints and deal with them accordingly. Our condo is in Desert Falls, and our renters are typically retirement age. We have received only one complaint (in over 4 years of short term renting) from a neighbor, who actually complained and threatened legal action to our Property Manager because one of our guests let his 6 and 8 year old children play in the grass. Really I Thank you for your consideration, Al and Jo Pearson Permit number 41157 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Whom It May Concern, J.C. Sutherland Wednesday, November 11, 2020 7:55 PM Bynder, Randy, CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie; info@vronpd.org Short Term Rentals - Letter for Consideration during November 19 City Council Meeting Please add this letter for consideration during the November 19 council meeting. Please read aloud. I pray that you're well, and for discernment as you lead our community through this pandemic. I'm alarmed at the speed in which you are considering extending the ban on short term rentals in PR zones of Palm Desert outside of HOAs. Considering the community pushback that neighboring Cathedral City received after their ban, and the fact that Palm Springs overwhelmingly rejected a ban only a couple years ago, this calls into question whether you're taking into account the entire picture and serving the needs of all your citizens and taxpayers. As a responsible owner that spends a lot of money in taxes and services in the Coachella valley, it seems apparent that a blanket ban is a solution in search of a problem. I have the greatest sympathy for those who have to deal with living next to a party house. That's unacceptable. However, I also believe that those properties can be dealt with individually by using tools less blunt than an entire ban that causes great financial distress for homeowners, lowers property values, and hurts city revenue. I hope that when moving forward, decisions will be based on data, and actual citations, not just complaints, as that metric can be easily skewed. For example, the city received a complaint on our property for renting during the Covid ban, when it was actually my family quietly using our house with my infant son. I know my neighbors, and none of them said they called, I believe them, although one did report a minivan outside our house with someone writing on a clipboard the day we received the complaint. I'm not one for conspiracies, but it does seem there's a vested interest in inflating complaints, and all licensed STR addresses can be easily found. A decision with this much weight should not be up to only the loudest voices in the room. If I lived next to an irresponsibly ran STR, I'd be angry too, but please keep in mind that the great majority of STR's are being operated responsibly and by people who use their houses. I'd ask that the debate doesn't devolve into hyperbole about greedy faceless entities running hotels and ruining neighborhoods. I know my neighbors in Palm Desert. Before Covid, I broke bread with them. I've mourned with them. I have maintained relationships with them even after they've left this neighborhood, but unlike them, I have paid thousands of dollars in taxes in addition to my property tax, which helps keep this city such a desirable place to live. Like many STR operators, this isn't a cynical business, it's a way to afford a house in a community we'd like to live full time if our professions allowed, and the house we plan on eventually moving too. In the nearly six years of operating an STR, we've had one justified complaint early on, were greatly embarrassed by it, made changes, and haven't had one since, other than the aforementioned baseless complaint we were violating the Covid ban. Essentially, we pulled our listing off Airbnb because of the clientele that site catered to, don't rent to anyone under 30 unless they have kids, don't rent to music festival goers, and don't rent for shorter than four nights. We also make it clear that any fines will be passed onto guests, and let them know that before they rent. Those common sense steps eliminated the party crowd. I don't see why the city couldn't do the same thing with the ordinance, and if the city is concerned with 'hotels' in neighborhoods, they could limit the number of permits given an entity, or properties run by agencies who are incentivized to rent as much as possible, in favor of owner run properties, who for the most part, take much greater care in screening renters because not only do we not want the headache, we actually use our own houses and don't want them trashed. I'm confident that the city can come up with a granular solution that deals with the minority ruining it for everyone, instead of punishing everyone and destroying an entire sector of the local economy. Sincerely, James Sutherland Sanchez, Gloria From: irma baronian Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 11:35 AM To: Sanchez, Gloria Subject: Letter to the City of Palm Desert, Please read at city council meeting. 11/17/2020 Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; img002.pdf, ATT00001.htm Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Ramiro Solis Date: October 10, 2020 at 8:59:38 PM PDT To: "ibaronian@msn.com" <ibaronian@msn.corn> Subject: Emailing: img002 Letter to the City of Palm Desert Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: img002 Sylvia Solis Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. Dear Palm Desert City Council Members and the City of Palm Desert Planning Department, Hi My Name is Sylvia Solis I am a housekeeper and I am licensed. Cleaning homes is what I do for a living. I'm so grateful for all the STR homeowners that employ me. Because of them I have a steady weekly income and I'm able to provide for my family. I am writing this letter to ask you not to ban STR in the city of Palm Desert. This will hurt me financially in a big way. I'm a hard worker and I take pride in caring for the STR homeowner's homes. They have become like family to me since I care and maintain their homes so often and I have a wonderful relationship with them. Because of just a few STR situations that have caused some disturbances to nearby residences, please don't hurt everyone else who does a wonderful job at managing their STR, who respect their neighbors, who follow rules and who provide service jobs to so many. Thank you for taking time to read my letter. Sincerely, Sylvia Solis Sanchez, Gloria From: Ortega, Niamh Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:18 AM To: Sanchez, Gloria; Rocha, Grace Subject: FW: Immediate Attention Required! Please don't take away our business'!! Not sure if this went to Council or to the meeting comments e-mail address as it was bcc'd. Thanks, Niamh Ortega Secretary to the City Council Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6315 nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Information Mail Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 6:51 AM To: Ortega, Niamh <nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Swartz, Kevin <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org> Cc: Hermann, David <dhermann@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Fw: Immediate Attention Required! Please don't take away our business'!! Good Morning, This is another STIR message received through the City's informational e-mail. It was addressed to the Council, but it does not look like it was sent to their e-mail addresses. Thank You, Brianne From: Roze Semerjian Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:46 PM Subject: Immediate Attention Required! Please don't take away our business'!! To all Palm Desert city council members, Our family is proud owners of a short term rental property in the Hovley Ln W neighborhood. This home is used by our family as a vacation home and is also used as a short term rental as the only source of income for our mom who is retired and widowed. As a STR homeowner we are selective in the guests that we rent our property to. Just last month we denied a young group of adults whom we knew would be making a higher than normal noise volume which may disrupt our neighbors. There is no doubt that there are those bad actors in the renting of short term rentals, however, it is a fact that the core demographics of travelers who stay in STRs are families who prefer these alternative accommodations because of the value and space. These guests spend money in local businesses in the city, namely in locations traditionally under -serviced by hotels, resulting in increased economic activity. Because our property is a STR we have an incentive to keep the property maintained to its highest standards. Data shows STRs support, and even raises property value. According to reports conducted by Airbnb and Vrbo, 70 percent of STR owners say they use their STR rental income to make improvements and upgrades to the home to maintain its desirability to renters. With that in mind we employ a crew of local Palm Desert residents who clean and maintain our property. We, STR owners give constant work to local cleaners, gardeners and pool maintenance guys. We also partner with chefs, masseuses, spa and golf companies to provide our renters with package options to upgrade their stay. We also recommend our favorite local restaurants to our guests in our welcome package that is sent to renters online and placed inside the home. In a recent decision, Southwest Airlines has approved flights to Palm Springs and this most definitely will bring more tourism to the city and all connecting cities. Allowing options for families and individuals with affordable alternatives to hotel stays, giving them the option to rent a home will benefit the city in generating business. Our renters are predominantly families, groups, and budget conscious travelers, staying for extended periods of time in cities which would not be possible due to the high cost of hotel stays and thus taking away profits generated by these renters by shopping and eating locally. Most STR owners depend on rental income to pay their mortgage. With this in mind, in the event an adverse decision is made against short term rentals, we as homeowners will be forced to seek other means of paying our mortgage. This would mean we would be forced to enter into long term leases, 1 year, 2, 3 or 5 years in order to guarantee payment of our mortgages. If we were forced to take long term renters, we would not be able to be as selective with whom we rent the property to. We know that neighbors now are complaining about having so many people come and go and are disturbing their peace. However, they should take into consideration that these individuals are here for only a few days. Also, it is not often they have renters that are throwing parties and disturbing the peace. A long term renter isn't guaranteed to be the best renter, and as we all know eviction laws are in favor of renters and not landlords. It would be very difficult to evict a renter causing hardship to the neighbors. We hope and pray you do not make this decision and ask that you instead come up with a way to help both STR owners and residence in the Hovley Ln W community. Us short term rental homeowners are willing to cover all costs of hiring a 24/7 security in the area to control and monitor all short term renters. There are options out there and we are more than happy to come to an agreement that will be beneficial for the owners, city and our neighbors. Thank you, Rozanna Semerjian Sanchez, Gloria From: Ortega, Niamh Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:16 AM To: Rocha, Grace; Sanchez, Gloria Subject: FW: Another re: STRs Niamh Ortega Secretary to the City Council Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6315 nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org -----Original Message ----- From: Information Mail Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 6:49 AM To: Ortega, Niamh <nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Swartz, Kevin <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org> Cc: Hermann, David <dhermann@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Fw: Good Morning, This is another STR message that was received through the info mail, it was not sent to Council. Thank You, Brianne From: hardysanner Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 8:03 AM To: Information Mail Subject: City information Officer, Please help to change our neighborhoods to R1 standard and ban STRs . Thankyou, Hardy and Patti Sanner 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:45 PM To: Sanchez, Gloria Subject: FW: STIR Palm Desert City Council Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Palm Desert STR Letter Nov 2020.docx FYI Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org From: RobertZ Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:41 PM To: Nestande, Gina <gnestande@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Kelly, Kathleen <kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Harnik, Jan <jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Jonathan, Sabby<sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Weber, Susan Marie <sweber@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Bynder, Randy <rbynder@cityofpalmdesert.org> Cc: Information Mail <info@cityofpalmdesert.org>; Swartz, Kevin <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org>; info@vronpd; szakheim22@gmail.com; RobertZ <robertz@optixiwear.com> Subject: STIR Palm Desert City Council Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. To whom it may concern, Attached is my letter of concern pertaining to the Short Term Rental program currently in place in the City of Palm Desert. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter during your next Council meetings. Regards, Robert Zakheim November 12, 2020 To the Mayor and City Council Members of Palm Desert, This is Robert Zakheim, I am a homeowner in our wonderful City of Palm Desert. *** I would like this letter to be read aloud at your next City Council meetings. My wife Susan and I have been vacationing in the Palm Desert area since moving out West from New York in the early 1980's. We were attracted to the Desert's tourism... Fun in the sun, dining out, gambling, shows and shopping. As our family grew, so did our trips to the Desert with our expanded group. We began to rent private homes through Airbnb to accommodate our adult children and our grandkids. We were able to have the entire family together under one roof, instead of the coldness of 3 separate hotel suites. In addition to the cost savings of the rental fees for a private home versus the multiple hotel rooms, we had options of preparing meals in the house, call in for delivery (Ober Eats, etc.), or dining out in one of the fabulous area restaurants. This is more prevalent now during the Pandemic we are all suffering with. We enjoyed the experiences so much, we decided to purchase our own home in Palm Desert to further soak in the Desert lifestyle with our family. Getting closer to retirement, we had calculated renting our 2nd home to assist us in maintaining our two properties until we are ready to make Palm Desert a more permanent situation. Without the ability to rent our home Short Term, we will have a very difficult time in paying two mortgages. I am not the only homeowner who will be in a situation where selling a 24d home will become a reality. If Short Term Rental homeowners are forced to sell our homes, that will certainly reduce home values in all neighborhoods. It will also cut into the tremendous amount of money that our guests spend ordering from restaurants, shopping in markets and retail stores. The Millions of Tax Revenue we produce as Short Term Rental property owners (that will no longer be collected by the City), will create a huge financial deficit for Palm Desert, in addition to seeing many local merchants and restaurants going out of business. The residents and Council members who oppose the continuation of the STR program, should consider all of the negative ramifications that will come to the City if we cannot come together on equal grounds to reach an amicable solution that will satisfy everyone's concerns. Respectfully, Robert Zakheim Sanchez, Gloria From: j a n rjbp 1123 Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 PM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: Public comments; please read aloud during 11/19/2020 Council meeting To Palm Desert Mayor and City Council Members: Quality of life in my neighborhood improved considerably after the STR ordinance took effect in January 2018. With the shift to owner -occupied STRs and phase -out of previously permitted mini -motels; raucous parties disappeared along with congestion, parking shortages and overflowing trash cans. The gloom -and -doom predictions of the STR industry did not come to pass. City finances remained sound. Some investors converted to long-term rentals. Others sold their STRs. The local market readily absorbed these properties and some sold above their list prices. These changes allowed new permanent residents to move in. One example: A former party house one block over went on the market last year. The house was spruced up for the sale, enhancing its appearance and property values on the block. A young family moved in, bringing real neighbors into our community. New permanent residents are a plus for the larger Palm Desert community, too. They bring year-round local spending on goods and services. They contribute to the community through employment, volunteer work, participation in civic and religious organizations, and bringing new students into the schools. , With COVID-19, the market has heated up. Big -city residents now accustomed to working from home are seeking affordable, and better, quality of life in places like Palm Desert. Housing stock here is in short supply and demand is booming. Prices are up. I encourage you to accept staff recommendations and amend the existing STR ordinance with respect to the PR provisions for three reasons: 1. The citizens and permanent residents of Shepherd Lane, Hovley Lane West, the Grove and North Deep Canyon should not be expected to serve as front-line enforcement for absentee owners of mini -motels. 2. Adding as many as 69 properties for permanent or long-term residents will bolster economic resilience and stability and help offset future tourism fluctuation impacts. 3. 75% of total dwelling units will remain eligible for STR rentals in Palm Desert, serving investors, visitors, and our tourism -related businesses. Jann_Buller Palm Desert, CA 92260 N � � C1 N Sent from Mail for Windows 10 0_ d � r- rn sr� rn y 47 Sanchez, Gloria From: JohnOTOr� r" and Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:52 PM To: Nestande, Gina; Harnik, Jan; Kelly, Kathleen; Jonathan, Sabby; weber; Stendell, Ryan; Bob Hargreaves; Swartz, Kevin; rbyner@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: Study on STRs by the Economic Policy Insitute Check out -this analysis from the Economics Policy Institute. This place is a leftish policy think tank affiliated with the labor movement. It tries to focus on policy issues that affect low and middle income families. Their conclusions are very interesting. htti)s://www.ei)i. oralDublicationithe-economic-costs-and-benefits-of-airbnb-no-reason-for-local-Dolicvmakers- to-let-airbnb-b vpass-tax-or-re 2ulatorv-obli 2ations/ Remember how sports teams claim the stadium they want a city to build will bring in tons of money but analysis shows they usually cost more to run than the city gains in taxes and other income? All same STR. Taxes from STR lodging is much less reliable to a city than from regular hotels. Most zoning regulations recognize, at least implicitly, that commercial activities bring externalities that are not good in residential zones and hard to manage. STRs violate the problem of controlling externalities by the industry and make them a neighborhood problem that cities cannot control. The biggest cost to a city is the higher housing costs for residents. Many of the benefits they found are "potential benefits." The report concludes that Airbnb, et al, should be forced to comply with the same rules as all the other lodging providers. jc. John Curran Palm Desert, CA This email is transmitted using only recycled electrons. a e-� O -y :ic- y _ _ry CD N .(7) to 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Senti To: Subject: STR agenda item ... Ortega, Niamh Monday, November 16, 2020 1:07 PM Rocha, Grace; Sanchez, Gloria F.W: PLEASE, ban STRs in NON -GATED neighborhoods Nialrv>Ih Ortega Secretary to the City Council - Ph: 760.346.0611. Direct: 760.776.6315 hortega@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Information Mail Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 1:05 PM To: Ortega, Niamh ; Swartz, Kevin, Cc: Hermann, David Subject: Fw: PLEASE, ban STRs in NON -GATED, neighborhoods Good Afternoon, i r.J l ii C7 ry CD UM 71 _10 cn v. We have received the following STIR message through the City's informational e-mail. It was sent directly to Jan, Kathleen, and Susan Marie --but not Sabby or Gina. Thank You, Brianne From:, Suzan Elf�o t� Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 1.1:35 AM To: Harnik, Jan; Kelly, Kathleen; - Weber, Susan Marie. Cc: Information Mail; -Subject: PLEASE, ban STRs in NON -GATED neighborhoods Gina Nestande anestande@citvofpalmdesert.orq Jan Harnik iharnik@citvofpalmdesert.orq Kathleen Kelly kkelly@citvofpalmdesert.ora Sabby Jonathan sjyn4than@cityofpalmdesert.ora, Susan.Weber sweber@citvofpalmdesert.ora City Information Officer info@ citvofpalmdesert.ora -1 an writing to support the cause of stopping Short Term Rentals in Non -gated , non=HOA neighborhoods. As a real estate broker of 44 years I have seen first hand the chaos created by STRs for -all other residents of the neighborhood. Thank you for assistance and support in this effort, i Suzan J. Elliott Owner, Broker of Elliott and Associates Palm Desert, Calif 92211 Sanchez, Gloria From: . Sent: To: Subject: Ortega, Niamh Monday, November 16, 2020 12:34 PM Rocha, Grace; Sanchez, Gloria FW: AirB&B in Palm desert From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 11:59 AM To: `Faria Mehrnia' Cc: Ortega, Niamh Subject: RE: AirB&B in Palm desert Niamb, Please forward this email to the City Council. Thanks Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485 .s kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org ,� `= - > o From: Faria V.vlektr�ia"� - E-. Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 6:25 PM To: Swartz, Kevin <kswartzPcitvofr)almdesert.ore> Cc: Subject: AirB&B in Palm desert o ,T. Hi My name is Faria and one of the hone owner in Palm desert , It is important for the me and lots of people in our community to show support for fair regulations and ensure that council hears our voice. AirB&B help me to pay my loun and expenses like electricity bills , I live in my house and I would like to rent out my room. This is very important economic recovery lifeline should not be restricted at a time or: any time as soon as not bothering the Nighbure and the owner does live in there and share some part of the house. when many Palm Desert residents, are struggling from the impacts of the ongoing pandemic and 600-800 electricity bills. All this.rolls just make life harder. in this city. Sincerely Faria Mehrnia 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Ortega, Niamh Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:33 PM To: Sanchez, Gloria; Rocha, Grace:_ Subject: FW: updoming council meeting to discuss short term rentals Another STR-related comment for the agenda item From: BonniefCasas_sa Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:52 AM To: Swartz, Kevin <kswartz(@citvofr)almdesert.ore> Subject: updoming council meeting to discuss short term rentals Good morning Mr. Swartz, Thank you for making email/us mail an option for people unable to attend the upcoming City Council meeting. My husband and I are retired people. We use our house in Palm Desert and also rent it when we are not using it. The rental money helps us afford our house. We have rented our house using some short term rentals since 2004. We have never received a complaint for noise, etc. We think our tenants have been good people who, took good care of our house and provided us needed income. I am sure you and City Council members have spent much time trying to find a solution to problems caused by some short term rentals. What I truly do not understand is why those responsible for any problems, caused with short term rentals aren't dealt with - - with warnings, fines, rescinding of short term rental permits -- instead of penalizing all property owners who rent short term. I would appreciate your conveying my views to City Council members and urge them. -to not penalize all in an attempt to solve a problem. Best wishes to you, Bonnie Casassa 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Ortega, Niamh Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:18 PM To: Rocha, Grace; Sanchez, Gloria Subject: FW: Palm Desert's Latest Ban on STR's C i From: Richard[-o,Mailto:foxguidebooks@gmail.com] _N ,- �_ Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 8:37 AM o To: Swartz, Kevin; CityhallMail Q, CD rr : M Subject: Palm Desert's Latest Ban on STR's o M - . F7 To Palm Desert's Representatives, s: ;7111 w :L0 We understand you are moving toward a city-wide ban of short term rentals. We live in a condo in the Desert Falls community. We are retired and besides social security our only income is renting out the condo to vacationers, or sometimes temporary workers. This is our only home, and we go off in our RV when it is rented. We chose Desert Falls and Palm Desert specifically because this practice is allowed. We rent by the month only during peak snowbird season because the rates are high enough to make an income while camping elsewhere, but in the shoulder seasons with lower monthly rates we need to rent for shorter periods with high rates during holidays and festivals, and this accounts for 50% of our annual income. We have a minimum rental of 4 days outside of peak season. We are good, careful hosts, and in nine years of doing this in Palm Desert we have never had any complaints or damages. We are currently on a Covid closure and staying in it ourselves, so are missing out on income that will need to be made up. Many families rent condos here to visit relatives who live here and they will be hard done by as well. We have rented our homes to STR travelers for over 15 years, with no problems. These are people who DO NOT WANT to stay in hotels or timeshares. When a city tells them they have to stay in a hotel, they go elsewhere and spend their money OUTSIDE of Palm Desert. In what possible way is your ban helping the economy of Palm Desert? We realize the first stage of your ban allows HOA's to opt out of the ban, but we assume that just makes it easier for them to ban STR's because they don't have to change their CC&R's this way. We have no confidence that our HOA would make the right decision, even with its history of vacation rentals and a rental office on site. The city already has a mechanism to get rid of problem STR's, so it makes no sense to ban the good ones like ours as well. You are obviously doing this for the benefit of wealthy out of town hotel and timeshare resort owners to reduce their competition. How is that helping residents like us who will be driven into poverty? Covid-19 isn't harming enough people here that you have to come after small business people like us too? Sincerely, Richard Fox and Steven Fisher Palm Desert Sanchez, Gloria From: Kristen *caw ' Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 8:00 PM To: CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail Subject: STR letter for consideration on 11/19 Dear City Council Members of Palm Desert, We would greatly appreciate this letter being read aloud during the upcoming meeting on November 19, 2020. My partner and I are proud owners of a short term rental property in Palm Desert. We take pride in our rental, doing our utmost to rent to guests who will be respectful of the neighborhood and the city in general by vetting them through our rental platform. We understand that at times guests can be a nuisance and annoyance to neighbors, and when we are alerted by our neighbors that we have problem guests, we are quick to respond and rectify the problem to restore peace and quiet. We run our rental ourselves through the Airbnb platform. We employ locals to help us maintain our rental - our housekeeper lives in the neighborhood and is a single mom. Our pool service is a local entrepreneur. Our gardener is local and runs his own small business. Our handyman is a one man show. Not only is our rental a significant portion of our income, but we are a significant income to the locals who work for us. We would love for the City of Palm Desert to continue to be an attractive destination for travelers, but also for the neighborhood to be a place our neighbors love to live in. We depend on the rental income to pay our mortgage. We pay our taxes and fees to the City in a timely manner. Forcing us into long term leases would be detrimental to our income, as well as the income of those we employ locally. We are open to new ideas of how to better manage our rental to come to an agreement that benefits all involved. Thank you so much for your consideration. o �. Sincerely,--� Matt and Kristen Crowe r Ml rn ' rn Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Good Morning, Information Mail Monday, November 16, 2020 6:27 AM Ortega, Niamh; Swartz, Kevin Hermann, David Fw: submission by Karen and Gregory Evans addressing the STR subcommittee report and vote ordinance 1360 We sent you safe versions of your files; ordinance 1360 submission Gregory and karen Evans.docx The following message regarding STR was received through the City's info mail. It was also sent directly to the City Council. Thank You, Brianne From: Greg'i{3uans; Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2020 6:13 PM To: Bynder, Randy; Information Mail Cc: Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie; Cody Carlson Subject: submission by Karen and Gregory Evans addressing the STR subcommittee report and vote ordinance 1360 Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. .. ......_....... . _...........:.. - u. _..._........ Please find attached a written submission on behalf of Gregory and Karen Evans License number STR2019-0113 addressing the ordinance no 1306 to be addressed November 19, 2020 i k EGE1 Alt U) 01T Y GLE RV`'Fi ICc PALEi E)ESEF? City Council, City of.Palm Desert 2020 NOV 16 Pi=l 1=: 35 Attention Mr. Randy Bynder, City Manager November 15, 2020 re: Ordinance 1360 As an affected party (license number STR2019-0113) located at 74529 Lavender Way, Palm Desert, CA 92270 and a short term vacation rental owner I would like to comment on the proposed ordinance no 1360. Short term vacation rentals (STR) offer an alternative to families and individuals to visit our beautiful valley in an environment that minimizes their covid 19 viral exposure. STR's allow visitors to in effect keep their social bubble intact while enjoying the valley. In the covid era STR contributes to city revenue via the transient occupancy tax (TOT). This city revenue is not a small amount and although the subcommittee report were unable to specify this amount I have included in this email a calculation that could be used to fairly accurately estimate it. As a semi -retired individual who has worked and lived'in Palm Desert for 19 of my last 21 years in the valley I was counting on the mentioned STR as retirement income. As a responsible owner I am compliant all of the current requirements, contract with a professional manager and provide 7-24 monitoring of my STR. I strongly recommend against adopting the recommendations of the STR subcommittee. It is an infringement of not only the property.owner rights but eliminates a safe harbour option for visitors to stay in the City of Palm Desert: There are are a number of items in the staff report that was circulated by City Planner Keven Shwartz that I would like to. point out that are either erroneous or not mentioned. I have listed them below: 1) From the report "Over the past couple of months, The City has received numbers emails; phone calls and letters from residents within the four PR neighbourhoods states that STRs are ruining their quality of life. Code Compliance has received a large amount of calls for potential STR violations. " This is not supported by any data but I can say the STR owners (myself included) had a rash of uncommon rentals right after the re -opening of short term rental market. My interpretation of this is that the covid shutdown gave some folks (for lack of a better way to phrase it) cabin fever. The rental market has since returned to it's normal level. The data for this is not publicly available for Palm Desert however the data can be compared to another valley city with similar STR usage (City of Palm Springs). The data is published weekly at the below link https://www. i)almsi)rin2sca. 2ov/government/departments/vacation-rentals/vacation-rental-department- reports/weeklv-hotline-reports A brief analysis of this will show council members that for the 2020 months of July and August that the number.of complaints was up roughly 35% over the 2019 number. Please note that for September and October the numbers are back to the same as 2019. This helps support my assumption of 66covid related cabin fever". 2) The report states 'A potential reduction in Transient OccupancyTax revenue during the moratorium cannot be accurately qualified and a guess would be speculative at best." Since the TOT is only collected on hotels, motels and short term rentals and there are only so many hotels and motels in Palm Desert your accounting department could determine the pre covid revenue obtained from hotels and motels and subtract this from the overall TOT. This should give you a pretty good estimate of the revenue source from short term rentals. One could even go further and take a running percentage of the last 3 months overall revenue, multiply this by 4 for an annual number, place the percentage income of the STR's and calculate an even closer estimate of the loss of revenue. My goal is not lecture the council on accounting projections my goal is to point out two salient points from the committee report. Firstly, complaints had a bump up but are now back to 2019 levels and secondly the loss of revenue is a real concern to not only myself and all the STR owners but to the taxpayers of the City of Palm Desert. Lastly visitors are the engine that drives our local economy. Instead of closing STR's I recommend the following: 1) Meet with STR owners to problem solve solutions. (To date this has not been done) 2) I support maintaining enforcement and particularly any enforcement of any illegal STR's (We all need to play by the same rules and pay our fair share) Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Respectfully Karen Evans and Gregory Evans Short Term Rental Owner license no STR2019-0113 VRONPD member Sanchez, Gloria From: Information Mail Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:39 AM To: Ortega, Niamh; Swartz, Kevin Cc: Hermann, David Subject: Fw: Petition for Action Re: STRs in the Hovley Lane West Neighborhood Good Morning, We have received the following STR message through the City's informational e-mail. It was not sent directly to Council. Thank You, Brianne From: Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2020 3:18 PM To: Planning E-mail Cc: Information Mail MZ r^ _ r�r cn M :BJ6 r �Y`nr C— ~'InC Subject: Petition for Action Re: STRs in the Hovley Lane West Neighborhood w co Dear City Planners & Council Members: We are full time residents on Clover Lane in Palm Desert. My husband and I have lived here full time for nineteen years. We are petitioning you to change the zoning for Hovley Lane West to ban current and future short-term rentals ("STRs"). Our neighborhood was -left out when the initial zoning standards were done. In our area, we have multiple short-term rental homes: --One home is directly next door to us --One home is two doors down from us, on the same side of the street --One home is two doors down from us, across the street from us --And one home is diagonally behind our home on Glenwood Avenue STRs in our area have caused multiple issues: --STRs create safety issues. o Many times, we have had strangers knock on our doors at all hours after dark, looking for the rental / party house. o Strangers turn around frequently in our driveway. o Renters and visitors park on the sidewalks. (We have attached pictures.) o STRs turn over renters rapidly. The constant change -over results in always having new groups of strangers next door every 3-4 days. oThe STRs rarely consist of one family but many large groups of people. --STRs cause noise issues. o The STRs usually consist of groups of people who like to drink, party, and spend much of their time outside. o There is frequently shouting and screaming coming from the neighbor's backyard at all hours of the day and night. oThe music is so loud that, frequently, we cannot sit outside in our backyard in the daytime. In fact, many times, the music is so loud that we can hear it in all the rooms of our house. At times, it will go on until 2 am. Our quality of life has been severely impacted, especially over this past year. We are extremely alarmed that it's going to get even worse. With Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City banning short-term rentals, STRs will increase in our neighborhood in Palm Desert. I realize that some short-term rental owners will oppose this. However, this is a residential neighborhood; it was not meant to be a hotel / motel zone, and that's essentially what is happening in our neighborhood. In addition, please also consider that, by banning current and future short-term rentals, Palm Desert would encourage more hotel reservations; thereby increasing hotel revenues and. increased bed -tax revenue for the city. It would be a win - win for us as homeowners, as well as for the hotels, who are hurting during this pandemic. Please enact a zoning change that would eliminate all current short-term rentals and ban any new short-term rentals from any single-family homes in the neighborhood streets that open up along K vley Lane West. Thank you. Sincerely, Anqelo & Shervl Sciacca Palm Desert, CA 92260 Sanchez, Gloria From: Mike McCrea Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 7:57 AM Subject: Council Meeting Letter Part 2 Attachments: 2 year sunset jpg Good morning, City of Palm Desert released Nov 19th document about the STR ban for PR having a sunset Dececember 2021. I know the 2017 ban of R1 and R2 zones council approved a 2 year sunset. Is there any way we can get a motion to change the PR ban to be in line with the 2017 ban. This- would require the new date to be Dec 2022? This would give us more time to decide on selling and figuring out what to do. Here I have attached a news article. htti)s://www. ,Q�oo2le.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=i&url=httns://ami).desertsun.conVami)/869050001 &ved=2 ahUKEwilscW84v sAhUYvZ4KHeDSAwoQFiAFe--QIChAL&usR=AOvVaw3E1TO4lz9USRi7-vC77wK- &ampcf= l &cshid=1605279090639 1 owners and managers for and against the ban and short-term rentals overall. took cm It ook council embers several failed motions .1. _' to- _ to make one that would pass, ultimately voting to keep the ban on vacation homes in residential areas zoned R-1 and R-2 it had approved on Oct. 26 but extending the sunset date for currently permitted short' -term rentals in those areas to Dec. 31, 2019. The initial date had been July 1, 2019. Mayor Jan Harnik said property owners shoal' have more than 18 months to decide what whether to sell or keep their homes and still be able to rent them for 30 days or more vs. the short-term rental that allows minimum three - night rentals. Sanchez, Gloria From: Maurice Abdel Messih Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 7:08 PM To: Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments Cc: info@vronpd.org Subject: Palm Desert City Council Meaning Short -Term Rentals Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Palm Desert City Council.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. To Whom it may concern, _ r..,._. � w__.__.._._,w._�...._.._........K:,._�.,.,..___....:,_..,....._....�.M My name is Suzie Abdel Messih and I am a property owner in palm Desert. I have written a letter regarding short term rentals. Feel free to read this letter out loud during the meeting. Best, Suzie and Maurice Abdel Messih 1 To Randy Bynder and the Palm Desert City Council -My husband and I have owned our home in Palm Desert for over 10 years. For 10 years we have been renting out our home for both short-term and long-term rentals Without any issues. These rentals will supplement our income When We retire in the Y_ .__U, --c next couple of Years. The majority of out -quests are families With children visitingtheir relatives or small groups of friends looking for a relaxing getaway: Our.gpests choose to stay in the pnvAcy , comfort and safety of a home hear their families or because they want Amenities more suitable to l6riger-46em stays, like a fully -stocked kitchen, washer/dryer and a private outdoor patio. Across the city, responsible short-term rental owners like us arev elcoming guests . and earning income to save for retirement, pay the bills.and st a(ve -Qff.eviction. a, But now, in the midst of the COVID-1 9pandemic; out ability to h6st. shott-Ae 'rM rentals is in jeopardy. rentals A ban- on all short-term rentals is unnecessary overkill that will do great harm to the majority of the Palm Desert short-term rental community, guests -respect their neighbors. and who depend upon their hosting income to make ends meet. The ban will also deprive the city and the state of tax revenues -and local businesses of an infusion of spending from guests staying nearby. Visitors would also be denied the opportunity to experience our . city from the safety and comfort of a home in one of Palm Desert's loveliest neighborhoods. Since we began hostin ' g, we'ha've made it clear to both our neighbors and our guests that we do not tolerate parties or disruptive behavior of any kind. d. We established cleat h6use rules forbidding Unneighbo rly conduct, including no visitors, parties, gatherings or loud music. Then, we work with out guests to ensure their compliance with our rules. On the rare occasions that we have received comp . laints, we worked .diligently with the sheriff's department to inform our short-term renters that they have beoken the house rules and have always had a quitk and. immediate response. We understand that some short-term renters during the Covid-1 9 pandemic are renting homes and using th6m for partids�. However, this is only a small percentage of short-term renters.- Since Covid-19 has started, we havia.ha short term renters th6t are in town to visit elderly familymembers who feel more comfortable staying in the safety of a private home rather than a hotel with -a significant number of guests and a higher risk of contracting Covid-1 9. We have had small familiet that need more re space to Work from home Who are -looking -for a backyard for c their _ children to'run around when they are working. Rather her than an overzealous ban, Palm Desert needs common-sense short-term rental rules that would: prohibit of residential properties for unruly 10it the parties, -include effective penalties for bad. actors Who violate the rulds, , and prptedi the rights of Palm Desert residents to share their property iI n a safe and comfortable way. Rules like these will allow the city to take Meaningful action against bad actors and end the r6gU.1at0y uncertainty that, leaves hosts. like m - W, i 1! leaves '_ ... y husband and me vulnerable to overly restrictive policy proposals. We urge council members to reject Nut' all %; this ban, and instead work with local short-term'rental hosts, platforms and community members to find a reasonable solution. .Sincerely, Q Suzie and Maurice Abdel Messih 0. Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: November 12, 2020 Palm Desert City Council 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Arline Kaplan Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:19 PM Nestande, Gina; kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.orgj; harnik@cityofpalmdesert.org; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie; CouncilMeeting Comments; bynder@cityofpalmdesert.org; Swartz, Kevin Comment on STRs for Nov. 19 Public Hearing Dear Mayor Nestande and Council Members Harnik, Jonathan, Weber and Kelly, Please include my letter as part of the public comments on short-term rentals (STRs) at the November 19th hearing. I urge the council to continue STRs in Palm Desert under existing regulations, since.Ordinance 1359 acknowledges "in recent years, notwithstanding steadily increasing short-term rentals in Planned Residential zoned districts, the City has not experienced significant public nuisance complaints associated with properties used as short-term residential rentals, (boldface added]] because the City has maintained a rigorous short -term -rental enforcement program." For retirees on limited incomes, STRs provide a revenue source that enables them to keep and upgrade their homes. I am a 78-year-old retired medical journalist, and I use the income I earn from periodically renting my lovingly remodeled, two bedroom condo via Airbnb to help defray my $617 monthly HOA fee and nearly $3,000 in annual property taxes. The city benefits as well; in 2019, 1 paid some $784.30 in transient occupancy taxes. It would be helpful to know how much is paid to Palm Desert each year by owners of short-term rentals and the extent of reported code violations. I have requested such information from the city, but have not received it as yet. Other beneficiaries are families, couples and individuals who visit PD and have the convenience of a home where they can prepare and eat meals rather than staying in hotel rooms with no kitchens. My guests also have the experience of being in a very quiet and very beautiful country club environment with access to a swimming pool and walking trails. Be assured that they are also supplied copies of the city's "Good Neighbor Brochure: Short -Term Rentals" as well as HOA regulations. I feel very comfortable as an Airbnb host, since the company checks out prospective renters for me; provides the prospective renter with detail descriptions of my home, its amenities, the surrounding location and the city; collects the TOTs on my behalf and pays them directly to the city (I file TOT reports to reflect that); and provides feedback on both the host and the renter. To address COVID-19 concerns of prospective renters, Airbnb recently published a "The Airbnb Cleaning Handbook," which supplies a step-by-step guide to the organization's enhanced cleaning protocol. Airbnb recently asked hosts to agree to it, which I have done. Being an occasional STR provider has enabled me to have a viable alternative to being a seasonal vacation home provider. Two years ago, my then property manager did not properly investigate a seasonal renter before signing a rental agreement. Sadly, I had to institute eviction proceedings to regain occupancy of my home, a process which cost me thousands of dollars in legal fees as well as several months of lost rent and many sleepless nights. I later discovered that eviction proceedings had been initiated in the Coachella Valley some two or three times before against the same renter. The laws are different as regards monthly and short-term rentals. When my Palm Desert home in not being used for STR, my family, friends and I get to enjoy it and the countless amenities Palm Desert and the surrounding communities have to offer. We have loved experiencing the museums, Joshua Tree, El Paseo and so much more. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, v 0 Arline Kaplan owner of 73475 Foxtail Lane, Palm Desert �--'► J r`4'Y r� Sanchez, Gloria From: Bruce Poynter Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:10 PM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: Please restrict STRs in PR Zones.- o n W Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: Short Term Rentals I am Bruce Poynter, Palm Desert resident and would like this letter to be read aloud at the November 19th City Council Meeting. I am in full support of extending "R 1/R2 -like single family neighborhoods protections" to Planned Residential Zones. I am thankful for the Councils previous wisdom to protect R1 and R2. Our quality of life has greatly improved. I again have the quiet, safe, friendly neighborhood I originally moved here for. I believe our PR neighbors deserve the same protection. Before that I had never seen any single neighborhood issue cause so much duress for residents, or take so much time for us and city staff to try to resolve. Probably thousands of combined hours of labor to try to remove STRs or control the disruption. These Mini Hotels are primarily for the financial benefit of out of town landlords, hurt the quality of life for residents, and cause enforcement problems for the city. Residents become the on site managers to out of control parties- all night long. Forget neighborhood watch and stranger danger when you are rotating groups of strangers next door many times a month. These tenants cannot be properly vetted. Witness STR crime of all types skyrocketing. Examn_ les of statements to me from guests of STRs: "I paid a lot of money for this place, I'm going to do whatever I want." Bachelor party still drinking in the street at sunrise, to an Elderly Widow walking her do "You don't belong here anymore old lady." Re Safetv Services: I'm up at 2:00 am calling on a party house. I had chest pain while dialing the hotline number and noticed a number of Police units and 2 Paramedic units at the site. I found out later that a San Diego landlord had rented to an Orange County group. So, after a career in the Fire and Ambulance service, my two closest medic units were tied up on a drug overdose and a stabbing. Amazing. It was a Friday night so the real Palm Desert Residents have to wait their turn for medical care with a much longer E.T.A. A final incident from a party house two streets from me. Extremely loud all night. About 2:00 am, I got dressed, grabbed a flashlight and went there. Fifteen cars, about 30 males in the street, so I tried diplomacy. As I approached I said "wow, quite a party you guys have going." One of them responded " Yeah this is great, a hotel would never put up with this sh*t." I thank you again for extending R1 and R2 like protections, and Quality of Life, to Planned Residential Zones. Respectfully Bruce Poynter Full time Resident Palm Desert, California 92260 'Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good Morning, Information Mail Tuesday, November 17, 2020 6:41.AM Swartz, Kevin; Sanchez, Gloria Hermann, David Fw: Short Term Rentals in Palm Desert We have received the following STR message through the City's informational a -mail. Thank You, Brianne From: Carrie McLeod Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 10:47 PM To: Nestande, Gina Subject: Short Term Rentals in Palm Desert Dear Mayor Nestande: Your long term citizens of Palm Desert want tourists to stay in our many tourist designed hotels. When you ran for City Council in Palm Desert, you ran to make the City a better place. I lived in the City then, and it is not improving our neighborhoods by allowing out of town guests, to stay in our small communities of homes where we value privacy and quality of life. The last 2 years have proven to me the PD non -emergency police line has no effective protection for the neighborhood when the deputy that responds "hears nothing" from the street while we hear the loud voices over our back wall. There are now hard feelings between neighbors about this issue and a separation of the "approve" or do "not approve" neighbors that has never existed before. As a proud former member of the Palm Desert Housing Commission, I have seen many issues come before the Council for long term benefit of its citizens and homeowner's. Please make the right decision on November 19th and vote to eliminate the short term rental program in Planned Residential non -gated communities. Sincerely, Carrie McLeod Palm Desert, CA 92260 0 ; O 0 MOX. 3 N :p 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good Morning, Information Mail Tuesday, November 17, 2020 6:42 AM .Swartz, Kevin; Sanchez, Gloria Hermann, David Fw: Re STR We have received the following message regarding STR through the 'City's informational e-mail. Thank You, Brianne From: Nanette Specht _ Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 5:11 PM To: Information Mail Subject: Re STR My husband and I have lived on Palm Court in the Hovley corridor for 15 years. We enjoy our quite neighborhood and do not want this to change. We have heard about stories from friends who have short term rentals in the neighborhood. One such friend said very loud parties disrupted their privacy and made it impossible to get decent sleep to go to work. They also advised it did no good to call the police. We are extremely concerned that STR's could disrupt our life and that of our neighbors. We request that the council expand the R1, R2 ban to Planned Residential non -gated neighborhoods. Palm Desert is a wonderful place to call home. We hope you will consider our request. Sincerely, Clifford and Nanette Specht Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: Cathy Forrister Monday, November 16, 2020 5:23 PM CouncilMeeting Comments Ordinance 1630 This is Cathy Forrister, I request be read aloud and into the record at the November 19, 2020 City Council Meeting Honorable Mayor and City Council: I'm writing is support of ordinance 1360, that limits. STR's in PR zones to those with HOA jurisdiction and approval or on site owner. Until the financial crisis of 2007-2008, residential rentals were restricted to a minimum of 30 days. With the advent of STR's, our homelessness and affordable housing problems have only worsened. In reviewing the letters in support of STR's, the main consensus seems to be the affordability to have a second (or more) home, when many have no home at all. Our zoning laws were enacted to keep commercial entities from encroaching on residential areas. Even BnB's are not allowed in residential zones. Short term rentals are businesses that are exempt from the regulations, fees, and scrutiny that other like businesses must adhere too. Hotels and Motels have onsite managers who are responsible for over seeing the guests. They are regularly inspected, have to be ADA compliant, have cleaning crews, etc. Second home owners have the ability to rent their homes on a monthly basis or be an onsite owner/manager for their guests, thus not putting the responsibility on other residents and the city to manage. The original ordinance that passed in 2017 banning non owner occupied whole house STR's in R1 and R2 has greatly improved the quality of life and the sense of being a part of a neighborhood. Our residents in Planned Residential zones deserve the same protection. Please pass this ordinance. Thank you, Cathy Forrister Palm Desert, Ca Sanchez, Gloria From: David Fickes Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:57 AM To: Bynder, Randy, CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail Cc: Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie; info@vronpd.org Subject: STIR proposed regulation changes Hello, thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion on the proposed short term rental changes in Palm Desert. My fiancee and I have had our home in Palm Desert for the past three years. In this time we have successfully rented our home to over 87 groups - all without major incident to our home or disturbance to our neighborhood. All of our noise complaint calls* have been logged before quiet hours and are often unfounded (30% of the time), quickly resolved (60%) or are based on people - namely kids and families - having a good time. Date :; Status Time;' Disposition 3/24/18 Noise Unknown Complied 4/27/19 Noise 12:25PM Complied Cite issued for "non response", dismissed due to clerical error v 5/4/19 Noise, Parking 1:10PM Unfounded I v c 3 > 8/16/20 Noise 9:38PM Complied Loud children playing 10/4/20 Noise 9:12PM Unfounded Cite issued for "non response", dismissed due to clerical error v MM g 5/15/20 Noise 9:OOPM Complied "children talking and playing" Co h 7/31/20 Noise 9:40PM Complied 8/21/20 Noise 8:17PM Complied "talking and laughter' I8/22/20 Noise 9:58PM Unfounded rn * Data proved by L. Ritchey, Code Compliance Division, City of Palm Desert During this challenging COVID times, we offer a refuge to family and friends who want to get away to a safe, clean well appointed home where they can relax and responsibility enjoy themselves. A few comments from recent guests "Perfect place for a wholesome family get together" - Christine, October 2020 "This home is by far our number one vacation home ... the fire pit was relaxing and great for s'mores with the little ones." - Martha, September 2020 We also do our best to mitigate complaints. We have a posted "No Street Parking" sign at our front door, two "Quiet Hours 10=40am" signs (inside the house and one in the back yard) and two noise measuring technologies (NoiseAware and Minut). Additionally each responsible party signs an "STR Addendum" which details all of the local regulations and house rules. These rules are also verbally reinforced by a check -in visit from our local contact who lives just a block away. 1 We do our absolute best to maintain peace with our neighbors, adhere to local regulations, provide a revenue source for the city and an environment were our guests can safely enjoy themselves and all that Palm Desert has to offer. We employ local businesses to clean our home (ZenMaids), maintain our pool (Virgil's Pool Service) and keep up our curb appeal (Jose Bueno Gardening). These business count on short term rentals for their success. We are asking that STRs be allowed to continue operate in PD zoned areas and that if it is decided that properties will be further regulated that we be given a 2 year sunset period to adjust our business model., STRs are very important to our city and we hope that decisions will be made for pending regulations that will find balance with neighborhoods; operators and guests. Respectfully, David FIckes & Tracy Phillips Sanchez, Gloria From: Janine Johnston Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 11:57 AM To: Bynder, Randy, CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Cc: Janine Johnston; info@vronpd.org Subject: Short term rentals ***I would like this letter read during the upcoming City Council meeting*** I am a homeowner/part time resident in Palm Desert. My husband and I have been renting out our (2nd) home off of Monterey and Hovley since February of this year. We also stay in the home once or twice a month. My understanding, upon getting the city permit for STR, was that the city was serious about enforcing rules, regulations and laws regarding these rentals. I can only speak about our situation, but our renters are given all the rules and have to agree to abide by them before I agree to the rental. Several times, they have broken the rules - street parking, minor noise after 10 pm. Code enforcement officers came to the house and spoke to the renters. Too nicely, in my opinion! Since no fines were issued, I have now told renters that I, myself, will fine them $1000 if code enforcement is called to the house for any reason. So I guess it's - if you won't fine them, I will!! Airbnb has agreed that I can do this, as long as it is explained in my listing. I have had no issues since starting this policy. Incidentally, I was NEVER informed by the City that code enforcement officers came to the house or that there was a problem. The only reason I knew about the situations was by having a Ring camera! There are people in our neighborhood who would like to see STR go away. And there are those, like me, who want rentals to stay. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, in my opinion. Create consequences! 1) Enforce current laws and regulations - I'm curious - how many fines or citations have actually been levied against renters or owners? 2) STR permits could be controlled more. For example, there appears to be a large number of rentals in the Hovley area. Perhaps continue the moratorium on new permits in certain areas. Temporarily, at least. 3) Revoke STR permits for constant offenders. Maybe a 6 month revocation? Short term rentals are financially good for Palm Desert. I would think the city wants to keep earning the bed tax. But it requires work and creative thinking, if you want to retain this income stream (especially in these times). The situation in South Palm Desert should have been a good learning lesson. I would be happy to work with any of you in trying to find an answer that is agreeable to all. Thank you Janine Johnston 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:10 PM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: FOR: Public Comments, Palm Desert City Council Mtg, 11/19/2020 Dear City Clerk, Please have this read during public comments concerning the proposed City of Palm Desert STR ban, on Thursday, November 19th: Honorable City Council, We are Craig and Brenda Toms, 20 year full-time residents of the Shepherd Lane neighborhood, living at 74080 College View Circle West, -Palm Desert. The properties immediately behind ours on Kokopelli Circle and to the west of us are STR's. Please add our support FOR the proposed ban on STR's in PR zoned areas of Palm Desert. Last year, we fully expected STR's would sunset in Palm Desert neighborhoods after Dec. 31st, 2019. Unfortunately, we were unaware the sunset did not apply to PR zoned properties, such as ours - only to properties located in R1 and R2 zones. With STR's in the neighborhood, one of our challenges is not knowing who has just arrived next door: unknown people show up randomly and are in our neighborhood for unknown periods of time. A sinking feeling of uncertainty settles in, due in part to past STR experiences, but also to the basic fact that strangers have showed up again, next door. Immediate plans in our own home may have to change, based on their behavior. At times we find ourselves unable to enjoy our backyard. At night we are hoping they don't carry on too long and that they quit at a decent hour. Please note that in times past these people would have been at a hotel, usually vacationing, so boisterous, poolside conduct suitable for a hotel setting is a normal occurrence here. Our patience ends when they are oppressively loud and/or profane, and we contact the STR hotline. That has been helpful, but as permanent, long-term residents of this City, we should not have to be left in this position. We definitelv do not want STR's in our neiahborhood. As year-round residents and homeowners, we gain nothing whatsoever, yet we bear a burden for profit -oriented, absentee owners. We are requesting of you the same protections in PR zones afforded to residents in R1 and R2 zones of Palm Desert. Thank you for your time and attention, Craig and Brenda Toms I L IIM n0i O��Z .5 1.1.10 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: For your list Grace L. Rocha Rocha, Grace Tuesday, November 17, 2020 2:08 PM Sanchez, Gloria FW: Short Term Rentals Acting City Clerk Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487 grocha@cityofpalmdesert.org CD Xi _ t�- M. C) From: chrismillsap@remax.net [mailto:remaxchelan@gmail.com] Go ""'"'rn v1 Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 2:03 PM r To: Planning Email ; Code Hotline; Rocha, Grace ; BusinessHotline Subject: Short Term RentalsDO `�-- r,-, Please forward this to the Mayor and all City Council Members I am an owner of a home here in Palm Desert 60641 Diamondback Drive. I am sure you all have heard my name somewhere down the line. Chris Millsap, owner on Diamondback Drive. I live right between two of the most horrible self centered neighbors around. You are allowing 2misfits that have organized against the city to run the city. I purchased my home to have the option, if ever needed to vacation rent. I had a permit, and did everything legally. Your rules concerning short term rentals are good except that do not take into account "haters", people that have nothing to do but gripe about how tough life is and it is everyone elses fault. We bought the home in Nov. 2019, ONLY because it has.the potential of vacation renting. That was #1 on our list of items when we bought and now you feel it is okay to take that away? What the city should do is keep their rules and stop the abuse of the neighbors to the property from abusing them. Look into our file and see how many complaints were made on our property, Now look how many times there was a violation, now look at how many fines were given and how many were actually legit. You're going to change a law/zoning because of this? That is ridiculous. Every one of my renters have had to live with the total harassment from these neighbors. There were as many as 25 signs of some sort or another facing my home (there still are some). Wish you would protect me from harassment... These signs were on my property line facing everyone that came here, renters me, family members and friends. Where were your rules on that? You see you created a monster because you gave someone else rights, more rights than someone else. Banning vacation rentals is so short sighted. Try thinking outside the box. I live in a resort community where we have vacation rentals as well. They're not the funniest thing around, but vacation renters/visitors spend one hell of a lot of money in the city where they stay. In fact our county is putting a hold as well on STR to create rules that have never been in place. In our community, homes with the ability to do STRs sell for 20% higher than those in areas where they cant. I am pretty sure the same is here. So, I am guessing you will be sending me a check at the time I sell for 20% of my sales price, right? HaHa, hell no you wont, but that is what I paid for. I have already spoken with other home owners that do STRs at their home. Like me, we won't be beaten. We just think outside the box. You know that already don't you? Of course you do but it won't be your fault, will it, you changed the rules. Maybe you should ask each of the complaining parties if they have ever stayed in a STR in another community... You and I both know that answer don't we. You want to talk about this? Guessing not. But I am here 509-860-7863. Also please consider this a complaint for the many signs facing my home on the neighboring properties. Sanchez, Gloria From: Nicole Zambon Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 3:39 PM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: STR - Please add to the 11/19 meeting I understand that there have been renters who violate the laws for noise and parking. I fully support the enforcement of all laws to allow homeowners the enjoyment of their home. Those laws should be enforced against STR and long term renters as well as disrespectful homeowners. I propose that current, tax -paying holders of STR licenses in PR zones be grandfathered in, so that they may retain their STR permits. If they can't control their clients and get violations, then they can lose their license. Also, please consider allowing 7 days rentals in the summer, I feel this should be allowed in all zones. We will need more business in our stores and restaurants in the off season and allowing 7 day rentals during those times will help the economy recover from some of it's severe losses due to COVID. Let's meet the needs of full time residents but allow good homeowners who rely on STR to continue beyond 2020 in a more controlled manner. Thank you for considering my suggestions. Nicole Zambon Palm Desert Vacation Properties v t I. 0 o > CO M :0 rr, U) yti _4 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello, Swartz, Kevin Tuesday, November 17, 2020 4:01 PM 'Paula Wilhelmsson Vorwald' Sanchez, Gloria RE: short term rentals Thank you for your email. It will be included as part of the public record. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Paula Wilhelmsson Vorwald Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:17 PM To: Swartz, Kevin Subject: short term rentals I currently have a short term rental permit with Palm Desert and would like to show my support of Continuing the freedom of short term rentals in Palm Desert. I am not currently renting out any space in our home but would like to be able to do so when this covid thing settles down. It is a great benefit for us to be able to bring in additional income occasionally Through this program, even if we are not taking advantage of that at this time. I Just want to show my support because I am sure the majority of people who will be speaking up our people against short term rentals so I would like to make my voice known As someone who supports the option, especially people like me who just want to rent out a small portion of their home that sits empty all year around anyway. thank you, Paula Vorwald )�ilUin q i.� Sent from my T-iMobil,� 4G LTE Device t r-� —sir D J r p 4 J m Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 6:27 PM CouncilMeeting Comments Fwd: Dear City council, This is in regards to the Planned Neighborhood recommendation. Unfortunately, I have no access to Zoom, therefore, I am sending you my letter to be read at the upcoming council hearing on Thursday. I am aware the STR issue has been a difficult undertaking, and I would like to thank you for all the time and hard work that you have spent on this problem. I would like to share with you my experience that happened four weeks ago. On a Friday evening, when I was walking on Lavender Way, in a Planned Neighborhood I heard uncontrollable loud screams and shouting accompanied by loud music. This commotion was coming from a Short Term Rental property. People were having a great time at the expense of very unhappy neighbors, who after a busy work week were looking forward to some rest and quiet time, instead they felt frustrated, angry and powerless. This brought back memories of horror stories that our own neighborhood experienced three years ago. In 2017, regarding our city's Short Term Rental Ordinance for R/1 and R/2 zones, you put the residents first, before the vested interested, which we will always be very grateful. In fairness, I support whole heartedly the subcommittee's recommendation giving our city's Planned Neighborhoods the same protection as you have given us. Sincerely, Christel Prokay Founder Palm Desert United Sanchez, Gloria From: Richard Feldman Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:39 AM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: STR's I have written to you previously regarding the STR across the street from my house on 40640 Diamondback Dr. You received a copy of a 2 page letter that the owners sent to all the owners who had homes around 40641 Diamondback. The owners live in Washington state. The letter was a complete rant. It also mentioned that code compliance and other city officials were complicit in supporting the STR owners. Laughing at all the complaints. Supporting the STR owners. There seems to be a real Catch-22 when a complaint is called in. The regulations regarding STRs favor the owners and renters. Residents must start the process by initiating a complaint. After receiving the complaint, code compliance contacts the STR owner and advises them they have 30 minutes to resolve the complaint. Or, once the Code Compliance Officer arrives at the STR location they advise the renters that they have 30 minutes to resolve the complaint or receive a citation. Or, more often, the Officer determines that the complaint is "unfounded" especially for noise. The time to complete this process is usually more that 30 minutes and can easily be over an hour. And many times the process restarts with the next set of renters. Some residents believe that an STR will automatically lose their permit if they receive 3 citations. This is true if the 3 citations are for the same violation such as parking. But if the citations are for different offenses such as noise, parking and trash, the STR owner can receive at least 6 citations and not lose their'permit. Kevin Swartz in the Planning Department confirmed that this is correct, but stated that the city would never let it happen. The application of the citation penalty structure creates uncertainty, dismay and a lack of confidence in the enforcement system for residents. This is an antiquated system. Why are the owners called to take care of the issue rather than being issued a complaint? After all, we the neighbors, are the ones having to experience all of the complaints and all the STR owners get is a little slap on the hand. BAN all STR's in Palm Desert please... just like all the other communities are doing. Thank you, Richard Feldman Sanchez, Gloria From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 8:07 AM To: Sanchez, Gloria Subject: FW: Letter to the City Council Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; To the Palm Desert City Council.docx Hello, Please add the attached letter as public comments. Thanks Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org -----Original Message ----- From: Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 6:11 PM To: Swartz, Kevin <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Letter to the City Council Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Hello Mr. Swartz, I am trying to change my schedule to be able to make the City council meeting on Thursday but if I am unable to make it I want to make sure that my voice is heard. This is a life destroying proposal and I need to make sure I am heard. Thank you, Dr. Mojas 1 To the Palm Desert City Council, My name is Dr. Kathleen Moj as. I am a proud homeowner of 45480 Ocotillo Drive, Palm Desert. I purchased my home in 2015 for $565,000 (plus an additional $85,000 in improvements and $68,000 for solar). I was only able to buy a home in Palm Desert with the income that short-term rentals provide. This home is where I plan to retire but without short-term rental income I would be forced to sell which would be devastating to me and my family. Please do not destroy the retirement plan I have worked so hard to make a reality. As a result of my tenants, I have contributed huge tax benefits to Palm Desert in the thousands of dollars. My tenants have frequented the local restaurants and shops furthering the positive economic impact my short-term rentals have had on Palm Desert. As a result of their visiting my home some have even considered becoming full-time residents of Palm Desert. Your recent proposal to do away with short- term rentals would do grave harm to me and my family, especially during this time of economic upheaval. It would also have a terrible negative impact on local restaurants and shops that are already struggling to keep their doors open. Please do not change the existing ordinance that allows for short-term rentals. Doing so would increase the pain and struggle this year has already inflicted upon the residents of Palm Desert. The tax funds and local promotion that are generated by short -term rentals cannot be denied. The shared economy is here to stay. Palm Desert needs to embrace this change and benefit from the people it continues to introduce to this fantastic community. I would really appreciate understanding what the rational is behind this drastic change in policy? Please, I am begging you to reconsider this course of action. My family's future depends on it! Sincerely, Dr. Kathleen Mojas Sanchez, Gloria From: William Choplin Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 11:03 AM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: Letter to City Council for 11/19/20 Meeting Please distribute the letter below to the City Council for the 11/19/20 Council meeting. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. Thank you, William Choplin To the Palm Desert City Council, The purpose of this letter is to provide the City Council a resident perspective of code compliance enforcement for short term rentals. The regulations regarding STRs favor the owners and renters. Residents must start the process by initiating a complaint. After receiving the complaint, code compliance contacts the STR responsible person and advises them they have 30 minutes to resolve the complaint. Or, once the Code Compliance Officer arrives at the STR location they advise the renters that they have 30 minutes to resolve the complaint or receive a citation. Or, more often, the Officer determines that the complaint is "unfounded" especially for noise. The time to complete this process is usually more that 30 minutes and can easily be over an hour. For residents, the process takes their time, attention and creates mounting anxiety and frustration even if the complaint is eventually resolved. And many times the process restarts with the next set of renters. The operational and communication requirements for STR owners lists nine actions owners must take prior to occupancy including orienting renters at the STR location. Code Compliance Supervisor Rodriguez has advised us that it is impractical to monitor and enforce these requirements. The only time Code Compliance Officers check these requirements is when they are responding to a complaint. The STR ordinance outlines enforcement penalties as follows: First citation is $1,000. • Second citation for the same offense within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense is $3,000. • Third citation within a 12-month period of the date of the first offense is $5,000 and an immediate revocation of the STR permit for a period of two years. Some residents believe that an STR will automatically lose their permit if they receive 3 citations. This is true if the 3 citations are for the same violation such as parking. But if the citations are for different offenses such as noise, parking and trash, the STR owner can receive at least 6 citations and not lose their permit. Kevin Swartz in the Planning Department confirmed that this is correct, but stated that the city would never let it happen. The application of the citation penalty structure creates uncertainty, dismay and a lack of confidence in the enforcement system for residents. Officers must witness violations in order for them to be valid. Code Compliance Supervisor Rodriguez has advised us that the cases developed about STR violations for a specific property must be bullet proof in order not to be overturned in an appeal hearing or in court. STR owners are provided an appeal process but residents are not invited unless the Hearing Examiner request their presence. This elongated process leaves residents wondering why problem STRs are not being shutdown. The standard for noise used by Code Compliance is "not common in a neighborhood setting". The officers measure a noise violation by parking their vehicle on the opposite side of the street from the STR and if they do not hear any noise, it is not a violation. Some of us have been lectured by one of the officers about the property rights of the STR owners. No consideration is given to what the residents are hearing on their patios over the wall next to the STR. Families playing in the pool is common in a neighborhood setting. We agree, but the frequency and duration of these pool parties must also be considered. It is not common in a neighborhood setting for renter pool parties to occur everyday, throughout the day and into the night. Regular neighbors have an occasional BBQ and pool party. STR noise is difficult to regulate. It is a source of continual exasperation. The definition used by the city for enforcement will never meet resident's expectations for peace and quiet in their neighborhoods. There is no systematic feedback to residents regarding their complaints, adding more frustration. When residents ask for feedback, the city staff have been responsive, courteous and professional. However, the feedback we receive is sometimes inconsistent with our experience. The duty hours for the Code Compliance Officers are limited to: Mon -Fri, 8am to 5pm Thursday and Friday, 4pm to lam Saturday and Sunday, 12noon to lam (call police dept after lam) If a resident makes a complaint during the Officers off duty hours, they will get no response unless they contact the police. Many residents are reluctant to contact the police regarding STR complaints because they want the police to focus on crime. The only option after 1 am is to call the police when renters are loud and unruly taking the police away from crime fighting. Some STR owners say they want to work with residents and find win win solutions. Some dismiss resident's concerns as a few bad apples and getting rid of them will solve the problem. Some plead with the city to include them in finding ways to coexist. These STR owners have no empathy for the plight of residents. Even if all the noise, parking, trash and other disturbances could be managed effectively by Code Compliance, residents remain anxious and uncomfortable with a constant stream of strangers on their streets and not knowing who is staying next door to them. The frequency of housekeeping, gardening and other maintenance services doubles or triples each week based on the renter turnover. Mini -hotels on residential streets create on -going uncertainty and change the entire social and safety network present in most neighborhoods. Therefore, only a complete ban will meet residents expectations. STRs are businesses. Businesses of all types must constantly adapt and adjust to new requirements. Prohibiting STRs in our neighborhoods will require them to sell the property and relocate. Another option is to rent the property seasonally or longterm. The proposed sunset period will provide time to make these adjustments. It is reasonable to expect that many of the STRs will relocate and restart their operations. A common argument STR owners present is that the city will lose TOT revenue if STRs are banned. This may be true if the STR owners sell their property and move to another city. However the number of STRs in the non -gated PR neighborhoods in November 2020 is only about 8% of a total of 779 STRs permitted in Palm Desert. Ninety-two percent of STRs will not be affected by a ban in PR non -gated neighborhoods. Any loss of TOT will be spread over the sunset period and can be offset by increasing the STR TOT percentage. STR owners also state that the service jobs such as housekeeping, gardening and maintenance will be lost. However, new property owners or seasonal and long-term renters will desire these services and diminish job loss. Some service workers may follow the STR operators to their new location. STR owners acknowledged the city's warning when they signed the STR permit application stating the city "may likely decide to extend that ban to other residential areas not governed by a functioning homeowners association, and permits issued in those areas after January 16, 2018, may be terminated". They should not be surprised that the city is considering expanding the ban. Neighborhoods are for neighbors. Please restore and preserve our neighborhoods. Expand the ban to include planned residential non - gated neighborhoods in Palm Desert. The signatories below represent 42 homes and 65 residents. We appreciate all the time and effort the City Staff and City Council have given to developing solutions to our concerns. Thank you, James and Senoleen Bantley 73540 Terraza Dr Bobby and Becky Gray 73548 Terraza Dr Bill and Cheryl Bester ry 0 v` v 73554 Terraza Drive= Steve and Tiffany Matheson L7� Q rTt ;0 40590 Glenwood Lane ;Yr -� sJ `n y^f•s William Glover N C 40657 Glenwood Lane Richard Kluth and Tim Landherr 40750 Clover Lane Patty Williams Clover Lane Hardy and Patti Sanner 40500 Clover Lane Jim and Gladys Bersamin 40585 Meadow Lane Diana and Bob McGinity 40501 Meadow Lane John and Carlie Stanley 40528 Meadow Lane Robert and Hedeliza Greer 40641 Meadow Lane Richard Feldman 40640 Diamondback Dr William Choplin 40669 Diamondback Dr Robyn and Steve Nagle 40697 Diamondback Dr Amauld and Sissi Dumont 40528 Diamondback Dr Mark Bayer, M.D, and Carol Bayer, MFT 40712 Via Fonda Barbara Norman and Alan Franks 40632 Via Fonda Scott and Courtney Halterlein 40580 Via Fonda Robert and Carol Klatskin 40625 Cabana Ct Larry and Susan Megorden 40688 Cabana Court Mark and Susan Wasson 40620 Baranda Ct Brenda Berman 40840 Avenida Calafta Tim and Mary Hansen 40810 Centennial Circle Cliff Sanforth 40783 Sandpiper Ct Judee and Fred Wieder 40817 Sandpiper Ct Tammie Mog 40752 Sandpiper Ct Donna Riegelhuth 40784 Sandpiper Ct West r7 Tom Woulfe 40490 Corte Placitas Stanley Huff 74076 Chinook Circle Rita Westlie Chinook Joe and Mary Batok 73500 Woodward Dr Diane Stupi Hovely Court Ann Morales Lavender Way Joan Sugino 74590 Lavender Way Miguel and Diana Leal 74537 Lavender Way Manuel Esparza 74517 Lavender Way John Kalish 40580 Posada Ct Joyce Engel The Grove Jorge and Maria A Rodriguez 74134 College View Cir E Arn Rodriguez 74137 College View Circle Ashley Skarin 44226 Indian Canyon Lane Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 11:47 AM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: Comments for the Nov. 19, 2020 Meeting Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; EPI STR study.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Please make the attached study on short term rentals part of the record for the Nov. 19, 2020 meeting in the discussion on Article 19 of the public agenda for this meeting. Please read the following remarks aloud at the council meeting. Airbnb is the largest hotel company in the world. Every short term rental is a small hotel. Hotels are commercial properties and belong in commercial zoning districts. They do not belong in residential neighborhoods. Most zoning regulations recognize that commercial activities bring externalities to residential zones that do not belong in those districts. STRs violate the problem of controlling externalities by the industry and make them a neighborhood problem that cities cannot control. The arrogance of the STR industry is stunning and reflects the arrogance of those who established colonies in foreign lands during the Age of Exploration. STR investors have established absentee -ownership of homes in cities and tell the cities that policing nuisance party houses is an enforcement matter for cities to solve. In the meantime, the absentee owners collect the profits from their investments. An STR is a commercial and colonial enterprise. Since STRs are hotels owned by investors, they are a business and should be made to comply with all of the rules and regulations that Marriott, Hyatt, and companies of that type must obey. Airbnb, et al, must be included in the ranks of hoteliers in Palm Desert. Jc John Curran o- N_ Palm Desert, CA "y This email is transmitted using only recycled electrons. =-- rcn J T Economic Policy Institiute The economic costs and benefits of Airbnb No reason for local policymakers to let Airbnb bypass tax or regulatory obligations Report • By Josh Bivens • January 30, 2019 Summary: Analysis shows that the costs of Airbnb expansion to renters and local jurisdictions likely exceed the benefits to travelers and property owners. Thus there is no reason policymakers should reverse long-standing regulatory decisions simply to accommodate the rise of a single company. Economic Policy Institute • Washington, DC View this report at epi.org/157766 Updated March 26, 2019 Summary "The sharing economy" refers to a constellation of (mostly) Silicon Valley —based companies that use the internet as their primary interface with consumers as they sell or rent services. Because this term is "vague and may be a marketing strategy" (AP 2019), we refer to these firms less poetically but more precisely as "internet-based service firms" (IBSFs). Economic policy discussions about IBSFs have become quite heated and are too often engaged at high levels of abstraction. To their proponents, IBSFs are using technological advances to bring needed innovation to stagnant sectors of the economy, increasing the quality of goods and services, and providing typical American families with more options for earning income; these features are often cited as reasons why IBSFs should be excused from the rules and regulations applying to their more traditional competitors. To skeptics, IBSFs mostly represent attempts by rich capital owners and venture capitalists to profit by flouting regulations and disguising their actions as innovation. The debates about whether and how to regulate IBSFs often involve theories about their economic costs and benefits. This report aims to inform the debate by testing those theories. Specifically, it assesses the potential economic costs and benefits of the expansion of one of the most well-known of the IBSFs: the rental business Airbnb. Airbnb, founded in 2008, makes money by charging guests and hosts for short-term rental stays in private homes or apartments booked through the Airbnb website. It started in prototype in San Francisco and expanded rapidly, and is now operating in hundreds of cities around the world. Airbnb is frequently depicted as a boon for travelers looking for lower -cost or nontraditional accommodations, and for homeowners looking to expand their income stream. But in many local markets, the arrival and expansion of Airbnb is raising questions about its potential negative impacts on local housing costs, quality SECTIONS 1. Summary • 1 2. Overview of the economics of Airbnb •3 3. Potential benefits of Airbnb introduction and expansion in U.S. cities • 6 4. Potential costs of Airbnb introduction and expansion • 13 5. Conclusion: Airbnb should have to play by the same rules as other lodging providers • 19 About the author • 21 Endnotes • 23 References • 24 Economic Policy Institute of life in residential neighborhoods, employment quality in the hospitality industry, and local governments' ability to enforce municipal codes and collect appropriate taxes. In our cost -benefit analysis, we find: • The economic costs Airbnb imposes likely outweigh the benefits. While the introduction and expansion of Airbnb into U.S. cities and cities around the world carries large potential economic benefits and costs, the costs to renters and local jurisdictions likely exceed the benefits to travelers and property owners. • Airbnb might, as claimed, suppress the growth of travel accommodation costs, but these costs are not a first -order problem for American families. The largest and best -documented potential benefit of Airbnb expansion is the increased supply of travel accommodations, which could benefit travelers by making travel more affordable. There is evidence that Airbnb increases the supply of short-term travel accommodations and slightly lowers prices. But there is little evidence that the high price of travel accommodations is a pressing economic problem in the United States: The price of travel accommodations in the U.S. has not risen particularly fast in recent years, nor are travel costs a significant share of American family budgets. • Rising housing costs are a key problem for American families, and evidence suggests that the presence of Airbnb raises local housing costs. The largest and best -documented potential cost of Airbnb expansion is the reduced supply of housing as properties shift from serving local residents to serving Airbnb travelers, which hurts local residents by raising housing costs. There is evidence this cost is real: • Because housing demand is relatively inelastic (people's demand for somewhere to live doesn't decline when prices increase), even small changes in housing supply (like those caused by converting long-term rental properties to Airbnb units) can cause significant price increases. High -quality studies indicate that Airbnb introduction and expansion in New York City, for example, may have raised average rents by nearly $400 annually for city residents. • The rising cost of housing is a key problem for American families. Housing costs have risen significantly faster than overall prices (and the price of short-term travel accommodations) since 2000, and housing accounts for a significant share (more than 15 percent) of overall household consumption expenditures. • The potential benefit of increased tourism supporting city economies is much smaller than commonly advertised. There is little evidence that cities with an increasing supply of short-term Airbnb rental accommodations are seeing a large increase in travelers. Instead, accommodations supplied via Airbnb seem to be a nearly pure substitution for other forms of accommodation. Two surveys indicate that only 2 to 4 percent of those using Airbnb say that they would not have taken the trip were Airbnb rentals unavailable. • Studies claiming that Airbnb is supporting a lot of economic activity often vastly overstate the effect because they fail to account for the fact that much of this spending would have been done anyway by travelers staying in hotels or other alternative accommodations absent the Airbnb option. Economic Policy Institute 2 • Property owners do benefit from Airbnb's capacity to lower the transaction costs of operating short-term rentals, but the beneficiaries are disproportionately white and high -wealth households. Wealth from property ownership is skewed, with higher - wealth and white households holding a disproportionate share of housing wealth overall —and an even more disproportionate share of housing wealth from nonprimary residences because they are much more likely to own nonprimary residential property (such as multi -unit Airbnb rentals). • The shift from traditional hotels to Airbnb lodging leads to less -reliable tax payments to cities. Several large American cities with a large Airbnb presence rely heavily on lodging taxes. Airbnb has largely blocked the ability of these cities to transparently collect lodging taxes on Airbnb rentals that are equivalent to lodging taxes on hotel rooms. One study found that the voluntary agreements Airbnb has struck with state and local governments "[undermine] tax fairness, transparency, and the rule of law." • City residents likely suffer when Airbnb circumvents zoning laws that ban lodging businesses from residential neighborhoods. The status quo of zoning regulations in cities reflects a broad presumption that short-term travelers likely impose greater externalities on long-term residents than do other long-term residents. Externalities are economic costs that are borne by people not directly engaged in a transaction. In the case of neighbors on a street with short-term renters, externalities include noise and stress on neighborhood infrastructure like trash pickup. These externalities are why hotels are clustered away from residential areas. Many Airbnb rental units are in violation of local zoning regulations, and there is the strong possibility that these units are indeed imposing large costs on neighbors. • Because Airbnb is clearly a business competing with hotel lodging, it should be subject to the same taxation regime as hotels. In regard to zoning regulations, there is no empirical evidence that the net benefits of Airbnb introduction and expansion are so large that policymakers should reverse long-standing regulatory decisions simply to accommodate the rise of a single company. O-%Terview of the economics of Airbnb Airbnb runs an online marketplace for short-term lodging rentals. It largely does not own dwellings or real estate of its own; instead, it collects fees by acting as a broker between those with dwellings to rent and those looking to book lodging. The perception that Airbnb tries to foster is that its "hosts" are relatively typical households looking to earn supplementary income by renting out rooms in their homes or by renting out their entire residence when they're away. Critics argue that Airbnb bookings have become increasingly concentrated among a relatively small number of "hosts" that are essentially miniature hotel companies. Economic Policy Institute Potential economic benefits At a broad level, the potential economic benefits and costs of Airbnb are relatively straightforward.2 The key potential benefit is that property owners can diversify the potential streams of revenue they generate from owning homes. Say, for example, that before Airbnb arrived in a city, property owners setting up residential rental properties faced transaction costs so high that it only made economic sense to secure relatively long-term leases. These transaction costs incurred by property owners could include advertising for and screening of tenants and finding alternative accommodations for themselves if they were renting their own dwellings. But if the rise of internet-based service firms reduced these transaction costs and made short-term rentals logistically feasible and affordable for the first time, it could allow these property owners to diversify into short-term rentals as well as long-term rentals. Another potential benefit is the increased supply (and variety) of short-term rentals available to travelers. This increased supply can restrain price growth for short-term rentals and make traveling more affordable. Finally, one well -advertised potential benefit of Airbnb is the extra economic activity that might result if the rise of Airbnb spurs an increase in visitors to a city or town. Besides the income generated by Airbnb property owners, income might be generated by these visitors as they spend money at restaurants or in grocery stores or on other activities. Potential costs The single biggest potential cost imposed by Airbnb comes in the form of higher housing costs for city residents if enough properties are converted from long-term housing to short-term accommodations. If property owners take dwellings that were available for long-term leases and convert them to short-term Airbnb listings, this increases the supply of short-term rentals (hence driving down their price) but decreases the supply of long- term housing, increasing housing costs for city residents. (We refer to all long-term costs of shelter as "housing," including rentals and owners' equivalent rental costs.) Another large potential city -specific cost of Airbnb expansion is the loss of tax revenue. Many cities impose relatively steep taxes on short-term lodging, hoping to obtain revenue from out-of-town travelers to spend on local residents. The most common and straightforward of these revenue raisers is a tax on traditional hotel rooms. If Airbnb expansion comes at the expense of traditional hotels, and if the apparatus for collecting taxes from Airbnb or its hosts is less well -developed than the apparatus for collecting taxes from traditional hotels, this could harm city revenues. A further potential cost is the externalities that property rentals (of all kinds) impose on neighbors, for example, noise and/or use of building facilities. Since hosts are often not on -site with their renters, they do not bear the costs of these externalities and hence may not factor them into rental decisions. Of course, one could argue that such externalities Economic Policy Institute 4 are also incurred with long-term rentals not arranged through Airbnb. But if the expansion of Airbnb increases total short- and long-term rental activity, or if short-term rentals impose larger externalities than long-term rentals, then Airbnb expansion can increases these externalities. Finally, if Airbnb expansion comes at the expense of traditional hotels, it could have a negative impact on employment. First, since some of the labor of maintaining Airbnb lodgings is performed by the property owners themselves, the shift to Airbnb from traditional hotels would actually reduce employment overall. Second, since the task of cleaning and maintaining rooms and even greeting Airbnb renters is often done by third - party management firms, the shift from the traditional hotel sector to Airbnb rentals could degrade job quality. The rest of this report evaluates the potential scope of each of these benefits and costs, and ends with an overall assessment of the effect of Airbnb expansion. Economic Policy Institute Potential benefits of Airbnb introduction and expansion in U.S. cities This section elaborates on the potential benefits identified in the previous section. For each benefit, it assesses how likely the benefit is to emerge, provides empirical estimates of the magnitude of the benefit, and discusses the likely distribution of the benefit. Potential benefit one: Property owners can diversify into short-term rentals The most obvious benefit stemming from the creation and expansion of Airbnb accrues to property owners who have units to rent. Owners of residential property have essentially three options for earning a return on the property: They can live in the residence and hence not have to pay rent elsewhere, they can rent it out to long-term residents, or they can rent it out to short-term visitors. If the only barrier to renting out residential property to short-term visitors were the associated transaction costs, then in theory the creation and expansion of Airbnb could be reducing these transaction costs and making short-term rental options more viable. It does seem intuitive that transaction costs of screening and booking short-term renters would be higher over the course of a year than such costs for renting to long-term residents (or the costs of maintaining owner -occupied property). However, the potential benefits are only the difference between what the property owner earned before the introduction of Airbnb and what the property owners earned from short-term rentals booked through the Airbnb platform. These potential benefits are likely quite skewed to those with more wealth. While housing is more widely held than most other assets, the total value of housing wealth is (like all wealth) quite concentrated among white and high -income households. Further, because of the myriad benefits of owning one's own residence, it is likely that much of the benefit of Airbnb's introduction and expansion accrues to those with more than one property (one for occupying and one or more for renting).3 The distribution of property wealth generated by nonprimary residential real estate is even more concentrated than housing wealth overall. Figure A shows, by wealth class, the distribution of housing wealth overall and of housing wealth excluding owner -occupied housing. This figure shows that the potential benefits of Airbnb introduction and expansion to property owners are highly concentrated. To put it simply, any economic occurrence that provides benefits proportional to owning property is one that will grant these benefits disproportionately to the wealthy. In 2016, for example, 60.0 percent of primary housing wealth (housing wealth in households' primary residences) was held by the top 20 percent Economic Policy Institute 6 Figure A Housing wealth —particularly wealth from owning a nonprimary residence —is skewed Share of total primary and nonprimary household housing wealth in the U.S. economy held by each wealth class, 2016 100% Primary 75 50 25 0 Bottom Bottom Top 20 80th-90th 90th-95th 96th-99th Top 1 50 80 percent percent percent percent Note: Primary housing wealth is wealth from owner -occupied housing. Nonprimary housing wealth is wealth from nonowner-occu pied housing. The wealth classes depicted overlap, with the top 20 percent broken down into households falling within the 80th to 90th, 90th to 95th, and 96th to 99th percentiles. Source: Author's analysis of microdata from the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances (2016) Economic Police Institute of households. (Not shown in the figure is that this share has increased by 5.4 percentage points since 1989.) As we noted earlier, however, many Airbnb listings are actually owned by households with multiple units to rent. Given this, Figure A also shows the share of housing wealth from nonprimary residences held by various groups. This "nonprimary housing wealth" is far more skewed. For example, the top 20 percent hold 90.1 percent of this type of wealth. Figure B shows the distribution of housing wealth by race and ethnicity. Across racial groups, more than 80 percent of wealth in one's primary residence was held by white households. African American households held just 6.5 percent of wealth in primary residences, Hispanic households held 6.0 percent of this type of wealth, while households of other races and ethnicities held 6.9 percent. Not shown is the change in the share of wealth in primary residences held by racial and ethnic groups: Primary housing wealth held by nonwhite households has risen a bit (by roughly 6 percentage points) since 1989. As with the distribution by wealth class, the holdings of nonprimary housing wealth by race and ethnicity are again even more skewed, with white households holding more than 86 percent of this type of wealth. African American households hold just 5.0 percent of nonprimary housing wealth, Hispanic households hold 3.6 percent, and households of other races and ethnicities hold 5.2 percent. Economic Policy Institute 7 Figure B White households disproportionately benefit from housing wealth Share of total primary and nonprimary household housing wealth held, by race and ethnicity 100% 75 50 25 ®Primary ni,,.,.,ri- White Black Hispanic Other Note: Primary housing wealth is wealth from owner -occupied housing. Nonprimary housing wealth is wealth from nonowner-occu pied housing. Hispanic means "Hispanic any race" and the race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive. Source: Author's analysis of microdata from the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances (2016) Economic Police Institute In short, what Figures A and B show is that because wealth from residential properties that can produce rental income is concentrated among the wealthy and white households, giving property owners the unfettered option to choose Airbnb over long-term rental uses of their property means conferring an enhanced option to predominantly wealthy and white owners of housing wealth. (Appendix Table 1 provides the same analyses shown in Figures A and B for the years 1989, 1998, and 2007, and for the most recent data year, 2016, as well as the change from 1989 to 2016.) Finally, while Airbnb might make short-term rentals feasible for property owners by reducing transaction costs through the technological efficiencies provided by Airbnb's internet-based platform, the company might also just make short-term rentals feasible by creating a norm of ignoring regulations that bar short-term rentals. Short-term rentals are effectively banned in many residential neighborhoods in the cities where Airbnb operates, yet they have proliferated after the introduction of Airbnb.4 The regulations barring or limiting short-term rentals were established to reduce the externalities associated with commercial operations of certain kinds —including hotel operations —in residential neighborhoods. Airbnb's business model appears to depend significantly on skirting these regulations and dodging competition from traditional hotel owners who are prohibited from operating in these same neighborhoods. If the regulations banning short-term rentals are baseless and serve no useful purpose, then subverting them could be seen as a Economic Policy Institute benefit of Airbnb. But allowing large corporations such as Airbnb to simply ignore regulations —rather than trying to change them through democratic processes —is hardly the basis of sound public policy. Potential benefit two: Increased options and price competition for travelers' accommodations Airbnb is essentially a positive supply shock to short-term accommodations. Like all positive supply shocks, it should be expected to lower prices. There is some accumulating evidence that Airbnb does exactly this. Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers (2017) examine the effect of Airbnb expansion across cities in Texas. They find that each 10 percent increase in the size of the Airbnb market results in a 0.4 percent decrease in hotel room revenue. They find that most of this revenue decline is driven by price declines. Evidence of the positive supply shock is particularly evident in the 10 American cities where Airbnb's presence is largest. Dogru, Mody, and Suess (2019) find a negative correlation between Airbnb expansion and hotels' average daily rates in the 10 U.S. cities with the largest Airbnb presence. Besides cost, the introduction and expansion of Airbnb could improve the perceived quality of accommodations available. There is some limited evidence that this is the case: a survey by doctoral candidate Daniel Adams Guttentag (2016) finds that "convenient location" is one of the top reasons given by Airbnb guests when asked why they chose the service. But the Guttentag 2016 survey also identifies "low cost" as the single most - identified reason people give when asked why they chose Airbnb. However, it should be stressed that this potential benefit of Airbnb introduction and expansion is overwhelmingly a redistribution of welfare, not an increase in economywide welfare. Very few people have claimed that Airbnb's spread within a given city has led developers to build more accommodations in the city overall. Instead, owners or third parties have often turned long-term rental units into short-term lodging via Airbnb. The question then becomes, "Has this redistribution of potential accommodations from the long-term to the short-term market increased economic welfare overall?" One way that Airbnb could be increasing economic welfare overall is if it were helping travelers deal with rising travel accommodation costs. By looking at trends in prices and spending in the short-term lodging sector, we can get a commonsense check on whether high prices for short-term travel accommodations are a pressing economic problem for ordinary American households. If the price of short-term travel accommodations were rising rapidly, then presumably an increase in supply that restrained price increases would be valuable (or at least more valuable than if these prices were not showing any particularly trend). The two lines in Figure C show changes in the consumer price index for travel accommodations compared with changes in the overall price index for personal consumption expenditures (PCE). According to Figure C, in the 2010s, the price of short-term travel accommodations has grown faster than prices overall only since 2014—this is the same year that ushered in the large-scale expansion of Airbnb. Economic Policy Institute 9 Figure C The price of short-term travel accommodations has increased slightly faster than prices overall, but only in recent years Price indices for short-term travel accommodations and overall personal consumption expenditures (PCE), 2000-2016 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 — Short-term accommodations — Overall consumer goods prices 2000 2005 2010 2015 Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 2.4.4. Economic Policy Imstitute So it certainly seems that the launch and growth of Airbnb was not solving any preexisting price pressure —because it was operating and expanding well before recent years' price growth. (Further, it is possible that by substituting more strongly for a less -expensive slice of the traditional hotel market —leisure travel as opposed to business travel, for example —that Airbnb introduction might actually be associated with raising measured short-term travel accommodation prices, through a composition effect.) Potential benefit three: Travelers' spending boosts the economic prospects of cities The lower prices and greater range of options made available by the introduction and expansion of Airbnb could, in theory, induce a large increase in travel and spark economic growth in destination cities. This is precisely the claim made in a report by NERA Economic Consulting (NERA 2017), which says that Airbnb "supported" 730,000 jobs and $61 billion in output globally, with roughly a quarter of this economic gain occurring in the United States. To be blunt about these claims, they are flatly implausible. They rest on the assumption that all money spent by those renting Airbnb units is money that would not have been spent in some alternative accommodations had Airbnb not existed. Economic Policy Institute 10 Say, for example, that guests at Airbnb properties spent $10 million in New York City in 2016, including the money spent at restaurants and theaters and other attractions while visiting the city. The rental payment these guests make is included in the NERA numbers, but is expressed as extra income for Airbnb hosts. NERA then takes this entire $10 million in spending (both nonaccommodation spending by visitors and the extra income going to Airbnb hosts) and runs it through input—output models to generate multiplier effects that yield their final numbers for output and employment supported in each city. There are a number of problems with the NERA study. First, it is surprisingly opaque. It does not provide overall global and U.S. spending numbers or break these numbers into their components: nonaccommodation spending by Airbnb guests and income generated for Airbnb hosts. It also does not report the assumed size of the multiplier. Rather, it provides final numbers for global and U.S. output and employment that are functions of primary spending flows multiplied by the effects of their input—output model. The study states that it uses the well-known IMPLAN model, but IMPLAN can generate multipliers of varying size: It would be valuable to know just how large NERA is assuming the multiplier effects of this Airbnb-related spending is, just as a plausibility check. Second, the study seems clearly written to maximize the perceived support Airbnb might provide local economies —both now and into the future. For example, toward the end of the report NERA provides several tables showing projected support for output and employment for years after the study (from 2017 to 2025). These projected future contributions to output and employment dwarf the contribution that is apparent in the actual data analyzed by NERA. But these projections rely on overoptimistic assumptions about Airbnb's future growth. For example, NERA forecasts growth of 75 percent for Airbnb arrivals in 2017,5 but another study (Molla 2017) suggests that these arrivals in fact grew by closer to 25-50 percent, with growth rates particularly slowing in the U.S. and the European Union.6 What is by far the most important weakness of the NERA analysis is its reliance on the assumption that all spending done by travelers staying at Airbnb properties is spending that would not have been done had Airbnb not existed. The possibility that Airbnb visitors would still have visited a city even if Airbnb units were unavailable —by securing alternative accommodations —is completely ruled out by the NERA analysis. This is obviously an incorrect assumption. For example, it assumes that Airbnb and traditional hotels are not seen as potential substitutes for each other in the minds of travelers. But research has shown that they ore quite close substitutes. Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers (2017) empirically assess the effect of Airbnb's expansion on the hotel industry in the state of Texas. In their introduction, they write, "Our hypothesis is that some stays with Airbnb serve as a substitute for certain hotel stays, thereby impacting hotel revenue...:' In their discussions and conclusions section, they summarize what their empirical investigation has found: "Focusing on the case of Airbnb, a pioneer in shared accommodations, we estimate that its entry into the Texas market has had a quantifiable negative impact on local hotel room revenue:" Put simply, this result is completely inconsistent with the assumption that Airbnb has no potential substitutes for those using its services. This in turn means that at least some of the economic activity "supported" in local economies by spending done by Airbnb guests is activity that would have been supported absent Airbnb, likely by these Economic Policy Institute 11 same guests staying in traditional hotels or other accommodations. As discussed in a previous section, Guttentag (2016) reports the findings of a survey of Airbnb users. Among other questions, the survey explicitly asks how substitutable travelers find Airbnb lodgings. The precise question is, "Thinking about your most recent Airbnb stay —If Airbnb and other similar person -to -person paid accommodations services (e.g., VRBO) did not exist, what type of accommodation would you have most likely used?" Only 2 percent of Airbnb users responded to this question with the assertion that they would not have taken the trip. The remaining 98 percent identified other lodging possibilities that they would have used. In a similar survey that included some business travelers, Morgan Stanley Research 2017 reports near -identical findings, with between 2 and 4 percent of respondents saying that they would not have undertaken a trip but for the presence of Airbnb.7 In both the Morgan Stanley Research survey and the Guttentag survey, roughly three -fourths of the respondents indicated that Airbnb was substituting for a traditional hotel. If the Guttentag 2016 and Morgan Stanley Research 2017 findings are correct, this implies that NERA overstates the support Airbnb provides to local economies by somewhere between 96 and 98 percent. It is possible that some flows of spending might support more local spending when associated with Airbnb instead of traditional hotels —for example, one could argue that income accruing to Airbnb hosts is more likely to be spent locally than money paid to large hotel chains. However, the reverse is also true —for example, Airbnb rentals are far more likely to come equipped with a kitchen, and so Airbnb lodgers might be more likely to eat in rather than patronize restaurants. Additionally, the local spillover spending associated with Airbnb expansion might not be uniform across neighborhoods. Alyakoob and Rahman (2018) document a modest increase in local restaurant spending associated with expanding Airbnb presence. Essentially, restaurants located away from central hotel cores in cities are unlikely to attract many out- of-town tourists. But if Airbnb penetration in outlying neighborhoods increases, restaurants there might now be able to tap some of this tourist market. Alyakoob and Rahman find that every 2 percent rise in Airbnb activity in a given neighborhood increases restaurant employment in that neighborhood by 3 percent. Crucially, Alyakoob and Rahman make no such calculation for potential employment -depressing effects of restaurants closer to traditional hotels. Further, they find that the boost to restaurant employment given by greater Airbnb activity does not occur in areas with a relatively high share of African American residents. Finally, given that the overwhelming share of jobs "supported" by Airbnb are jobs that would have been supported by guests in some alternative accommodation, it seems likely that even if there is a slight increase in spending associated with a slight (about 2 percent) increase in visitors to a city due to Airbnb, there may well be a decline in jobs. We have noted previously that it is quite possible that traditional hotels are a more labor-intensive source of accommodation than are Airbnb listings. If, for example, Airbnb operators employ fewer people to provide cleaning and concierge and security services, then each dollar spent on Airbnb accommodations is likely to support less employment than each dollar spent on traditional hotel accommodations. Economic Policy Institute 12 We can gauge the employment effect with a hypothetical scenario that assumes that the Guttentag 2016 and Morgan Stanley Research 2017 analyses are correct and that only 2 to 4 percent of the spending supported by Airbnb represents net new spending to a locality. In this case, if even half of the overall spending "supported" by Airbnb is a pure expenditure shift away from traditional hotels, and if traditional hotels are even 5 to 10 percent more labor-intensive than Airbnb units, then introducing Airbnb would actually have a negative effect on employment.$ Even if one grants that 2 to 4 percent of the output supported by Airbnb in host cities is net new spending, this spending is just a redistribution away from other, presumably less- Airbnb-intensive, localities. Given that Airbnb has tended to grow in already rich and desirable cities, it is unclear why inducing the transfer of even more economic activity away from other cities toward thriving cities would ever be viewed as a positive policy outcome. In short, the results of the NERA study should be ignored by policymakers seeking an accurate sense of the scale of Airbnb expansion costs and benefits.9 Potential costs of Airbnb introduction and expansion This section elaborates on the potential costs highlighted in the overview section. It assesses the likely outcome of these costs, estimates their empirical heft, and assesses the likely distribution of these costs. Potential cost one: Long-term renters face rising housing costs The mirror image of Airbnb's positive supply shock to short-term travel accommodations is its negative supply shock to long-term housing options. Again, none of the literature reviewed in this paper suggests that the introduction and expansion of Airbnb has spurred more residential construction overall, so as more units become available to Airbnb customers, this means that fewer potential housing units are available to long-term renters or owner -occupiers in a city. Earlier, we saw that price increases in short-term travel accommodations have been in line with overall consumer price increases in recent years, suggesting that there is no obvious shortage in short-term accommodations. (It is important to note that the tracking of short- term travel accommodation prices and overall prices was tight well before Airbnb was exerting any serious effect one way or the other on prices.) However, national prices of long-term housing are rising faster than overall prices, suggesting a shortage of long-term housing. Because of this above -inflation growth in long-term housing costs, any trend that exacerbates this increase is more damaging than if these prices had been relatively flat in recent years. Figure D shows inflation in the price indices for housing (long-term rentals as Economic Policy Institute 13 Figure D Housing costs are rising faster than costs of short-term accommodations or overall consumer goods Price indices for housing, short-term travel accommodations, and overall personal consumption expenditures (PCE), 2000-2016 im — Housing — Short-term accommodations -- Overall consumer goods prices 140 120 80 - — --------T----�_.—---------------------r — 2000 2005 2010 2015 Note: The housing price index includes both long-term rentals as well as imputed rents for owner -occupied housing. Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 2.4.4 Economic Policy Institute well as imputed rents for owner -occupied housing) and for short-term travel accommodations, and in the overall personal consumption expenditures index. In recent years, long-term housing price growth has clearly outpaced both overall price growth and increases in the price of short-term travel accommodations. This recent rise in the inflation rate of long-term housing, in fact, has become a much -discussed policy challenge that has spurred much commentary and analysis over the past decade. The fact that the cost of long-term housing has become a prime source of economic stress for typical Americans should be considered when weighing the costs and benefits of Airbnb's introduction and expansion. Crucially, demand for housing is quite inelastic, meaning that households have little ability to forgo housing when it becomes more expensive. When demand is inelastic, even relatively small changes in housing supply can cause significant changes in the cost of housing.10 This intuition is clearly validated in a number of careful empirical studies looking precisely at the effect of Airbnb introduction and expansion on housing costs. According to these studies, Airbnb—though relatively new —is already having a measurable effect on long-term housing supply and prices in some of the major cities where it operates. For example, Merante and Horn (2016) examine the impact of Airbnb on rental prices in Boston. The authors construct a rich data set by combining data on weekly Economic Policy Institute 14 rental listings from online sources and data from Airbnb listings scraped from web pages. They find that each 12 Airbnb listings per census tract leads to an increase in asking rents of 0.4 percent. It is important to note that this is a finding of causation, not just correlation. They put this finding in perspective as follows: If Airbnb's growth rate in 2015, 24%, continues for the next three years, assuming constant mean rents and total number of housing units, Boston's mean asking rents in January 2019 would be as much as $178 per month higher than in the absence of Airbnb activity. We further find evidence that Airbnb is increasing asking rents through its suppression of the supply of rental units offered for rent. Specifically, a one standard deviation increase in Airbnb listings [an average of 12 units per census tract] relative to total housing units is correlated with a 5.9% decrease in the number of rental units offered for rent. (Merante and Horn 2016) Barron, Kung, and Proserpio (2018) undertake a similar exercise with different data. They create a data set that combines Airbnb listings, home prices and rents from the online real estate firm Zillow, and time -varying ZIP code characteristics (like median household income and population) from the American Community Survey (ACS). To account for the fact that rents and Airbnb listings might move together even if there is no causal relationship (for example, if both are driven by the rising popularity of a given city), they construct an instrumental variable to identify the causal effect of rising Airbnb listings on rents. Using this instrument, they find that a 10 percent increase in Airbnb listings in a ZIP code leads to a 0.42 percent increase in ZIP code rental prices and a 0.76 percent increase in house prices. They also find that the increase in rents is larger in ZIP codes with a larger share of nonowner-occu pied housing. Finally, like Merante and Horn, they find evidence that Airbnb listings are correlated with a rise in landlords shifting away from long-term and toward short-term rental operations. Sheppard and Udell (2018) also undertake a similar exercise, looking within neighborhoods of New York City. Their key finding is that a doubling of Airbnb activity within a tight geographic zone surrounding a home sale is associated with a 6 to 11 percent increase in sales prices. Their coefficient values are quite close to those from Barron, Kung, and Proserpio (2018).11 Wachsmuth et al. (2018) apply the regression results identified by Barron, Kung, and Proserpio (2018) to the large increase in Airbnb rentals in New York City. They find a 1.4 percent increase in NYC rents from 2015 to 2017 due to Airbnb's expansion in that city. For the median NYC renter, this implies a $384 annual increase in rent from 2015 to 2017 due to Airbnb's expansion over that time. Potential cost two: Local government tax collections fall For the localities making policy decisions regarding the expansion of Airbnb, perhaps the single biggest consideration is fiscal. Across the United States, total lodging taxes are significant: For the 150 largest cities, the all -in lodging tax rate (including state, county, and Economic Policy Institute 15 city taxes) averaged more than 13 percent (Hazinski, Davis, and Kremer 2018). The temptation for any given locality to set relatively high lodging tax rates (particularly when compared with overall sales tax rates) seems clear —city residents pay little of the lodging tax but still enjoy the benefits funded by the tax. For a number of cities, the total revenue collected is substantial. In 2016, for example, New York City and Las Vegas each collected well over $500 million in lodging taxes, and San Francisco collected just under $400 million. It seems odd to exclude Airbnb stays from the lodging tax, yet the tax treatment of Airbnb rentals is inconsistent and incomplete. The company has entered into a number of tax agreements with state and local governments and is clearly trying to build the impression that it wants to help these governments collect taxes. Yet a number of tax experts argue that Airbnb's efforts to collect and remit lodging taxes (as well as other taxes) have been wholly insufficient. A description in Schiller and Davis 2017 of the state of Airbnb's tax agreements as of early 2017 highlights the patchy, voluntary nature of the tax regime that Airbnb faces: Airbnb, whose operations in some instances may violate traditional local zoning and rental ordinances, has sought to legitimize its business by negotiating agreements with cities under which it will collect local sales and lodging taxes. "Working together, platforms like Airbnb can help governments collect millions of dollars in hotel and tourist tax revenue at little cost to them;' the company stated in a "policy tool chest" it offered in late 2016. Overall, by Airbnb's count, the company is collecting sales, hotel, or other taxes in 26 states and the District of Columbia (DC) as of March 1, 2017. State -level taxes are collected in 18 of those states. Among this group, some or all local -level taxes are also being collected in every state except Connecticut, which lacks local lodging taxes. In the remaining eight states, Airbnb collects a patchwork of local taxes but no state taxes. In three states —Alaska, Maryland, and New Jersey—Airbnb's tax collection is limited to a single locality (Anchorage, Montgomery County, and Jersey City, respectively). The company has dramatically expanded its tax collection practices in recent years and appears poised to continue its expansion in the months and years ahead. Airbnb recently announced that it will soon begin collecting state lodging taxes in Maine, for instance. Dan Bucks, a former director of the Montana Department of Revenue and former executive director of the Multistate Tax Commission, wrote a report assessing the tax agreements that Airbnb has struck with state and local governments in different parts of the country. His central finding is that these agreements "[undermine] tax fairness, transparency, and the rule of law" (Bucks 2017). Bucks examines 12 of the Airbnb tax agreements from across the country that had been made public by mid-2017. He describes them as follows: Airbnb devises and presents to tax agencies what are typically ten to twelve -page documents covering back -tax forgiveness, prospective payments, information Economic Policy Institute 16 access and multiple other terms that produce, as this report documents, serious negative consequences for society. Airbnb labels these documents as "voluntary collection agreements," which they most assuredly are not. These Airbnb-drafted documents do not guarantee the proper collection of taxes due. They block tax agencies from verifying the accuracy of Airbnb payments. Airbnb may be seeking to superficially to liken these documents to the high quality "voluntary disclosure agreements" that states use to bring non -compliant taxpayers into full conformity with the law. However, these documents profoundly undermine sound tax administration and the rule of law. For these and other reasons detailed below, we will not use Airbnb's misleading label for these documents but will refer to them objectively as "Airbnb agreements." (Bucks 2017) The most specific criticism Bucks makes is that these agreements have largely been kept secret from the public, in clear contrast to other "voluntary disclosure agreements." This secrecy, combined with agreements to "cede substantial control of the payment and audit processes to Airbnb;' make it impossible for tax authorities to ensure proper payment of lodging taxes. Bucks also argues that these agreements between Airbnb and state and local governments provide large benefits to third parties (Airbnb hosts) who are not signatories and are not obligated to provide anything in exchange for these benefits. In 2016, an analysis from AlltheRooms.com forecast that Airbnb's failure to ensure the full payment of lodging taxes was on track to cost subnational governments a combined $440 million in revenue unless policymakers moved to guarantee proper payment. Of the total, $110 million in lost revenue was for New York City alone. In October 2016, shortly after the AlltheRooms.com analysis was released, New York City passed restrictions on Airbnb advertisements for rentals of less than 30 days when an owner is not present. While these restrictions may have stemmed the loss of revenue relative to the AlltheRooms.com projection, the analysis that predated the restrictions highlight how the unregulated expansion of Airbnb, and its cannibalization of traditional hotel business market share, could still have large fiscal implications for New York and other cities. Finally, even if Airbnb were to fully comply with the local jurisdiction's tax system on lodgings and pay the same tax rate per dollar earned as traditional hotels, there likely would still be some small fiscal losses stemming from Airbnb's expansion. The primary appeal of Airbnb to most travelers is lower -price accommodations, so even if the same tax rate were paid on Airbnb rentals as is paid on hotel rooms, the lower Airbnb prices would lead to less tax revenue accruing to local governments. Potential cost three: Externalities inflicted on neighbors When owners do not reside in their residential property, this can lead to externalities imposed on the property's neighbors. If absentee owners, for example, do not face the cost of noise or stress on the neighborhood's infrastructure (capacity for garbage pickup, for example), then they will have less incentive to make sure that their renters are respectful of neighbors or to prevent an excessive number of people from occupying their Economic Policy Institute 17 property. These externalities could be worse when the renters in question are short term. Long-term renters really do have some incentive to care about the neighborhood's long -run comity and infrastructure, whereas short-term renters may have little to no such incentive. Further, some Airbnb hosts are renters themselves who are subletting a long-term rental property to short-term travelers, which may further shield the ultimate property owners from bearing the costs faced by immediate neighbors. In cities where the spread of Airbnb has become a political issue, hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints have been made in this regard .12 The potential for such externalities has been broadly recognized for a long time and was a consideration leading to the prevalence of zoning laws that ban short-term travel accommodations in residential neighborhoods. There is a reason, for example, why Times Square in New York City is a cluster of hotels while the Upper East Side is largely a less noisy cluster of residential dwellings. There is of course no reason why such past zoning decisions need to be completely sacrosanct and never changed, but these decisions were made for a reason, and changes to them should be subject to democratic debate. While researchers have often noted the possibility that Airbnb may impose externalities on the communities surrounding Airbnb units, we know of no empirical estimates of these externalities. If these externalities were powerful enough in degrading the desirability of neighborhoods, they could in theory lead to reduced rents and home prices. From the evidence of the previous section, we know that Airbnb adoption in neighborhoods has actually boosted rental and home prices. But this price boost doesn't mean these externalities don't exist —it simply means that price -depressing externalities are offset by the supply effect of moving properties out of the long-term rental market. Miller (2016) makes an interesting (if likely too abstract) policy proposal for dealing with the externalities associated with home rental via Airbnb. He proposes creating a market in "transferable sharing rights," in which, for example, each resident of a neighborhood would be given the right to rent out one housing unit for one night. Most residents in a neighborhood won't want to rent out their home. But those who do want to rent out units using Airbnb would want far more than the right to rent out these properties for just one night. To obtain the right to rent out their properties for more nights, they would need to purchase permits from their neighbors. The price it takes to obtain these permits would provide a good indicator of the true costs of the externalities imposed by Airbnb. A city that experimented with these tradeable sharing rights could provide very useful information. Potential cost four: Job quantity and quality could suffer We have noted already that when Airbnb enters and expands in a city, it shifts traveler business from hotels to Airbnb, leading to downward price pressure for hotels. This shift from traditional hotels to Airbnb properties also implies either a shift in jobs or a reduction Economic Policy Institute 18 in jobs. As an example, take hotel cleaning workers. As more visitors to a city pick Airbnb units over traditional hotel accommodations, the need for cleaning doesn't go away. Instead, it is either foisted on Airbnb proprietors, done by third -party cleaning services, or left unmet and thus implicitly imposing costs on both travelers and the surrounding neighborhood (think of improperly disposed -of trash). Given that much of the growth of Airbnb in recent years has been driven by hosts with multiple properties (which, when in a single location, are in effect mini hotels), it is not surprising to see an emergence of cleaning services specifically serving Airbnb hosts.13 These new cleaning services may be less likely to offer decent wages relative to traditional travel lodging; it may also be more difficult for workers to unionize in this context. For example, in the 10 U.S. cities with a particularly large Airbnb presence (including New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago), combined unionization rates for maids and cleaners in the hotel industry are nearly double the unionization rates of maids and cleaners in other industries in the economy.14 In some sense, the shift in cleaning jobs from traditional hotels to cleaning services for Airbnb hosts is likely analogous in its economic effects to what happens when traditional hotels outsource their own cleaning staffs. Dube and Kaplan (2010) demonstrate large negative wage effects stemming from this type of domestic outsourcing forjanitors and security guards. Their findings are reinforced by recent analysis of the German labor market by Goldschmidt and Schmieder (2017), who find similar large negative effects of domestic outsourcing on a range of occupations, including cleaners. While these studies do not directly examine the effect of substituting in-house hotel cleaning jobs for Airbnb cleaning jobs, they both track the effect of "fissuring" between the entity that uses and pays for the service and the entity that manages the service providers. This fissuring has been a key and troubling feature of the American labor market in recent decades, and it is hard to see how the substitution of Airbnb for traditional hotels does not potentially constitute another layer of this fissuring.15 This potential for Airbnb to degrade the quality of cleaning jobs is recognized even by the company itself: Airbnb offers hosts the opportunity to advertise that they have taken the "living wage pledge" by committing to pay a living wage to the cleaners and servicers of their properties. It is not clear how commitment to this pledge is (or can be) enforced, however. ('onclusion: Airbnb should ha��e to play by the same rules as other lodo in ; providers The current policy debates sparked by the rise of Airbnb have largely concerned tax collections and the emergence of "mini hotels" in residential neighborhoods. At its inception, Airbnb advertised itself as a way for homeowners (or long-term renters) to rent out a room in their primary residence, or as a way for people to rent out their dwellings for Economic Policy Institute 19 Figure E Housing costs matter much more to household budgets than short-term lodging costs Shares of average household personal consumption expenditures, devoted to housing vs. short-term travel accommodations, 1979, 2000, and 2016 20% iW IR 5 E Short-term accommodations Housing 15.8% 14.9% 1979 2000 2016 Note: The housing price index includes both long-term rentals as well as imputed rents for owner -occupied housing. Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 2.5.5 Economic Policy- Institute short periods while they themselves are traveling. However, in recent years Airbnb listings and revenues have become dominated by "multi -unit" renters —absentee property owners with multiple dwellings who are essentially running small-scale lodging companies on an ongoing basis. This evolution of Airbnb into a parallel hotel industry raises questions about the preferential treatment afforded to this rental company. These questions include, "Why isn't Airbnb required to ensure that lodging taxes are collected, as traditional hotels are?" And, "Why is Airbnb allowed to offer short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods that are not zoned for these uses, while traditional hotels are not allowed in these same neighborhoods?" While there are plenty of other considerations, the spread of Airbnb seems at its core to be a shift of potential housing supply from the long-term residential housing market to the market for short-term accommodations. This shift of supply can lower prices for travelers but raise housing prices for long-term residents. This seems like a bad trade-off, simply based on the share of long-term housing expenses versus short-term travel expenses in average family budgets. Figure E presents the share of total personal consumption expenditures accounted for by housing and by short-term travel accommodations. As the figure shows, housing costs eat up far more of the average household's budget, and rising housing prices mean that long-term housing has grown more as a share of family budgets Economic Policy Institute 20 than short-term travel accommodations. This rising cost of housing has become a major economic stress for many American households. Anything that threatens to exacerbate this stress should face close scrutiny. A reasonable reading of the available evidence suggests that the costs imposed on renters' budgets by Airbnb expansion substantially exceed the benefits to travelers. It is far from clear that any other benefits stemming from the expansion of Airbnb could swamp the costs it imposes on renters' budgets. There may be plenty wrong with the status quo in cities' zoning decisions. But the proper way to improve local zoning laws is not to simply let well -funded corporations ignore the status quo and do what they want. As this report shows, there is little evidence that the net benefit of accelerated Airbnb expansion is large enough to justify overturning previous considerations that led to the regulatory status quo —in fact, the costs of further Airbnb expansion seem likely to be at least as large, if not larger, than the benefits. About the author Josh Bivens joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2002 and is currently EPI's director of research. His primary areas of research include macroeconomics, social insurance, and globalization. He has authored or co-authored three books (including The State of Working Americo, 12th Edition) while working at EPI, has edited another, and has written numerous research papers, including for academic journals. He appears often in media outlets to offer economic commentary and has testified several times before the U.S. Congress. He earned his Ph.D. from The New School for Social Research. Economic Policy Institute 21 Appendix Distribution of housing wealth (primary and nonprimary), by Table 1 household characteristics 1989 1998 2007 2016 1989-2016change Primary residence Bottom 50 percent 9.8% 14.3% 12.7% 10.4% 0.79. Bottom 80 percent 45.4% 47.5% 44.0% 40.0% -5.4% Top 20 percent 54.6% 52.5% 56.0% 60.0% 5.4% 80th-90th percentile 19.990 17.9% 17.5°% 18.6% -1.3% 90th-95th percentile 12.6% 11.6% 11.0% 13.9% 1.3% 96th-99th percentile 15.6% 15.0% 18.2% 16.8% 1.2% Top 1 percent 6.5% 8.0% 9.3% 10.7% 4.3% Nonprimary residential property Bottom 50 percent 2.690 4.3% 2.2% 1.6% -1.0°% Bottom 80 percent 16.8% 18.1% 13.9% 9.9% -6.9% Top 20 percent 83.2°% 81.9% 86.1% 90.190 6.9% 80th-90th percentile 15.2% 16.8% 10.79. 12.690 -2.71/. 90th-95th percentile 20.6°% 15.5% 13.9°% 14.9% -5.7% 96th-99th percentile 28.71/'.' 28.7°% 34.011. 29.6% 0.9% Top 1 percent 18.6°% 21.0% 27.590 32.9% 14.3% Primary residence White, non -Hispanic 86.4% 87.5% 82.6% 80.6% -5.9% Black, non -Hispanic 4.9% 5.0"% 6.2% 6.5% 1.6% Hispanic, any race 4.1% 3.7% 6.1% 6.0% 2.0% Other 4.6% 3.7% 5.1% 6.9% 2.3% Nonprimary residential property White, non -Hispanic 87.3% 89.5% 84.2% 86.2°% -1.1°% Black, non -Hispanic 4.3% 4.1% 4.1% 5.0% 0.7% Hispanic, any race 3.1% 3.4% 6.7°% 3.6% 0.5% Other 5.3% 3.0°% 5.0% 5.2% -0.1% Note: Per the Survey of Consumer Finances definitions, primary housing wealth is the total value of the primary residence of a household. Nonprimary housing wealth includes the value of all of other residential real estate owned by the household, including one -to -four family structures, timeshares, and vacation homes. Source: Author's analysis of microdata from the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances (2016) Economic Policy Institute Economic Policy Institute 22 Endnotes 1. According to a recent report, "a significant —and rapidly growing —portion of Airbnb's revenue in major U.S. cities is driven by commercial operators who rent out more than one residential property to short-term visitors" (CBRE 2017). 2. Horton and Zeckhauser (2016) provide a deep dive into the economics of internet-based service firms. Slee (2017) provides an excellent popularization of some of the economic issues surrounding IBSFs from a deeply critical perspective. 3. The most obvious benefit to living in housing that one owns is the tax treatment of mortgage interest payments on owner -occupied property, which can be deducted from federal taxes. Another benefit is that the implicit rental income earned by owner -occupiers is not taxed (the money that owner -occupiers are saving by not having to pay rent elsewhere could be viewed as implicit rental income). 4. Wachsmuth et al. (2018), for example, find that just under half of Airbnb listings in New York City had likely taken illegal reservations. 5. "Arrivals" is a term referring to each stay in a unit, regardless of length of stay. 6. For example, Molla (2017) highlights more recent forecasts for 2017 indicating a large slowdown in U.S. Airbnb expansion. 7. The range of 2 to 4 percent represents the range of findings across 2015, 2016, and 2017 The value was 4 percent in 2015, 2 percent in 2016, and 3 percent in 2017. 8. The arithmetic on this is relatively straightforward. The NERA 2017 study asserts that Airbnb supports $14 billion in spending and 130,000 jobs in the United States. This implies each $107,690 supports a job. Say that half of this spending is the direct cost of accommodations and that it represents a pure expenditure shift away from traditional hotels. Assume further that traditional hotels are 5 percent more labor -intensive —so each traditional hotel job is supported by $102,300 in spending (5 percent less than the ratio identified by Airbnb). This shift from traditional hotels to Airbnb hence reduces employment by 3,400 jobs for each $7 billion in spending. Even if overall spending were to rise by 2 percent due to Airbnb's expansion, this would increase employment by only roughly 2,600jobs. The key insight here is that once one allows Airbnb to substitute for other forms of accommodation, the link between output and employment might change significantly. 9. Airbnb itself has commissioned and reported on a number of studies claiming that the share of guests who would not have taken the trip absent Airbnb is as high as 30 percent. Even this number is far larger than the independent assessments of Guttentag (2016) and Morgan Stanley Research (2017), but it does highlight just how outlandish the NERA assumption on this is. 10. In a review of housing markets, Albouy, Ehrlich, and Liu (2016) note that "Housing demand is income and price inelastic." 11. The geographic unit implicitly being examined by Sheppard and Udell (2018) is not intuitive. Their observation is an individual home sale. They then track Airbnb listings within five different radii of the sale:150, 300, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 meters. They interact the number of Airbnb listings with categorical variables for each of the five "buffer zones" defined by the radii and use this as an explanatory variable predicting sales prices. Economic Policy Institute 23 12. See Office of New York State Attorney General 2014. 13. Lawler (2014) notes that Airbnb was testing out dedicated cleaning services for its hosts as early as 2014. 14. Unionization rates derive from the author's analysis of data pooled from 2008-2017 from the Outgoing Rotation Groups (ORG) of the Current Population Survey (CPS). Code and results are available upon request. The 10 cities are Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. In these 10 cities, the unionization rate for maids and cleaners was 23.2 percent in the traveler accommodation industry, but 12.1 percent in all other industries. 15. See Weil 2017 for an overview of labor market fissuring. References Albouy, David, Gabriel Ehrlich, and Yingyi Liu. 2016. "Housing Demand, Cost -of -Living Inequality, and the Affordability Crisis:' National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper no. 22816, November 2016. AIITheRooms.com. 2016. Vacation Rental Market Analysis: 440 Million Reasons to Tax Airbnb Vacation Rentals, October 2016. Alyakoob, Mohammed, and Mohammed Saifur Rahman. 2018. "Shared Prosperity (or Lack Thereof) in the Sharing Economy." Purdue University working paper, May 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3180278. Associated Press (AP). 2019. "Question from Washington on Oct. 11, 2016" (search result for "sharing economy"). AP Stylebook subscription -based website, accessed January 4, 2019. Barron, Kyle, Edward Kung, and Davide Proserpio. 2018. "The Sharing Economy and Housing Affordability: Evidence from Airbnb:' Working paper, March 2018. Bucks, Dan R. 2017. Airbnb Agreements with State and Local Tax Agencies: A Formula for Undermining Tax Fairness, Transparency and the Rule of Law. March 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Various years. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), Tables 2.4.4 and 2.5.5. Accessed September 2018. CBRE Hotels' Americas Research (CBRE). 2017. Hosts with Multiple Units —A Key Driver of Airbnb Growth: A Comprehensive National Review Including a Spotlight on 13 U.S. Markets. March 2017. Dogru, Tank, Mararand Mody, and Courtney Suess. 2019. "Adding Evidence to the Debate: Quantifying Airbnb's Disruptive Impact on Ten Key Hotel Markets:' Tourism Management, forthcoming June 2019. Dube, Arindrajit, and Ethan Kaplan. 2010. "Does Outsourcing Reduce Wages in Low -Wage Service Occupations? Evidence from Janitors and Guards." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 63, no. 2: 287-306. Federal Reserve Board. 2016. Survey of Consumer Finances microdata. Accessed August 2018. Goldschmidt, Deborah, and Johannes Schmieder. 2017. "The Rise of Domestic Outsourcing and the Economic Policy Institute 24 Evolution of the German Wage Structure:' Quarterly Journal of Economics 132, no. 3: 1165-1217. http://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjxOO8. Guttentag, Daniel Adams. 2016. "Why Tourists Choose Airbnb: A Motivation -Based Segmentation Study Underpinned by Innovation Concepts." PhD diss., University of Waterloo. Hazinski, Thomas, Anthony Davis, and Daniel Kremer. 2018. 2018 HVS Lodging Tax Report — USA. HVS Convention, Sports, and Entertainment Consulting, September 2018. Horton, John, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2016. "Owning, Using and Renting: Some Simple Economics of the `Sharing Economy."' National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 22029, February 2016. Lawler, Ryan. 2014. "Airbnb Is Testing Out an Affordable Cleaning Service for Hosts in San Francisco" Techcrunch.com. Merante, Mark, and Keren Mertens Horn. 2016. "Is Home Sharing Driving Up Rents? Evidence from Airbnb in Boston:' University of Massachusetts Boston Department of Economics Working Paper no. 2016-03. Miller, Stephen. 2016. "First Principles for Regulating the Sharing Economy." Harvard Journal on Legislation 53: 149-202. Molla, Rani. 2017. "Airbnb Is On Track to Rack Up More Than 100 Million Stays This Year —and That's Only the Beginning of Its Threat to the Hotel Industry: As Long as Regulation Doesn't Stop It, That Is." Recode, July 19, 2017. Morgan Stanley Research. 2017. Surprising Airbnb Adoption Slowdown in USIEU, and What It Means for Hotels and OTAs. Report on Global Insight AlphaWise survey, November 2017. NERA Economic Consulting (NERA). 2017. Airbnb's Global Support to Local Economies: Output and Employment. Prepared for Airbnb, March 2017. Office of New York State Attorney General. 2014. Airbnb in the City. Prepared by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York's Research Department and Internet Bureau, October 2014. Schiller, Zach, and Carl Davis. 2017. Taxes and the On -Demand Economy. Institute on Taxation and Econoric Policy, March 2017. Sheppard, Stephen, and Andrew Udell. 2018. "Do Airbnb Properties Affect House Prices?" Williams University working paper, January 2018. Slee, Tom. 2017. What's Yours Is Mine: Against the Sharing Economy. New York: OR Books. Wachsmuth, David, David Chaney, Danielle Kerrigan, Andrea Shillolo, and Robin Basalaev-Binder. 2018. The High Cost of Short -Term Rentals in New York City. Urban Politics and Governance research group, School of Urban Planning, McGill University, January 2018. Weil, David. 2017. The Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can Be Done to Improve It. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Zervas, Georgios, Davide Proserpio, and John W. Byers. 2017. "The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry:' Journal of Marketing Research 54, no. 5: 687-705. Economic Policy Institute 25 Errata This report was updated March 26, 2019, to correct errors in the "Bottom 50 percent' rows in Appendix Table 1. These rows had incorrectly shown the numbers for the top 50 percent instead of for the bottom 50 percent. Economic Policy Institute 26 Harnik, Jan From: Jerry Jewer Sent:. Friday, November 13, 2020 1:06 PM To: Bynder, Randy, Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Weber, Susan Marie Cc: info@vronpd.org Subject: Ordinance 1360 CD -C__ Respectfully to: Randy Bynder - City Manager Gina Nestande - Mayor of Palm Desert Kathleen Kelly - Counselor Jan Harnik - Counselor Sabby Jonathan - Counselor Susan Weber - Counselor M. w For many years I have frequently visited family in Palm Desert and have grown to love this city. In October of 2019 my wife and I took the plunge and made a significant investment in a home on Strawflower Circle in the PR zone that Ordinance 1360 is being considered. When we purchased the home we knew that we could not occupy it for more than 180 days per year as we are not U.S. citizens. This also raises the concern of property ownership where there is no occupant for large periods of time. Our decision to purchase the property was based on the idea that some income from rentals could help cover costs of having and maintaining the property. Until such time as I am able to make more use of the property myself, we do like knowing that it is occupied for security reasons as well as having a heads -up about arising issues on the property. Times have changed. In addition to the bubble safety from pandemics that STR (houses) provide to vacationing families over hotel properties, people prefer the home -like atmosphere and home -cooking over the larger expense of restaurants. I believe that STRs are valuable and in demand as an alternative form of vacation travel. Dollar for dollar, the people who book STRs see savings, value, and quality. From an economical perspective, STRs pump more money into the local economy and employ more people than the hotel chains. I understand that there may be concerns about this relatively new form of vacationing, i but every new industry has its hiccups and need for tweeks along the way. The old saying goes "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Ordinance 1360 IS exactly that - the belief that head -aches go away if we just throw it out the window. I DO NOT believe that this is the right approach, but rather compromise and camaraderie. Palm Desert and the whole valley is dearly loved by passionate Canadians, Americans, and others. The people of Palm Desert have opened their arms to visitors for a very long time and depend on tourism. Please don't take the negative step of folding your arms and discouraging tourism. I'm asking that you not vote in favor of Ordinance 1360 as it stands, and allow our house to continue to be used for short term rentals. I'm sure we can create a meaningful solution together. Sincerely, Jerry Jewer Sanchez, Gloria From: Ani Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:35 PM To: Rocha, Grace Cc: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: Nov 19 Public Hearing Banning STR on PR Zone Hi Grace, It is concerning that the below letter was sent to council meeting comments and does not appear on the link to letters with the STR ban.Please add the below letter as it should be added. All the letters sent in favor of STRs should be noted.Appreciatively, Ani ----- Ori Original Message 9 9 From: AN — 0 To: kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org> Co n' Cc: gnestande@cityofpalmdesert.org <gnestande@cityofpalmdesert.org>; jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org -V <jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org>; kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org <kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org>; sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org <sjonathan@cityofpal mdesert.org>; sweber@cityofpalmdesert.org <sweber@cityofpalmdesert.org>; info@cityofpalmdesert.org <info@cityofpalmdesert.org>; v = gsanchez@cityofpalmdesert.org <gsanchez@cityofpalmdesert.org> ' Sent: Tue, Oct 20, 2020 1:00 pm Subject: October 29 Public Hearing Banning STR on PR Zone Hello Kevin, hope you are doing well. I want to bring to your attention to the below email thread dated May 4, 2020 and also once again voice my opinion on the Ban on STR on PR zones. Before I purchase my house, while I was in escrow, I reached out to you (the city) asking if the subject property is in fact in STIR permitted zone and you answered "yes". Based on your answer I went ahead with the purchase. I paid top dollar for the house only because I was able to do STIR. And now, not even a month after I receive my permit, you throw this "banning STR in' PR zone" at me. How do you think this is fair? I know none of the city council members care about my investment, but do you realize I have worked so hard in my life and now, at my age, I put all my savings into this house so I can have some income? I heavily relied on your "confirmation", had you said "yes, BUT the city is considering or reviewing banning STR ...." or something along these lines, I would have immediately cancelled escrow. It seems to me the city of PD is sneaking in ordinances without involving the public. Is this really how the city of PD works? I hear you have received "few complaints" from neighbors - how many of these complaints are in fact from PR zones? "A few" I hear from a specific street - and the city's answer is to ban STIR from the whole city just because you received few noise/parking complaints? Seriously? How do you call yourselves leaders, if you do not know how to lead and your only solution is to "Ban" just to please the very "FEW". As leaders you MUST include the community - the WHOLE community, No one from the city reached out to us; homeowners; to discuss the issues - had I not heard it from other Airbnb hosts I would have been in the dark all this time. want to bring up few things: 1) How do you think Banning will stop owners who are operating without permits? I am sure -you know this'is an ongoing issue and banning people following the rules is not a solution to the unruly. 2) How many complaints do you in fact receive from Permitted Hosts? 3) How many complaints do you receive from homeowners themselves getting together in their own house? I myself have a very big family, when I get together with my family we exceed 25 people - When I rent to guests Maximum allowed is 8 people. So what would be the next move for the city? to ban me from having family gatherings in my own house??? 4) Have you considered grandfathering existing permits? 5) What is the concern of the city with STR, really??? all I hear is Safety? Noise and Parking??? Is that it??? YOU as LEADERS of the city must come together with homeowners and FIND SOLUTIONS. Drunk Driving is a major issue for the whole country, Has any Govern m ent/City? Sate? County? even attempted to BAN the SALE of Alcohol??? Think about it??? What everyone does is come up with restrictions. A person who gets a DUI doesn't even lose their license for life!!! they lose the privilege to drive for a specific period of time. Their license gets suspended maybe for 6 months or 1 year, EVEN during those 6 months or 1 year they get a provisional license allowing them to drive from and to home/work. I strongly suggest that you involve the whole community and not only the very few 10/20 people complaining, A lot of the times, these are exaggerated complaints even false complaints; have you looked into that? If safety, noise and parking is your issue - let's think hard about the new CA State law allowing for 2 ADUs httos://www.hcd.ca.aov/Dolicv-research/accessorvdwellinaunits.shtml If you ban STR I can guarantee you, I myself will build 2 ADUs at my property - and I am sure more homeowners will follow suit. What do you think will happen to the "Safety/Noise?Parking issue then? I strongly suggest for the council members to come up with a better SOLUTION than banning STR, because Banning STRs is NOT a SOLUTION but actually will be the key to bringing MORE problems. Maybe you should think; what's your preference? ADUs? or STRs? Which one seems more appealing to you? Do you want to maintain the beauty of Palm Desert with beautiful single family houses, beautiful landscaping or would you rather see more congested looking Palm Desert. I would ofcourse want to preserve the beautiful neighborhoods but if you, the city, are not going to be a part of preserving it then perhaps you only have yourselves to blame for destroying the essence of this beautiful resort town. I vote for preserving the beautiful neighborhoods of Palm Desert and you? Please present my letter to the city council and read 'my letter during the public hearing on October 29, 2020 Ani Vartabetian Palm Desert CA 92260 -----Original Message ----- From: Ani To: kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org Cc: lritchey@cityofpalmdesert.org Sent: Mon, May 4, 2020 10:49 am Subject: Re: Short term rental 38615 Desert Mirage Thank you so much Kevin. This was very helpful. Wishing you the best. Stay safe and well , Ani Sent from my iPhone > On May 4, 2020, at 10:46 AM, kswartz@citvofoalmdesert.ora wrote: Sanchez, Gloria From: Cody Carlson Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:04 PM To: Bynder, Randy, CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik,'Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Subject: PR Zone - Further Ban on STRs Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; STR_PR_BAN_Letter.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Dear Honorable Council/Staff, Thank you in advance for reviewing my attached letter and adding it into the record here. Please add my email too. Tomorrow the council will be deciding to vote on STRs. I am 100% against further banning STRs. I believe R 1/R2 was wrongly decided. I grew up in Riverside county for 20+ years, which has been a MECCA for property rights, common sense solutions, and partnerships. I grew up fishing at the salton sea, backpacking Idyllwild with my dad, I am not an outsider and I have long understood riverside as a home for people's freedoms and liberties. Riverside has . or the american dream! It should be noted that I am against furthering banning STRs for multiple reasons but the one worth noting in this email is that I am not lust against this for mvself. I am against this for my neighbors aroaerties, ves even the ones complaining. I am against this for future residents and owners. I am against this for the familv that might lose their iob and need to move, vet then might not have an alternative to subsidize home costs. I am against this for owners. kids and grandchildren that might inherit homes that have less rights than other homeowners throughout the United states. I am against this for EVERYONE because I believe deep down this is wrom.100% wrong. I urge this council to vote no tomorrow. I urge the council to meet with us. I am young, energized, and ready to give my all on making this work for everyone in the community. IT IS POSSIBLE! Every problem has a solution. Build a commission, not a subcommittee. Let us work together. Thank you for your time and consideration. o Appreciatively, Cod Carlson y co Riverside Native m %� -" -1:!� u tJ1� -Q C:) .,n rn Part I When I first heard the city was placing a moratorium on all new permits from a news article in the desert sun, I thought all the families that recently lost lost their jobs and their only potential income is now in the balance of this city council, the weight of that is immense. At a time when aeonle are losing their iobs. unable to aut food on their table. auestionin if f the roof over their head will be there tomorrow. Ladies and Gentlemen, make no mistake about it. We are on the cuffs of a financial disaster and we are still unsure of what those implications will look like. Let me remind this council that not long the Coachella valley was in diseray after the housing bubble. You see, I grew up in Riverside County and I can remember all the Foreclosure signs that sprinkled the street like a blanket of white snow. I am not from money. In 2008, I recall my dad worrying about - getting a pink slip, and wondering what that might mean for my family. I think of my dad and how if he could have rented out his home, what that life line might have meant for my family. I think of how this council is taking away home owners rights to make decisions for themselves that they so desperately need right now, when an alternative -option for, income, might become the only option. At the early onset of this decade, Palm Desert was in desperate need of investment. The financial crisis of 2008 was not long ago, and is not far away, a recession is almost inevitable at this point. Short term rentals helped this city thrive and bounce back before and I believe that can and must happen again, I believe we can allow new and old permits to coexist with neighbors all living in harmony. Please do not turn your back on short term rentals, when they helped this city bounce back. Kathleen Kelly, in the desert sun article you noted your record of creating win -win scenarios and I quote, "After meeting with the neighbors, I was able to identify ways the proposals could be im- proved for the benefit of all. Successfully securing those changes led to win -win outcomes instead of conflict. " Now, I appreciate your record on creating win -win scenarios and I believe that philosophy should be the foundation of this decision and future decisions. We should not be ending permits for residents that follow the rules or would otherwise follow them as new permit holders. We can create a win -win scenarios for everyone when it comes to short term rentals. It will not be easy, it will take work from both sides, but it is possible. I live by a life code, every problem has a solution. Let the short term permit holders and neighbors come together in a commission to solve problems, creating win -win scenarios. We want to partner on a commission with folks to solve and address short term rental policies, procedures, requirements, permits, and more! I believe in action, so let us act together to solve this in a mutually beneficial way. Part II At a time when people are losing their jobs, millions moved into poverty, this council is con- sidering getting rid of jobs and hindering the local economy. There are people tonight wondering if this council is going to take away their jobs. Not the owners of the short term rentals, but the vast number of great people we employee. These wonderful people are now stressed wondering If they will lose their ability to support their family, their ability to provide food, and shelter, during a pandemic. The reality is there are small businesses closing, all around us, jobs dissa- pearing overnight. Short Term Rentals contribute a large number of jobs to the Palm Desert community. Any decision to further ban Short Term Rentals should be seen as an assault on economic justice. People need these jobs, now more than ever and this council should help them keep those jobs by forming a commission with owners, neighbors, and city employees. We can work to resolve issues that would allow these jobs to remain while creating a greater neighborhood for everyone. Any vote against short term rentals before forming a commission and allowing team work to fix the problems would be a vote without a fair shot. Give Short Term Rentals a shot. Don't turn your back on these wonderful people and their jobs. You can not tell us in good faith that this issue can't be solved, I won't be- lieve you because that isn't true. This country put a man on the moon! You can not tell me we can't solve this problem, this country solves problems! We are a world leader in solving problems! Let's solve this problem. The America I know and love, is a county that solves problems, we dont run from them. We face them head on and accept the challenge. That is the American way and Palm Desert is as an American a city as any. This commission can build the blueprints for the future. So again, I ask the council to consider alternative to a ban as the first step. I ask the council to support both sides in finding a mutually beneficial relationship for the city. As representa- tives for our�city, I ask that you understand that this is a problem we can solve together. Teamwork, something we teach our children to be proactive with, teamwork, the driving force for a successful community. Teamwork, because together we can solve anything. Appreciatively, Cody Sanchez, Gloria From: Ortega, Niamh Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 3:01 PM To: Rocha, Grace; Sanchez, Gloria Subject: FW: Short Term Rental FYI — Council has been blind -copied on this e-mail. Thanks, Niamh Ortega Secretary to the City Council Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760,776.6315 nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 2:55 PM To: Ortega, Niamh <nortega@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: FW: Short Term Rental Please forward to the City Councilmembers. Thanks. o y r L y- Kevin Swartz Associate Planner 5 s oC Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org From: kenneth robins Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 2:37 PM To: Swartz, Kevin <kswartz(@citvofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Short Term Rental Kevin Swartz, I don't think I will be able to attend the city meeting on November 19th. I am currently the holder of a short- term rental license. I pay 18k a year in property taxes to the City of Palm Desert. My ability to do so is largely dependent on the income I make from my short-term rental. The people who I rent to bring considerable money into the restaurants, stores, and businesses of Palm Desert. Most of these guests are retired or senior citizens. They are not people who would otherwise stay in a hotel. They are people who would otherwise go to a different city if they were not able to rent an autonomous living situation here. While I understand the concerns of some of the people who are trying to eliminate short term rentals, I believe that many communities have, with some thoughtful regulation, been able to manage this situation so that it benefits the community at large in a very positive way. Thank you. Kenneth Robins Sanchez, Gloria From: Devin Kasprick Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:48 PM To: Rocha, Grace; CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: Fwd: Why are we helping hotels? Marriott converting Profit by layoffs Hi, can you please make sure this is part of the record. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Devin Kasprick <devin.kasprick@2mail.com> Date: Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:27 PM Subject: Why are we helping hotels? Marriott converting Profit by layoffs To: N o a N C3 ` . 0 , Q0 rn ;0 i r Please Read at next city Council meeting 10/19: Please read aloud or I'm happy to join the zoom too. Fun Fact that Marriott hotels turned a 100m profit last quarter, you might ask how? By layoffs and cost cutting. Why is our city acting like a giant homeowners association looking to ban STRs? Hurting homeowners and the city's residents allowing those hotels to hold a monopoly. Just like the taxi industry, vacationing and renting homes has been disrupted by technology however we are spending city money playing into these hotels' agenda. Going against the grain of where the travel industry is headed. I want to see our city grow , let the other cities act irresponsibly and lazy if they plan to ban STRs so we can thrive where they falter. Cities that don't ban STRs and who regulate them responsibly will be the real winners. One of the city's competitive advantages is the tourism industry, an outright ban is a dangerous decision for our city's growth. If you look up innovation in a.dictionary and you find antonyms some examples of the opposite of innovation are, "old-fashioned", "uncreative" and "unimaginative". A ban not, just from a technology standpoint but also a service offering standpoint in an industry we thrive in is the least innovative thing the city can do. This is the market we are missing out on when banning STRs: A recent study just this year found that 60% of travelers prefer a short term rental home rather than a hotel and that number is growing. Once a short term rental experience is discovered in one city a complete shift changes in their preference. The study also found that 67% of respondents age between the ages of 18 and 24 had used a P2P service in the last 12 months. That number is lower among travelers ages 45 and up (about 29%), but it is steadily rising. Source: https://Iistwithclever.com/research/airbnb-vs- hotels-studv/ I know prop22 is a completely different industry for completely different issues but I think there is still something to be said to the volume of individuals who are embracing technology, want more private , cheaper and higher quality services that larger corporations can't provide. Allowing individuals to take services into their own hands and offer a unique experience on their own terms. References to Marriott turning profit by cost cutting: https://www.wsi.com/articles/marriott-international-p_ osts-3a-profit-11604665677 and httDs://www.reuters.comlarticle/us-marriott-intnl-resultslmarriott-posts-surerise-profit-on-cost-cuts-improved- bookin2s-idUSKBN27M lIW Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: Kevin Swartz Swartz, Kevin Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:48 PM Rocha, Grace; Sanchez, Gloria FW: Short-term rental submission Associate Planner N Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485 o �" a kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org o (-).x From: M. E. C. Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:32 PM_ m _�. L•rt To: Swartz, Kevin Cc: Carman Mary; Leslie Bill ; codycarlson2008@gmail.com; Gloria Kirkwood Subject: Short-term rental submission __J To whom it may concern; The following is submitted for consideration by the Mayor and councillors of the City of Palm Desert at the November 19 public hearing regarding amendments proposed to alter the existing Short-term Rental (STR) ordinance. We recognize and respect the role of the City's elected officials to consider and amend regulations pertaining to STR where there are issues related to public safety and public nuisance and where these issues have been validly raised, investigated and a broad variety of potential solutions sought with respect to STR in communities zoned R1/R2 and PR -zoned communities where there are no Home Owners Associations (HOAs). We disagree strenuously with the inclusion of all Communities zoned PR that have existing HOAs. In particular, it appears that in the absence of documented issues related to public safety and nuisance in PR/HOA communities that the solution currently proposed is a convenience of regulation rather than a regulation that is warranted by data that supports such restrictive action. As such, we believe that this regulation over -extends the Citv's regulation -making authoritv and should not proceed as proposed. Furthermore, as HOAs currently have the authority to restrict or deny its members the ability to rent property within the community, the City's proposed amendments are both unnecessary and redundant. Rather, we suggest that the proposed amendment specifically exclude the proposed restrictions, with or without the need for approval by an HOA, on the issuance of STR permits in PR zoned communities where there are dulv constituted and registered HOAs. Failing consideration of the above proposal, we respectfully submit that the proposed amendment be altered to: - specify that HOAs may not refuse to provide the City with approval to issue and/or renew STR permits in the absence of duly developed criteria; and - note that such criteria must be demonstrated to have been developed following the HOAs existing guidelines for consultation; and - include an extended phase -out period for existing 5TR permits in order to provide sufficient time for HOAs to develop, consult and ratify such criteria recognizing that such time could take several years due to the seasonal residential nature of many impacted property owners and that a rushed period of consultation could cause both the City and HOAs to be subject to unnecessary litigation. A phase -out period not to exceed 5 years from the proposed effective date of January 7, 2021 (or later date if the Ordinance is delayed) is proposed. , Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments and these suggested revisions to the proposed amendments. Mary Carman William Leslie Palm Valley Country Club Palm Desert, CA 92211 Sanchez, Gloria From: Information Mail Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:58 PM To: Swartz, Kevin; Sanchez, Gloria, Cc: Hermann, David Subject: Fw: Short Term Rental Ban Good Afternoon, We have received the following message regarding STR through the City's informational e-mail. Thank You, Brianne From: Cindy Kelly Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 202012:13 PM To: Information Mail Subject: Short Term Rental Ban I would like to express my support of expanding the Short Term Rental (STR) ban in Palm Desert. The STRs in our area have caused an increase in noise and traffic that negatively impact the livability of our neighborhood . Also, the influx of short term renters reduces the family atmosphere of our neighborhood. Thank you for supporting the expansion of the STR ban to preserve the character of our neighborhoods. Cynthia Kelly Palm Desert, CA 92211 0-1 > -c Sent from my iPad W 1 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Diane Mathew Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:04 PM Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie; Cody Carlson Please add this email for consideration during the 11/19 council meeting With regard to the short- term rental agenda item, we are owners of a condominium who do rent out for both long- and short-term periods. We have never had any neighbors or other residents in our area complain regarding any of our renters. If there is an apparent issue, with specifically to short -term rentals, we ask that permit holders for STRs be given an opportunity to address these issues for the good of all of Palm Desert. Without any comprehensive or reliable data, it is premature to propose an ordnance regarding STRs. If there is an apparent problem with STRs, the Palm Desert city council should charter a committee that allows those who have complaints about STIR and the STIR permit holders themselves to come together to craft solutions for the City Council to review. The best solutions are crafted at the lowest levels by the people who are affected - the community. Pushing an ordinance through without allowing solutions crafted for the greater Palm Desert good isn't in the best interest of the community. This ordinance has also come at a time of newly elected city council members and that newly composed council should be the one to take up the issue. Diane & Stuart Mathew Sanchez, Gloria From: Kevin Aziz Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 11:48 PM To: Sanchez, Gloria Subject: Against short term rental ban Hi Gloria, Please enter into the record I am against the short term rentals ban. I am requesting for our city to form a commission to resolve the current issues. In addition the Commission could build an str blue print for the future. Thanks! Kevin VRON PD member 74520 Daylily cir, Palm desert CA, 92260 Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: Good Morning: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:49 AM CouncilMeeting Comments Palm Desert STR To all City Council members and the code enforcement people that have been so instrumental in allowing the voices of the residents of this great town to be heard. We thank you for listening to the residents. We are the ones that chose to live here and to build our lives here in Palm Desert permanently. Please continue to work on banning the STR's so our neighborhoods do not become a enclave of mini motels. I have had first hand experience of the problems and issues that the STR units can bring to the area such as a drunk young man in his underwear knocking on my door at 2:OOAM because he was at the wrong house. Not to mention the litter and noise problems associated with STRs. Please consider that although the city may make a few dollars on the STRs, that it comes at a cost, not only with enforcing the codes but at a more dearly emotional cost to those of us that have to live next to or near an STR. Please keep up the good work and consider the folks that choose to live here and are trying to make Palm Desert an even better town to live in. Thank you Mark Wasson Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council, Thursday, November 19, 2020 6:26 AM CityhallMail Owner -occupied STRs I am a 15-year resident of Palm Desert and teach law and government at College of the Desert. I read in the Desert Sun that you are considering eliminating the owner -occupied exception to the STR ban. My wife and I have offered our studio casita (maximum of two guests) for many years. (Permit STR2019-0125) and we carefully vet our guests, post applicable warnings regarding noise, parking, etc., and personally meet our guests, tell them about the strict noise ordinance (we evenhave a 9PM cutoff time for the jacuzzi, even though the noise ordinance allows a IOPM cutoff). When guests are in residence, at least one of us is at home, and if we leave the house together, it's to go shopping or for local outings. We are accessible 24/7 to respond to any problems. I am unaware of a single complaint from a neighbor, all of whom are aware of our seasonal business. Please don't legislate away a problem that doesn't exist. Thank you for your time and consideration. N S2 Steven L. Fuchs, J.D. c'=+ r Palm Desert, CA 92260 �J •r Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Good Morning, Information Mail Thursday, November 19, 2020 6:08 AM Swartz, Kevin; Sanchez, Gloria Hermann, David Fw: Ordinance 1360 Should not Proceed!! We sent you safe versions of your files; VRON_PD_Formal_Statement .pdf We have received the following STIR message through the City's informational e-mail. Thank You, Brianne From: Cody Carlson Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 12:30 AM To: Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Subject: Ordinance 1360 Should not Proceed!! Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Dear Honorable Mayor, Council, and Staff, Please take a moment to read our letter before the council meeting tomorrow. Please add the letter from our board and members opposing further bans on STRs in PD (ordinance 1360) into the formal record. Please confirm receipt of this email. Appreciatively, VRON-PD 1 Dear honorable Mayor & Council, The,city is taking up a discussion to further ban Short Term Rentals (STRs) in the city of Palm Desert. ,Our rental organization. Vacation Rental Owners and Neighbors of Palm Desert, is adamantly against anv further bans in the citv of Palm Desert. We are represented by owners with HOAs. and owners without HOAs. across. all zones. and our membership includes neighbors supportive of sensible solutions. Whv did the citv not contact owners? Despite the fact that the city has each owner's contact information, they made ZERO efforts to reach out to STR owners when the subcommittee was formed. The 8/27/2020 City Council meeting minutes have ZERO indication that a formal ad hoc committee was_ actually formed. The 9/24/2020 Meeting minutes indicates the only time that the subcommittee was identified. The subcommittee did not contact anv STR owners to include them in the dialoaue. Members only received notice once the subcommittee already decided on ordinance 1360 by sending a formal notice on 11 /2/2020. Numerous requests were made by VRON-PD board members and general members to connect with the city council on forming a commission consisting of neighbors, STR owners, and city staff dating back to early .October. No action was taken from the city council or staff to include STR owners in the discussion that was taking place. even though the ordinance drasticallv impacts these oeoDle and the citv has every STR owner's contact information. Our members deserve to be included in the dialogue! The city staff_ report cites 2017 as reasoning for not having to engage with PR zone STR owners. We find this statement false. In 2017, the council allotted 10 1/2 months to study the issues with neighbors. At a minimum, the council should have provided current PR zone STR owners and neighbors the same amount of engagement: 10 1/2 months. The city is quickly moving to further ban STRs under the disguise that they have studied this before. We find that statement false! PR Zone, legally, is not the same zone as R1/R2. Our owners are not the same owners and our members deserve the same opportunities, at minimum, that R1/R2 STR owners were provided. Subcommittee: Zero Documents VRON-PD requested any and all documentation through a public records act from the subcommittee for which their decision was founded and they indicated two zoom meetings were held without agendas, no notes, no public comments, and no hard facts to base a decision off of. Our Public Records Act request resulted in ZERO DOCUMENTATION for which the city is about to vote on a drastic ordinance. We find this alarmina. In addition, we requested the number of citations and complaints that the city was basing its decision off of through another Public Records Act, which should have been readily available if the city was leveraging data for their decision, but the response was lackluster. The city responded they would need time to compile the information. Clearly the ordinance was drafted without facts. In fact, the city has not even completed an economic impact study. Our members contribute to the micro and macro economics of the city having contributed a cumulative amount of MILLIONS of dollars to the Palm Desert economy. The council should not be voting on a decision without an in- depth review of the financial impact. The staff report indicates that only a small set of permits are impacted, but the report does not explicitly articulate an actual economic study. We request the city to complete a study before any vote is made. HOA: Dangerous Precedent! Furthermore, the council is attempting to appease HOA STR owners by telling them they are not impacted. The council can not guarantee this _Ordinance 1360 requires a letter from the HOA board. This, is a dangerous precedent for HOA STR owners. After a large number of our members emailed council and staff on this issue, Kevin Swartz called a member to inform them that the letter is only required if you are getting a new permit. We find this alarming! If that is a true statement, the ordinance should be amended as such. Since the ordinance was not amended, we can not find that statement to be factual at this time. We believe'this statement should not be within the ordinance at all. Transparencv We believe the city must be transparent with ALL STR complaints and citations for the benefit of the community as a whole. We request the city to release weekly reports, similar to Palm Springs, which would showcase that call complaints and citations have been reduced since the Labor Day holiday. The summer was a rough time for a lot of our members where guests did not comply with the good neighbor brochure, despite signed contracts with guests, strict rules, postings, etc. We call this the "Covid Effect." . The truth is that all valid complaint calls have gone down since Labor Day. The city should be providing weekly data sets to everyone. Transparency is for the benefit of the entire city. Zero Tolerance Policv We understand the annoyance a party house can cause in a peaceful neighborhood. Our members are 100% against party houses. We have a zero tolerance policy for party houses! In fact, we propose the city amend the ordinance for citations to be applicable directly to guests and the city notify the owner upon citing the guest so that the owner can immediately evict them. If the city has a three strike policy for revoking STR permits, why has the city not revoked bad actors? Why is the city moving to ban STRs and take away our member's constitutional property rights without first enacting their own enforcement policies? The city is failing the neighbors and short term rental owners with their inaction to implement their already defined rules. We have been in direct contact with large STR platform companies (Airbnb and others). Let our organization partner up with the city on resolving issues for the benefit of the community, creating "win -win" scenarios. Constitutional Takina Clause In October of 2017 the city council discussed the constitution taking of property in which the discussion resulted in changing the R1/R2 ordinance to extend the sunset clause to 2 years. Although we are adamantly against ordinance 1360, our members should be receiving the same 2 year sunset clause if this ordinance is approved. Commission We believe a commission with neighbors, owners, and city staff can work to address escalations, density issues, permit reviews, etc. A regularly scheduled commission meeting would allow everyone to keep their property rights, while removing bad actors. A subcommittee was not the right solution to the public's complaints. A commission that brings together both interested parties to resolve the issues for the benefit of the community as a whole is the right solution. The council should not vote on ordinance 1360 and should form a commission for all STR owners (Non HOA, HOA, within ALL ZONES). Please find attached over 200 signatures from voting residents in favor of a commission. The city should listen to the majority of the residents when implementing and voting on ordinance1360. Biases and politics should not play a role in the decision! The evidence is clear that the majority of Palm Desert residents want to preserve their property rights, even if they are not Short Term Rental owners today. The majority of residents believe in working together to resolve these issues through partnerships. The majority of residents believe we should save the local economy for the benefit of the entire community. Closina VRON-PD would be happy to meet with the City staff and/or City Council in order to create viable, effective changes to the STIR ordinance that will promote the continuance of STRs in all PR zoned neighborhoods and address actual issues associated with STR operations. Although future regulation and enhanced enforcement may be appropriate, the Proposed STR Ordinances are inappropriate. For all of the above reasons, the City Council must not adopt the proposed STR Ordinance. Appreciatively, VRON-PD Board & Members info@vrongd.orq vronpd.ora Sanchez, Gloria From: Cody Carlson <info@vronpd.org> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 6:56 AM To: Bynder, Randy; CouncilMeeting Comments; Information Mail; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Subject: Re: Ordinance 1360 Should not Proceed!! Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Commission_Signatures.pdf, Additionalsignatures.pdf, STR signatures.pdf, Palm Desert Signitures.pdf, PD Signatures Page 1.pdf, Singaturesjpeg; Signatures.pdf, STR_signatures2 .pdf,- STR_Signatures3 jpg; STR-signatures.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Dear Honorable Mayor, Council, and,Staff, Please find the signatures attached. Appreciatively, On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:30 AM Cody Carlson <info@vronod.m> wrote: Dear Honorable Mayor, Council, and Staff, Please take a moment to read our letter before the council meeting tomorrow. Please add the letter from our board and members opposing further bans on STRs in PD (ordinance 1360) into the formal record. Please confirm receipt of this email. Appreciatively, VRON-PD We, the undersigned, believe STR is a crucial element to our beautiful City of Palm Desert; We know STR§ help bring prosperity and ziftradt - tourism into this beAuftl tesoff.16WWWe stand With all STR hosts and support all the ir efforts in continuing to attract.Ruests from all over the World, while helping grow our economy; bring rbiidfides to the city 4, parfic-UMY to all our business owners and restaurants. WeBelieve -ttRsneed io be a port of th-solutionto help the community thrive. hriVe. .A commission should be4ormedwith neighbors and owners to-creptea thriving short term rental industry that is harmonious and mutually beneficial, a 1U. m.e Address_ E-mail. grioatpurr 'o 1-6� \I �Tk- ii'li(t6 b"N a V- eVr'ko 7 PA Q7 , vel.a).01rd Sf All L We, the undersigned;. believe STR is crVcialp1popplip. our beauf1fuithy of Paim Des MWakirfow — STRs help,beifig prospoOty and attract tourism:iritu this b6itIfiful fesdift6kri. We6tiifid with all SIR hqos,an!support.;Il their p continuing to;aftraat guests'from all over the world, while-helping:gro+ni our'economy, bring revenues'to i cty & pp*qilarlv to ah our business ownersand, restaurants, We believe S Rs need Id T beta Odrt of tho'.WidtionI6 fiblo-,thd d6rfi' 'h' Aci- o--r-n-m"- issib-hi shb"Uld:h 6-:1-for"Med with neighbors and owners to. create.-a-thilving,--short tetffi rent ifidu§tryth t I n a s Nithdrilo-us and ffiCitUtilky V6n'6fId16l, ''Rame A s dd,�.e' S- I ure /T 'I/-/ �MIPD -2 We, the undersigned, believe,STR is a crucial element to our beautiful City of Palm Desert; We know STRs help bring prosperity and attract.tourism into this beautiful resort town. We stand with all STIR hosts and support. all their efforts in continuing to attract guests from all over the world, while helping grow our economy, bring revenues to the city & particularly to ✓ all our business owners and restaurants. We believe $ 5s need to be a, part of the solution to help the community thrive. A commission should be formed with neighbors and owners'to create a thriving shortterm rental Industry that is harmonious and mutually beneficial. Name . Address Tyr-&- (3?SS ✓81^.310401 DR. r5c�'a U . itiZ . (`�i ii✓G.h?� 5(3 0 /tt,e_ %::711,4 arfniLA. - (rtiflb�dPs Q �L A E-mail Signature f6G-6/q-'"V18 76o_ar. es �r-Y -Io(1,Ia0 k:l61 10:t A e---j . i�203V .i i - 5 it �f ':tLl LlL!'.4 --C'C of c—x— J.-r • Q46.-(4 ,i Y Fl.l. 7 6O �� 4! U.lt��.t c t, L_ ? � \f�M� c:�(Tl �: I � o��i't %C=t•� ,,--.. . cta I #LAC,ic -YVWn=� can -�1 �tA M'!� CQ :(�.3 �>'d s� . L.f�rp�� ss l - �Pcn n1 . �'J=\� IFIACheir-d 1" ti +�- r, l I.' I� ' �i Vie. "ck iide2Z 1i2. b �!'`` s� i�:Ci.e/I ielol k—J4?V(vl r I4 de�Po, '(tz II-x .c{f Sf.ch«a�,e�Lq,eA 76e=c6 -:i159 { -atR� i:dC3: oil � aic/E 17 .. m is ��J f�,A- a _ = �o •�-- Bats 40' wL P. n.r of I7L4yy et) �1 'cv�1z�.C�rr e. We, the undersigned, believe STR is a crucial element to our beautiful City of Palm Desert; We know STRs help bring prosperity and attract tourism into this beautiful resort town. We stand with all STIR hosts and support all their efforts in continuing to attract guests from all over the world,, while helping grow our economy, bring revenues to. the city & particularly to all our business owners and restaurants. We believe STRs need to be a part of the solution to help the community thrive. -A commission should be formed with neighbors and owners to create a thriving short term recital industry that is harmonious and Mutually. beneficial. Name Address Tel Number, 1S1 na GD or,a c�� y'lZ Try Aly �G=(o `7337�L. t?�so _. 760 3�d6s3� 14 sde' j'--i�>y►i✓,�iZ -7333.7.5 �L Px.� 20 q., S %U Il•bo..I,. ("Or-Pivin 314bs-6 \1 ZAo .A _�60--70A-"1�b r,e Flavin 77�33 F1n�i:itiJP C iCAVVA �gy1eL . l�T[4lGx ;2 225 On vi i� •VIC�(, 'Ic.o9OC� 11 Zq �'Qb I cam•--f� �l �S r� a el We, the undersigned, believe STH is a crucial ekerrferit to our beautiful City, of Palm Desert, We know STRs help bring r prosperity and attract tourism into this, . beautiful resort town. We standwith all.STR hdsts and supodrt,411 their efforts in tontinul 'Ib 6&66t glOpsts from P all over -the world., while helping grow.our.econ6my, bring revenues td-the 'City & particulafly to all our` business owners and reMai- drants. We bet feve 8TRs need to . _e . be_a: part of the solution io -help the community'thriv.6. Ab6mfffiisbion should b6.16im6d With neighbors'and owners -t creat a thriving short term rental' industry that is,harrno6ious and mutually-berieficiii, `me n -e Aodre5S Tel'Number S` qgna ,.e r - &W 11.4 -- r76O (5CvAJC 'n 6V I V I 7- 'A �Y 7iA4 IYIYe 4 Z.. &AZAD WS. J1 Ir, ec q ci 1Y. A I I L42V 7) (01 6-1,4P S, f M r AN -7i677 s cO Ol, e -;2�. -74 I -IMPIAA KAM b LI psi, p -11414-AL7-r 1?-I. Y,, rA. I-ILn-Aik, - K I 6d- rich - 4 We, the undersigned, believe STR is a crucial +;lement to Our beautiful City of Palm Desert; We know STRs help bring I I prosperity and attract 6Qurisrn into this beautiful resaet town. We star}ci vvitTr all 51 rt hosts and support all their efforts is, i confinuinq to attract guests from all over th[: world, while helpirnit gro,v our or-onomy, bring ruvenous to the city ✓'< par4trularly tO j all our business awnars ant? restaurants. We l)elievu STRS wmd to be a part of the solution to help the romnkunity thrive. A comrltission -hnuld he formed with neiglihors and O}r:ners to create a thriving short term rental industry that is harmonious and mutually beneficial, Name ,Address - - JE-mail 5igntu e I rlr.1A lip I,', c ��i�i,� '_�`:r ' {'/��'1 �1l�C�J `�J,ct�lh��a(r.1� ��1j,rr.`rlf'•,. r-.. _ f _ `�(�x- ,P tlO.. � � � i J c"1 U11 `x �► �1 7f� E�. � , � �C �^ , r*{w JU�m il'P ra ( `-�� i '.fir..! ! �% yF \ ( �e-G;'?w 1l_„f i rr-1�7'- `.i. t}47r� ��'t� �c C-6 G-71 .r - 1 Ctr �i7- 4II ,)�tr�.�.' � �: �.., :1N / %CJI �_ �VL•�rrt i� `.a� 1 /.! iU .r.�r�v'flt�!Q �,+ ��"� _�- _ Girl ^ �J A C, C. A 1. f_�_ i ` 1 c �. rn.. 14 r: I I I _ I I i We, tWdvhddrs-i,g*hed, 66-liqv6STR, ii-a chicial-ele'rhdritto our beautiful City of Palm Desert; We know STRs help being prosperity and attract boUtit-rh irft'thi6b I t&sort'td*h, We-gt4nd'WA jaltrg sup h TR Nsts and all ods,in support r eiff cqkn!#pg-lo 6ftra over the world, q� gqqsl� s from all -, e. rId,.while'hdlpIn§ grdW'bur.'ec;onbtny,- Mini. MVer6pt to 106 citylady to _& pa all our business owners and restaurants. ftbelieve,stAs need Ad. tie paribf theooluticiii to'he , 1p thd, -eld . &mmuhit v thrive., A ,ul.l.jzq - fprnie6" '.ihb neighbors and owners_to create a_ thriving sFio,'rt-te[in ;rental indu§try th'at,is haftriohlbtii and mtft6zilly b6n6fibial. Name, E-mail A:- -7, kZY ,N 77 AkaxAn 11,141 r We; the undersigned; belle-vd-STR N,a crucial element . t to our w 9 -beautiful OV of Palm Desert; spri; We knO, $TRs he[' P bring prbspiariV and attract tourism into thls:beaWti . fdl resort town; We�stancl with all sfkhpsts.and support 611 their i continuing t -the.World, while -helping -grow' bdec6n rfiy, bring revenues . to the- efforfs 'n.c niinu*' to guests from all.dViar 0 dity& Partibularly';oAl our.bUsiness owners arid'restaprants. We belidVe STl3s.fi6&d to Wd'a P.M-df th6sol6ti6h pity thrive. kcommission��houlcl be fo m d' with ne qhtkors�anjdowners" to Create a thrivih to help the c** r e i 9 short t6rhi rental fridIdstry that is h6rmb'nidu's-.9n'd mutually ben6ficial. Mi. the.uhd&signad, beIieVd,STR:is a'crudi6l C'letnerit to our.beautiful efty of Palm Qeser%; I W . e -knoyv SM help bdng prosperity and attract t6urisftilnta this; beautiful r4§drl tmirt We stand -with "all STIR hosts .and: p0orts in ,continuing, to attract guests 6orp.,kII OV --Orthe�W6 rid, While hdipin-g-%gr-o-W iduit'� -t�6My,,brilYg't6viaiiiieg'fdthi� oqo Cityparticularly to, pil I our business owners. a nd- 'lie 6.'$Tft heed to be 4-part of the.s�iolutiQn to help ih-6 cdhfithtfnity thrive:.A torhm'I§ilpri Mibuild be _Jqrmed Withp a .,eiglhbpr�s:andWners-to o sh6rt term rental indUstry-thbt.is lhahrn6nibps '6hd mutually b7dndfici'al. Signature rp 2. 5 T %a 001 q I c LI W-j� j. We, the undersi�nud t�oli,y`E Prosperity and mono STR is a crucial element to our beautiful city of palm Daseri; We know STRs help bring iou srt irate this beautiful resort town. We stand with all STR hosts and support all their efforts in Continuing to atirac;i fro:Tl alt over the world, while helping grow our economy, bring revenues to the city & particularly to all our business UtrrTers and restaurants. thIe believe STRs need to be a past of the solution to help the community thrive. A commission shgt;j� be formed with neighbors and owners to create a thriving short term rental industry that is harmonious � rn9 nitnualiy beneficial. Name Address E-mail Signattfre -•`---<.-�t:_l�,_ �'7{"�ilil.'� �'71.� F.!'r;rni,hil r.#.��-,.,, vr'v..;Yt /'�7rYLCi�'�! ��!'. ;�r'�,�;z_ ;•+--_� �,-1�(r.: ¢� , f �y. fit, ,�/' tri � �? . dz�i'L�t %Yti�.eJlr-•.,� � el iv/ D �7,. �Lxfct'�, f J7)1 dL It'tiG.YNa r f i'c L—t C/ Lf6c' in,-ctSsF� wt�r l tom, �r'l� i-i' �i�../ � � U21•S�•��tJS �/lam__.-_-_ =-=a ! 1. - G��---7•�J //- f �•�ir,J .���^r�- /��•L.7nC'l •�y:2; ►ter ' ft ` s I � � 'y�y aFih f jj 'y`3 `3 � r[f"fir:=� der " rIMM 19 01 ­-t%i A-i-4 < A4 I -,e" €,' ZA We, the undersigned, believe 5TR is crucial element to our beautiful City of Palm Desert; We. know STRs help bring prosperitya and attract tourism into this. beautiful resort town. We stand with all STIR hosts and support all their efforts in continuing to attract guests from all.over.the.wodd, while. helping grow our economy, bring revend s to the.city St pairfiduladVO all our business owners And restaurants. We believe 8TRp heed to be a part ofthe solution to help the community thrive. A commission should be -formed with neighbors and owners to create a thriving, short term rental industry that is Harmonious and mutually beneficial. Name Address E-mail Sjgnature A C', J _6V 14L 6 VY " PI, IVA/ N U& Oah- C., L 4/4z(V's �lh'q(e Wr Y& NVY I V� w vel, IV4 Ok 1� Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: To: Subject: City Council City of Palm Desert Thursday, November 19, 2020 9:46 AM Rocha, Grace; CouncilMeeting Comments Ban on Short Term Rentals I am a long term homeowner and a business owner in the City of Palm Desert. 1 demand that this statement be put into the record of the forthcoming City Council Meeting that addresses the matter of Banning Short Term Rentals. I am a neighbor of a responsible owner of a Short Term Rental. Michael Hackett is an excellent example of how a Short Term Rental should be managed and maintained in a residential neighborhood. To my knowledge, there has been no noise or nuisance matters at this location. Furthermore, the Hacketts have a terrific friendly and professional relationship with all of our common neighbors. A ban on Short Term Rentals essentially shuts down a good source of consumers with deep pockets for every Palm Desert Retail and Restaurant Merchant. In the absence of an adequate number of Hotel Rooms to support the Hwy 111 and El Paseo retail corridors. A poorly thought out, short-sighted decision and vote should be, at the minimum, delayed. Regulation and oversight is the responsibility of the homeowner and the City of Palm Desert. Air B & B travelers are an economic force that is not going away. They will spend their discretionary lodging and retail dollars in other cities nearby and to the detriment of Palm Desert. What is the economic impact of losing the TOT Tax and Sales Tax revenues? Was an Economic Impact Report completed and delivered to the City Council? Case Hutchinson Palm Desert, CA 92211 JC's Cafe 73200 El Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-568-0733 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Sanchez, Gloria From: Toral Patel <toral.patel@airbnb.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:52 AM To: CouncilMeeting Comments Subject: Palm Desert City Council - Comment (Item 19) Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Airbnb Letter to Palm Desert City Council.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Thank you for the opportunity to provide inputs on the city's draft Short -Term Rental Ordinance - Item 19 on the November 19, 2020, City Council agenda. Attached is Airbnb's comment letter for your consideration. Best, Toral airbnb Tot-,d pLltC i pl'iiC V & ('_'on Iiiluni1 :L11to111 1 airbnb November 19, 2020 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Palm Desert City Hall 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Nestan le and Honorable Members of the City Council, On behalf of Airbnb, thank you for the opportunity to provide input as the City of Palm Desert explores changes to its Short -Term Rental (STR) program. Since 2008, Airbnb has worked closely with hundreds of cities around the world to help communities realize the key benefits of STRs for residents, visitors, and local economies through fair, balanced regulations. Our mission is to create'a world where people can belong through healthy travel that is local, authentic, diverse, inclusive and sustainable. Our accommodation marketplace provides access to about 5.6 million unique places to.stay in more than 100,000 cities and more than 2.20 countries and regions, including the City of Palm Desert. In 2019, Airbnb hosts in Palm Desert earned a cumulative total of approximately $10 million, and welcomed over 40,000 guests which helped support the local economy through transient occupancy tax; sales tax, and local business activity. We are concerned that the proposed ban on STRs in Planned Residential zones would have adverse economic impacts on hosts and the City. As you prepare to discuss this proposal, we want to provide information about our platform and host community, detail some concerns, and ask that -you consider continuing to allow STRs with reasonable limits. Protecting Quality of Life in Neighborhoods We appreciate that the City wants to protect public safety and neighborhood integrity, and stand ready to support your efforts to enforce regulations intended to achieve this goal. In November 2019, Airbnb took a stand against "party houses" and formally banned them from our platform in accordance with our policies. We went on to expand on that ban with more transparency about the policy, including a ban on "open -invite" parties as well as large gatherings in apartment or condo buildings. Since then, we have ramped up enforcement on this policy, carrying out penalties for violators in markets like Los Angeles, Florida, Australia and more. Many of these suspensions and removals have stemmed from issues raised to us by neighbors through the Nei hborhond Si)ppnrt Line. Launched in December 2019, this tool allows neighbors to reach Airbnb directly with'their concerns and has proven important in our efforts to combat unauthorized gatherings. To build on our efforts to crack down on "party houses" -- and in the context of the,ongoing public health crisis -- in August 2020, we announced a glohal han on. all parties and events at �jki.lit5ting , in accordance with our policies and in the interest of public health, until further notice. This was accompanied by a new occupancy cap of 16 people in a listing. This ban has been well received by our global host community, the majority of whom already prohibited parties in their listings' House Rules. We also took measures within our platform to promote responsible behavior such as removing the "event -friendly" search filter and removing any "parties and events allowed" House Rules in listings. In addition, we have a full-time team committed to engaging with. our law enforcement partners to assist with investigations of criminal activity and ensure the safety of our community. Law enforcement officials can submit both standard and emergency requests via our La�ac Fnforcement Portal. Significant Impacts to Hosts due to COVID49 The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact.on the travel industry, including STR hosts and small businesses who rely on economic activity generated by tourism in their communities. Based on a 2019 survey of Airbnb hosts, approximately half reported that their short-term rental income helps them afford their housing and make ends meet, Phasing out STRs in Planned Residential Zones will have a detrimental impact on residents who have come to rely on them to supplement their income, particularly at a time when the pandemic has created widespread economic uncertainty. Supporting Safe, Responsible Travel We know your leadership has, been critical in implementing health and safety measures that reduce the spread of COVID-19 and support the safe reopening of Palm Desert. At Airbnb, we are committed to working with local governments, medical experts and other authorities to help support COVID-19 response efforts and encourage our community to follow the latest local health guidelines. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently recognized STRs offer a safer travel experience relative to hotels, without the risk of commons spaces like lobbies or dining halls. Over the last 6 months, Airbnb introduced the first -ever overarching cleaning and sanitization guidelines in the home sharing industry and evolved our health and safety practices to help ensure Airbnb hosts are providing the best and safest stays possible. The Airbnb's Enhanced Cleaning Protocol was developed with guidance from leading experts in hospitality and medical hygiene including former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy. In an effort to reiterate our commitment to 2 responsible travel and the well-being of our communities, we recently announced all hosts and guests must commit to Airbnb's COVID-19 Safety Practices, which include wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and, for hosts and their teams, abiding by our fiye-sfer.enhanced cleaning process. This commitment will help safeguard the health and wellbeing of hosts, guests, their communities and governments. The new requirements will not only help bolster the quality of listings on our platform, they will also help hosts meet changing consumer demands. Now more than ever, guests are looking for the features that have made Airbnb unique — private homes beyond densely populated tourist and hotel districts with more space and more control over their environment. Medical experts like Dr.Thomas Russo, chief of the division of infectious disease at the University at Buffalo, agree that "staying in a private Airbnb... is the safer option." We wish to remain operational in Palm Desert and hope that your City is amenable to allowing STRs with limits. We ask that the City Council take into consideration the benefits of STRs to hosts and the community; as well as Airbnb's proactive measures to address quality of life and public safety concerns. Rather than ban STRs, we urge the City to consider allowing STRs with reasonable limits. Sincerely, John Choi Policy Manager 3 Sanchez, Gloria From: danielle friedman Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:16 AM To: CouncilMeeting Comments; Rocha, Grace; Sanchez, Gloria Subject: Homeowner letter to include on the record for today's meeting Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; STRletter.docx Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Good morning Council, Could you please include my letter on the record for today's meeting. I had sent this letter 9 months ago but it fell on deaf ears. I would like it included in the record today please. Best, Danielle Friedman 0 i -J 1 I am a single homeowner in the Palm Desert Country club (77040 Florida Avenue). I purchased my home in 2010 to serve as my primary residence. I had no intention of renting the house out short term until late 2016 when I decided that after being on the road for extended periods of time for work, I could make some additional income to put back into rehabbing the house. Once I was done on the road, I would move back into the house. But that all changed. In 2017 1 was diagnosed with cancer. I started spending more time in Los Angeles because I became a patient at Cedar Sinai hospital and visits to the hospital are quite frequent. I quit my job of 16 years due to the stress it has caused me and took a less stressful job in a completely different industry. Being able to rent my house out short term has been such a blessing. I have been able to make massive, much needed repairs on the house, pay my mortgage and be able to pay rent in LA. I want to retire in that house, it is my refuge. I love my home and if I can't continue to rent it out short term, I will most likely lose it. I can't afford to keep a mortgage and also pay rent in Los Angeles. I'm also accruing massive medical bills, which are only going to get worse over the next year (I start a new treatment next week). This is all very bad timing. Once I start chemotherapy next week, I won't be able to mentally or physically deal with the ban or how I'm going to deal with it. I am grateful that I have rented the house out for the next 3 months but after that, I am at a loss as to what I'll do. I have no idea what the immediate future looks like for me but I do know that if I go into remission, that will hopefully be a year, then I'll need another two years to get back on my feet. I'm not looking for a forever STR permit, I just need a few years to get my life back together financially. Thank you for your consideration. Danielle Friedman Sanchez, Gloria From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:17 AM To: 'Judy Swanson' Cc: Cody Carlson; Sanchez, Gloria Subject: RE: Letter for tonight's meeting re: STR Thanks. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner � Ph: 760.346,0611 Direct: 760.776.6485 -� kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Judy Swanson --- Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 9:46 AM To: Swartz, Kevin Cc: Cody Carlson _ - 7: Subject: Letter for tonight's meeting re: STR co November 19, 2020 Kevin Swartz Associate Planner City of Palm Desert RE: Short-term Rental Ban Please forward this communication to the Board for inclusion in November 19, 2020 meeting Responsible STR Hosting is my #1 TOP PRIORITY, and that priority is evidenced in my time, investment dollars, maintenance and upkeep of my property. Most importantly, it's the pride I take in this business and joy I create AND receive between myself and my guests. It provides my husband and myself a vehicle to make Palm Desert our retirement home in the near future and to share this beautiful community with others. My husband and I purchased a condo property in Palm Desert in January of 2014. We immediately fell in love with the community during a December 2013 visit to a very close friend who lives here permanently. We were several years away from retirement at the time, and the only way we could buy our retirement property was to rent it short term during shoulder and summer months. During the past seven years in talking with others doing STRs in the community, a majority of them have a story to tell that sounds just like mine. Our new condo neighbors hosted a dinner for us that first year and when I mentioned that we were going to do STRs, they were aghast. "No, NO! You don't want to do THAT!" Little did they know that this is a serious business for me, that I had a business and marketing plan, rental contracts and documents, security procedures, and I expected to get to know my guests on a first -name basis BEFORE they even set foot in my home. I thank Cody Carlson, who founded vronpd.or�,,, to provide a forum for STR owners to collaborate and to produce Best Practices Documents for BOTH Hosts and Guests. It is ESSENTIAL for STR Owners to work at being the best community partners possible. STRs allow people from the world over a birds -eye view of what everyday life is like in Palm Desert -- rather than a transient group of individuals seeing our community from a hotel -room window. The COVID-19 Factor The current pandemic has created a stressed, worried and fearful world. This summer, home owners in STR communities were on higher alert around out-of-town guests. STR guests were behaving poorly in their new- found freedom from their cooped -up world of urban living. This past summer produced one of the highest periods for city complaints. HOWEVER, after Labor Day those complaints dropped back to a more normal level. Unfortunately, the bad news always takes precedence over the good. This phenomenon that has everyone in attack mode will merely be a blip on the screen once the pandemic is contained. I believe that banning short-term rentals altogether or as a result of a time -related event requires careful research and input from the community as a whole. The negative impact it will have on property values (the majority of us depend on the income to maintain our property), and the related ancillary businesses that will falter (cleaning services, maintenance services, restaurants, golf courses, etc.) will be significant. I believe the best course of action is for STR owners or representatives to work with the city council in a constructive way to improve resident, host and guest experiences. Respectfully, Judy Swanson Sanchez, Gloria From: Jennifer DeSimone Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:11 AM To: Information Mail; CouncilMeeting Comments; Nestande, Gina; Kelly, Kathleen; Harnik, Jan; Jonathan, Sabby; Weber, Susan Marie Subject: please read at the 11-19-20 council meeting Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; STR ban letter 11-19-20 Jennifer (1).docx Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Please make sure my attached letter is read at the 11-19-20 council meeting during public hearing related to Ordinance 1360. Thank you, Jennifer DeSimone 1 To Honorable Mayor, City Manager, and Council Members My name is Jennifer DeSimone and I am a Palm Desert property owner, essential health care worker, and a short term rental operator. I am writing this letter in opposition of Ordinance 1360. As a registered nurse, I am fighting the COVID 19 pandemic with a strong team of doctors, nurses and staff that readily COMMUNICATE and find solutions and remedy's that are in the best interest of our patients and health care community. I have pleaded with all of you in the past to please COMMUNICATE with me and other short term rental owners on ways to find solutions and remedy's that are in the best interest of the Palm Desert community before implementing an ordinance. To this day, the city has failed to reach out to me to see what ideas and proposals I have implemented in order to better my neighborhood. Instead, I am notified via mail that an ordinance to ban short term rentals within non HOA PR zones is being voted on that was created by a city sub -committee in which myself and no other short term rental operator had the right to provide input or participate. The sub -committee states that we are the same type of owners with similar issues as the 2017 group. WE ARE NOT!!! STR's are crucial for families to maintain bonding and strengthen mental health. We have provided a healthy travel alternative versus heavy traffic hotels and lodges. We have welcomed essential workers to our homes in order to serve our city. It is clearly evident that there are different issues facing the Palm Desert community today versus three years ago and we should be allowed to provide feedback before an ordinance is drafted. The key is to work together to address issues and eliminate any problems through healthy COMMUNICATION much like we are doing to fight the Covid Pandemic in the health care setting. I hope that you reconsider the ban and allow me and other short term rental owners the ability to participate in a discussion before any ordinance is recommended or drafted. Sincerely, Jennifer DeSimone, MSN, RN Sanchez, Gloria From: Rebecca Flanagan Sent: Thursday, November 19LZU3O1O:5GAK4 To: [ounci/K4eeting[ommenb Subject: Please enter this letter inthe public record Attachments: VVesent you safe versions ofyour fi|ez'Notes_2O1119_1OS328_f91docx Mimecast Attachment P�oteoUonhas deemed this file tobesafe, but always exercise caution when opening files. TmWhom This May Concern, Please enter this letter into the public record for today's City Council Hearing. Thank you, Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, I appreciate your time and respect for listening to the community as we move forward to restrict Short Term Rentals to specific neighborhoods of Palm Desert and ban those in PR zoned, non-HOA neighborhoods. Realizing these are thoughts this may be similar to what you have before, I would still like it in the public record. I listened very intently to the pleas from short term rental operators in our valley at the last meeting in the beginning of November and have a factual and comprehensive counterargument to their claims of loss of revenue, jobs and tourisism to Palm Desert. 1. STR operators say that without their homes being rented, there would be a monetary loss to the Palm Desert communities when in fact, that is not so. There have been numerous polls and evidence to suggest that tourism will continue and people will visit the Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley to spend their money here regardless of whether some houses, in some neighborhoods are for rent. The Marriot is just one of many places that boasts a hotel plus villas to accommodate all travelers and there are plenty of other resorts that would love to have those visitors in their resorts where people expect unruly behavior and loud, partying guests. Additionally, people have vacationed here long before STRs became popular and will continue after this minor adjustment. 2. STR operators say that without their homes being rented, there will be a significant job loss and economic distress. Again, we can see the evidence that this is not true. People who clean and rent these homes also clean and rent homes in HOAs that do allow short term rentals and hotels and resorts that would be eager to hire more people to fill positions which they will need to accommodate the influx of people. Also, this particular recommendation only affects 69 properties out of the 779 total STRs which as you stated leaves 75% of the City open for STRs. 3. STR operators say that the City, in conjunction with themselves, will be able to find a better way to police the on -going parties, trash, and parking issues regularly associated with the "mini -motels" plaguing our neighborhoods. How can they possible control the raucous rude, loud and disrespectful behavior that happens not just once, but every single time houses are rented? Why do STR owners think that people who come from out of town to party or have a family reunion will in fact, not be loud and get inebriated? Indeed they should have a right to party, just not next door to people who have to work, want peace, or to live a normal life, free from the everyday loud music and parties associated with these rentals. I cannot stress to you the intrusive, horrible life that accompanies living next door to a short term rental. I again thank you for the thoughtful recommendations that take into account the balance of having short-term ' rentals in specific areas and not the four neighborhoods without the protection of an HOA. I know your decision is based on logic, reasoning and the factual evidence that banning short term rentals in non HOA, non- gated communities will not negate the taxable income the City receives or any tourist from visiting our beautiful valley. Thank you Rebecca Flanagan Sanchez, Gloria From: Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:59 AM To: Sanchez, Gloria Subject: RE: Public comment for Oct 29 city council meeting Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Leter of Opposition to Ordinance 1360 - Sharrow.docx; 2020-11-19 11-57.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Good afternoon Gloria, I wanted to provide this public input (attached) on behalf of my wife and I on the proposed Short term rental ban being considered at todays meeting. Can you please ask that this be read into the record? I also attached two pages of signatures (16 total) in opposition to the path the council is proposing. Thank you, EMU 1 Good afternoon, I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate my strong opposition to this proposed Ordinance 1960. Requiring a letter from an HOA specifically targets these 69 operators and disproportionately discriminates against PR zoned homes that do not have HOAs to provide authorization. It also further concentrates vacation rentals in HOAs that allow them. Why does the city claim denser vacation rentals decreases the quality of life, but then rush to enact legislation right before a new council is seated that will result in densification? This seems counterproductive to us. The subcommittee has declined to meet with advocates, despite many attempts to engage in the process. Attempts to request public information to support the various claims made in the staff report have not been answered and the conclusions have not been supported by factual, quantitative data. I also note that not a single person opposed to vacation rentals bothered to show up at any of the council meetings on this topic. Sending an email is not the same thing as showing up. CC'ing email addresses is not the same as wet signatures. Claims are made bystaff and by the subcommittee that the pro vs con arguments are identical to 2017, but we did not have Covid- in 2017 and the disproportionate treatment of homes in like -zoned communities is also a significant difference. The ban in R1 and R2 was universal. Here the ban only impacts homes that do not have HOA representation. So I have to ask, who is this council pressing forward so aggressively for? Why is this council so zealously persecuting these 69 upstanding businesses in circumvention of the 2017 legislation that has worked effectively before the Covid Crisis and why has the subcommittee refused to engage those they seek to disenfranchise with open and transparent presentation of data? City staff showed in the October meeting that there were "slight upticks" this past year. Why have requests for data to demonstrate this trend continued been refused? Does the council even know whether the trend continued or are you basing your decision on stale data? The legislation worked before the Covid crisis,there is no reason to conclude that it will not work again after the crisis. Thank you. Robert and Genevieve Sharrow Palm Desert CA 92211 We, the undersigned, believe STR is a crucial element to our beautiful City of Palm Desert; We know STRs help bring prosperity and attract tourism into this beautiful resort town. We stand with all STIR hosts and support all their efforts in continuing to attract guests from all over the world, while helping grow our economy, bring revenues to the city & particularly to all our business owners and restaurants. We believe. STRs need to be a part of the solution to help the community thrive. A commission should be formed with neighbors and owners to create a thriving short'term rental industry that is harmonious and mutually beneficial. Name Address E-mail Signature -7.7 S9 D MotA.n.-1.0 i V r' Al P'i .63 a' g A(_. r /s � %fi 0 rd We, the undersigned, believe STR is a, crucial element to our beautiful City of Palm Desert, We know STRs help bring prosperity and attract tourism into this beautiful resort town. We stand with all STIR hosts and support ail. their efforts in continuing to attract guests from all over the world, while helping grow our economy, bring revenues to the city & particulariyto all our business owners and restaurants. We believe STRs need to be a part of the solution to help the community thrive. A commission should be formed with neighbors and owners to create a thriving short term rental industry that is harmonious and mutually beneficial. Name Address Email Slgnaturg._, 2,tj 2 Shag1,3 "i"t S50 ►�u.Ute� tIE;l1G.s� 3D�4 /'n��/ m .�.rrl Qetrri:� .r. riI.�..d.. eAI:AA6%*= 'bGie%l Q ^J !7 Sri at. !)1 Q i a me ol,* yt,5 � 1 . jA.. �r— / - ty. - ?- ��%,( t Rocha, Grace From: melinda@melindaluthinlaw.com Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 3:46 AM To: CityhallMail Cc: Rocha, Grace Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, RE: Proposed Short - Term Rental Ordinance (Ord. No. 1360) to be considered at the November 19, 2020 City Council meeting. Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Itr 2020.11.19 MLLaw to PD.City Council Re Proposed STIR Ordinance.pdf Importance: High Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Please see that the members of the City Council receive copies of the attached correspondence regarding the Proposed Short -Term Rental Ordinance (Ord. No. 1360), which is presently set for consideration at the City Council Regular meeting today. If you have any questions, please call me that the phone number listed below. Melinda Luthin MELINDA LUTHIN LAW 2721 East Coast Highway, Suite 201 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949)673-1161 https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/yB7sClwzqbckkZvFLUaPq Ea a -r rt 1 M E LI N DA LUTH I N LAW November 19, 2020 Via Email (cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org) Hon. Gina Nestande, Mayor Hon. Kathleen Kelly, Mayor Pro Tern Hon. Jan Hamik, Council Member Hon. Sabby Jonathan, Council Member Hon. Susan Marie Weber, Council Member City Hall 735'10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Opposition To Proposed Short Term Rental Business Regulation Ordinance Dear Mayor Nestande and Members of the City Council: T represent Vacation Rental Owners & Neighbors of Palm Desert ("VRON-PD"), an organization whose members are homeowners and concerned citizens of Palm Desert. This letter summarizes some of the myriad problems related to the City Council's consideration of the Proposed Ordinance No. 1360 regarding Short Tenn Rentals ("STRs") in Palm Desert; which was included in the November 19, 2020 City Council agenda packet ("Proposed STR Ordinance 1360"). SUMMARY For reasons unknown to the affected persons or to the public at -large, the City Council is on a mission to ban STRs in the City. In an improper attempt to adopt a full ban by means of piece -meal amendments to the STR Rules, the City, which in December 2017, banned STRs in R- 1 & R-2 zoning districts now proposes to ban STRs in some, but not all residences located in the Planned Residential ("PR") zoning district. Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 contains a complete ban on STRs in properties zoned in Planned Residential ("PR") zoning districts if the properties are located in neighborhoods that do not have homeowners associations ("HOAs"). It also contains a ban on STRs at properties in PR zoning districts that are governed by HOAs unless the HOA provides to the property owner, a letter indicating approval for the owner to operate the property as an STR ("STR Permission Slip"). The STR ban and the STR Permission Slip mandate are completely arbitrary, have no rational basis or relationship to the goals of the City, are contrary to the wishes and opinions of nearly all of the public participants, and amount to unlawful government taking of vested property rights. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 2 (Alameda County Deputy Sheri js Assn. v. Alameda County Employees' Retirement Assn. (2020) 9 Ca1.5th 1032, 1074-1075.) The genesis of the draconian provisions in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 may never be known. Despite our relentless demands for public records related to STRs, including information regarding permittees, STR citations, and the documents City staff purportedly relied on in drafting Proposed STR Ordinance 1360, the City refused to provide any substantive information. The effects of Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 would be devastating. The proposed STR ban affects older neighborhoods, which will cause the present homeowners, who may more likely be seniors, to lose what may be their only source of income. This will undoubtably cause blight in these neighborhoods, while those who are fortunate enough to afford thousands in monthly HOA fees will be free to continue to rent their homes out as STRs. Banning STRs in Planned Residential communities that do not.have HOAs will defeat uniformity of treatment of residential property and increase the density of STR rentals in communities that have HOAs, which, in turn will increase the negative effects of STRs in these communities. The Proposed STR Ordinances were brought to the City Council in violation of virtually every local, state and federal law regarding municipal ordinances. In addition to the unlawful procedures by which Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 came about, the provisions contained in it violate local, state and federal substantive law. From violations regarding public records, failure to provide notice, and other procedural missteps, to substantive issues such as incompatibility with the General Plan, the Strategic Plan and the Municipal Code, violations of constitutional protections of property rights, arbitrary law -making, and councilmember and city attorney conflicts or interest and bias, to name a few, Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 may not be adopted at this meeting - - or ever. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE IS CONTRARY TO CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION AND CITY ASSURANCES In addition to falsely proclaiming that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is merely an implementation of an established City policy, the Staff Report falsely claims that the STR ban in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 has been adequately vetted and studied because, according to Staff, the considerations, studies and public input regarding the 2017 STR ban in neighborhoods located in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts is the "same" as the applying an STR ban to some, but not all Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 3 properties located in neighborhoods that are located in the PR zoning district. (SR p.6.) Staff is wrong. The PR zoning district is a unique district. Unlike R-1 or R-2 zoning districts, the purpose of PR zoning is "to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, and community facilities. The PR district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments." (Muni. Code, § 25.10.050.) The STR ban and STR Permission Slip Mandate does not fulfill these purposes. At the November 16, 2017 City Council meeting regarding banning STRs in R-1 and R-2 residential zones, City Attorney Robert Hargreaves assured owners that all other short-term rentals will be able to continue to operate, including those located in neighborhoods within the PR zoning district. (PD Min. Nov. 16, 2017.) Neither the City Council, nor the city attorney or staff gave owners of property in PR zones any reason to believe the proceedings that took place in 2017 pertained to their properties. In December 2017, the City adopted amendments to the STR ordinance that contained, among other things, enhanced fines. Staff was directed to report back within nine months with a performance evaluation of these enhanced fines. Staff's report in September 2018 indicated a significant reduction in violations and the collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, the majority of which were collected from unpennitted STRs. On April 26, 2018, the City Council approved a 14-month Professional Services Agreement for Short -Term Rentals (STR) monitoring, compliance, and enforcement services to Bear Cloud Software/STR Helper, Austin, Texas. Staff was to report back regarding the effects of the monitoring and enhanced enforcement. No council meeting minutes indicate staff ever reported back, and neither the public nor the City Council knows if this reduced any STR issues. At the September 27, 2018 City Council meeting, Mr. Hargreaves pointed out that "the staff report included matrixes [sic] and correspondence from residents who are in the PR Zoning Districts. Staff indicated in the staff report that ... there hasn't been an extreme amount of calls for service in those areas. At this point, staff is recommending a wait and see approach with the non - gated PR Zones." City Staff also stated that staff is "not seeing a high -volume of complaints Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 4 [arising from STRs in PR zones], so at this point, [the Council] doesn't want to over complicate things," by curtailing STR pen -nits in other zoning distracts. Staff credited pennitted STR permittees for conducting their STRs in a lawful manner. The City Council adopted Staff s recommendation to take no action. No one provided any factual basis for the City's decision to reverse course on these assurances, and none exists. In fact, staff reported in September 2018 that during the previous nine months, there were only one or two violations issued to permitted STRs. Nothing indicates that violations have increased at all. It is obvious that the City's effort to enforce existing regulations and to monitor unpermitted or otherwise unlawful advertising, combined with extended enforcement officer hours and enhanced STR fines, has been successful in alleviating many negative effects of STRs and eliminating virtually all violations related to permitted STRs. it is the position of VRON-PD that banning pennitted STRs will not provide any additional reduction in STR violations. Indeed, it is more likely that banning STRs will actually increase illegal STR rentals, which, in turn will cause more problems in all residential neighborhoods. City staff have presented no facts to support any of the provisions contained in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360.' STAFF PROVIDED NO VALID BASIS FOR ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE STR RULES The Staff Report Contains Unsupported And False "Facts" That Bear No Resemblance To Reality. Staff reports are intended to provide the council members and the public with factual history and the factual and procedural basis for any staff recommendations. City staff is entrusted to keep the public informed and maintain the integrity of City decisions and the process by which the City Council takes action. Here, City staff wholly failed in their duties. In creating the staff report for STR Ordinance 1360 ("Staff Report"), City staff not only played fast and loose with the facts, staff created an alternate universe. A brief examination of the ' The staff report includes purported statics regarding complaints, but provides no information as to actual violations. Evidence of complaints have no bearing on the necessity or desirability of the draconian provisions enumerated in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 5 history of STR Ordinance 1360 indicates that the vast majority of the facts and claims in the Staff Report is unsupported by the record and/or is outright false. The following are a few examplesz of the false statements and claims in the Staff Report. The false statements in the Staff Report are not merely typographical errors or a misplaced comma. Virtually all of the claims and "facts" in the Staff report are made up from whole cloth. No Citv Policies ReRardina STRs. "The City Council shall establish the city's, policies...." (Muni. Code, § 2.04.050.) The Staff Report claims City policies regarding STRs exist. This is false. 1 submitted a public records request for any policies regarding STRs and was told that the only "policies" are contained in the ordinances. My concerted efforts in reviewing past council minutes, ordinances, resolutions and council meeting minutes, found no City policy regarding STRs. If its not in the minutes, it didn't happen. (See e.g. Muni. Code, § 2.36.440.) No Citv Policv That The PR Zoning District Is The Functional Eauivalent Of R-1 And R- 2 Zoninsz Districts. The Staff Report claims that there exist, City "STR policies as they apply to PR neighborhoods that for all intents and purposes function the same as R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods." (Staff Report ["SR"] p.l.) This claim is false. No such policy exists and, as described above, these zoning districts are distinct and unique and do not all "function the same." Citv Council Made No Reauest For Citv Staff To "Reexamine" Anv Citv Policies. The Staff Report claims that at the August 27, 2020 council meeting, "Councilmember Jonathan requested, with concurrence from Mayor Pro Tern Kelly, a re-examination of [certain] STR policies...." (Staff Report ["SR"], p.1.) This is false. According to the minutes of the August 27t" City Council meeting, a letter was read at the meeting from members of the public who requested the council "plac[e] the issue of STRs on the agenda, rezon[e] the[ Hovely Lane] neighborhood to an R-1 Classification, stop issuing permits for STR, ban[] STRs, place a moratorium on any new and existing applications for STRs, and expressed their frustration with the party houses, noise levels, parking, overcrowded rentals, and lack of response from Code Compliance." (PD Min. Aug. 27, 2020.) After this letter was read at the council meeting, "Councilman Sabby Jonathan requested staff prepare an analysis and recommendation to Council for potentially amending the 2 This list is by no means exhaustive. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2026 Page 6 [STR] Ordinance to address the issues that have arisen. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly concurred, requesting staff specifically agendize a moratorium on issuance of further short-tenn rental licenses in Planned Residential areas without an [sic] homeowners association." (City of Palm Desert Council Minutes ["PD Min."], Aug. 27, 2020.) No request for "reexamination" of anything. No Mention of any "policies." City Staff created its own history. No One Identified Any "Irregularities" In Any Zoning Districts And No One Asked City Staff To Review Any "Known Irregularities." The Staff Report claims that at the August 27, 2020 council meeting, "Councilmember Jonathan requested that staff review a known zoning irregularity within PR zoning districts that do not have a governing HOA as it relates to STR use." This is false. According to the minutes of this meeting. no "irregularities" are even mentioned. Again City Staff created its own history. City Council Did Not Appoint A "Subcommittee" To Examine Anvthin2. The Staff Report claims that on August 27, 2020, the "[City] Council appointed Jonathan and Kelly to a subcommittee to examine [some unidentified] matter and bring back recommendations. (SR p.1.) This is false. The minutes of the August 27`" City Council meeting contain no mention of any subcommittee regarding STRs. The Non -Existent "Subcommittee" Carefully Studied And Took Into Account. Exactly Nothing. The Staff Report claims that the STR Subcommittee, "careful[ly] stud[ied] ... all public input, and [took] into account all policy directions set by the City Council in 2017...." (SR p.l.) This is false for multiple reasons. Aside from the fact that there are no City "policies" regarding STRs, aside from the fact that the City Council did appoint any Subcommittee and did not "set" any "policy directions," (whatever that means), after exhaustive attempts to obtain copies of the "public input," that the "Subcommittee" purportedly carefully studied, the author of the Staff Report, Kevin Swartz, who claimed to be a member of the "Subcommittee," admitted that the "Subcommittee" did not consider any written "public input." To make sure, 1 sent to the City Clerk, a request to inspect the "public input" the "Subcommnittee" purportedly carefully studied. The City Clerk, who was not a participant in any of the purported subcommittee meetings, sent a non -responsive response to my request and did not produce one document. It is apparent by the City's admission and response to my request that the subcommittee did not carefully study anything. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 7 Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Does Not Amend Anv "Policy." The Staff Report claims that that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is a "policy amendment." (SR p.1.) This is false. The City has made no policies regarding STRs, other than the policies set forth in the General Plan, which promote, rather than retard tourism and commerce. To the extent that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 purports to be an amendment to any City policy, it is invalid, as changes to city land use policies must be made via an amendment to the general plan land use element. Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Does Not "Protect" Developments That Do Not Have HOAs The Staff Report claims that that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 will "offer[] [unidentified] protections to those [developments] who [sic] do not [have HOAs]." (SR p.1.) The Staff Report proclaims, without any factual basis that banning STRs "offer[s] the protections desired by PR zoning districts that lack a formal HOA...." (SR p.2.) Both claims are false. First, PR zoning districts are just that... zoning districts. Zoning districts do not desire anything. Second, to the extent that the Staff Report means to proclaim that the residents in certain neighborhoods within the PR zoning' district desire protections that banning STRs will provide, City staff has provided no facts to support a claim that these residents need or desire any "protection," and no facts to support a claim that banning STRs will provide any of the unidentified purportedly desired "protections." Second, Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 eliminates property rights. It protects nothing. The Citv Did Not "Update" Anv STR Policies. The Staff Report claims that in 2017, a "yearlong city-wide policy update," occurred at the City. This is false. Despite my repeated requests and exhaustive searches, no document indicates that the City established any STR policies or that any policies were subject to an "update," yearlong or otherwise. City Council is Not Able To Make An Informed Decision Regarding Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. Because City staff failed to provide a complete, truthful staff report regarding Proposed STR Ordinance 1360, and because the Staff Report provided to the City Council and posted for public review contains false statements regarding material facts, it is impossible for the City Council to make an informed decision and impossible for the public to have been given notice of the City's consideration of Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. As such, the City Council must not Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 8 take any action on Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 until the Staff Report is corrected and completed and proper notice is given. City Council must not take any action on Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. "When any hearing is held on an application for a change of zone for parcels of at least 10 acres, a staff report with recommendations and the basis for those recommendations shall be included in the record of the hearing." (Gov. Code, § 65804.) After disregarding all of the false facts in the Staff Report, there exist no facts upon which the staff recommendations could possibly be based. Because the Staff Report contains unsupported and false "facts" that bear no resemblance to truth and fails to provide accurate information upon which the recommended STR ban could be based, the City Council must not take any action on Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. OVERT BIAS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is the product of overt and covert biased action targeting STRs. Council Bias. Councilmembers must not bring their personal bias to the meeting nor may they base their decisions on such bias. Here, several STR owners requested meetings and/or phone conferences with every council member. Not one council member responded to the multiple requests. Members of VRON-PD are informed and believe that at least one councilmember met with one or more anti-STR members of the public. The City Council members' blatant refusal to meet with any STR owners and their refusal to even return their phone calls or acknowledge their requests, combined with the council members' meetings with people who desire to ban STRs, indicates these councilmembers are biased and should abstain from voting on any STR matter, including Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. City Attornev Bias. City Attorney Hargreaves and his wife are zealously anti-STR. Mr. Hargreaves spoke fervently against STRs at multiple City Council meetings in Cathedral City. Attached are excerpts from some, but not all of the meetings where Hargreaves and his wife provided public comments virulently opposing STRs and requesting they be banned. (E.g. "a moratorium is imperative;" "STRs turn residences into mini -hotels;" "neighborhoods, like mine, are being inundated with STVRs and are turning into little hotel districts;" STRs have a "devastating effect on neighborhoods;" STRs "do not belong in residential areas;" STRs "bring Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 9 strangers into the neighborhoods and [Mrs. Hargreaves] never knows who is coming next. She also feels that no amount of money for enforcement can solve this issue and urged the City Council to put themselves in her shoes;" etc.) The pervasiveness of Mr. Hargreaves's bias has become evident. It has come to my attention that recently Mr. Hargreaves informed a recently -elected council member (who is receptive to listening to STR owners' concerns), that she may not participate or vote on Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 because she is not familiar with the issue. This is false. So long as, after reviewing the meeting videos and/or minutes and the staff report, the councilmember believes she is adequately informed, the council member is free to vote on the matter. The City Attorney has no business telling a council member when she may or may not be adequately informed. Similarly, it appears Mr. Hargreaves informed another City Council member (who is receptive to listening to STR owners' concerns), that she may not vote on Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 because she has a conflict of interest, namely that she belongs to a group that provides STR rental information to her for her real estate business. Being a member of a marketing group is not sufficient to meet the criteria for disqualification, as Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 will not have "a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally," on the council member's business or income, especially where, as here, the Staff Report proclaims that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 will not have a significant effect on STRs city-wide. Because these councilmembers are not disqualified for a conflict of interest, they have a duty to vote on the matter of STRs. (Muni. Code, § 2.36.310 ["Every councilperson should vote unless disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest"].) Notably, Mr. Hargreaves apparently has not opined as to the conflicts of interests of the City Council members who actually own rental properties that give rise to disqualifying conflicts of interest, perhaps because these council members are in favor of banning STRs. It is clear from Mr. and Mrs. Hargreaves's public comment and from Mr. Hargreaves's recent attempts to prevent qualified Councilmembers from voting, that Mr. Hargreaves's bias against STRs renders him incapable of performing his duties as City Attorney for any matter related to STRs. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 10 Citv Attornev Conflict of Interest. In addition to Mr. Hargreaves's blatant anti-STR bias, according to Mr. Hargreaves's 2019 Statement of Economic Interests, Mr. Hargreaves owns rental property in a PR neighborhood in Palm Desert. This is a conflict of interest in which Mr. Hargreaves must not participate in any matter regarding Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. Citv Council Conflicts of Interest. The City failed to produce current Statements of Financial Interest for multiple City Council members, which were due within the first quarter of 2020. From the Statements received, several council members appear to have a conflict of interest sufficient to require their recusal based on their ownership or interest in rental real property. For instance, it appears at least one council member owns property located in the PR zoning district that is governed by an HOA. The Council member would financially benefit from the STR ban, in that this person's rental property will be one of the few remaining properties eligible to be used as an STR. Similarly, another council member holds an interest in Shadow Mountain Golf Club located at 73800 Ironwood St within a PR zone where there are STR's advertised on VRBO. This person would financially benefit from passing Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 given the STR ban would cause an increased demand for STRs in places such as Shadow Mountain Golf Club. ` The actual conflicts must be addressed, ,and the incorrectly identified conflicts must be reversed. Because the City Attorney is disqualified from providing legal advice regarding this matter, VRON-PD requests that the City obtain advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding these council members' conflicts. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 IS AN IMPROPER ATTEMPT TO MODIFY ZONING UNDER THE GUISE OF REGULATING CITY BUSINESS LICENSES STRs Are Permitted Uses In PR Zones. Prior to the City Council's 2012 enactment and codification of Chapter 5.10 "SHORT-TERM RENTALS," of Title 5 `BUSINESS TAXES, LICENSES AND REGULATIONS" of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, the renting of any property on a short-term basis required a conditional use permit. When the City Council enacted Chapter 5.10, it repealed all parts of the Zoning Ordinance [Title 25] of the Municipal Code that mandated a conditional use permit for STRs, and permitted STRs in all residential dwellings located in any zoning district in the City. (See Ord. 1236, pp.3, 13, 14.) The Zoning Ordinance has not been subsequently amended to alter or restrict the permitted STR land use in any residential zoning district. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 11 Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is A Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance "govern[s] the uses of land and the density and intensity of development." (Muni. Code, § 25.02.010 C.) The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by ensuring "the orderly development of the City, and the elimination of haphazard land development." (Muni. Code, § 25.02.010 C.) The STR ban and Permission Slip mandate are the exact type of haphazard land development that the Zoning Ordinance seeks to eliminate. Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 proposes to ban a use of land (renting on a short-term basis) at all properties in PR Zones unless the property is in a community that has an HOA and unless such HOA provides an STR Permission Slip. Regardless of where in the Municipal Code the STR ban in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is proposed to be located, banning or restricting the use of residential property as an STR is a modification to zoning, like it or not. This is a change of land use or restriction within a district, which, by definition is a zoning ordinance. (Gov. Code, §§ 65850, 65853.) The Citv Mav Not Restrict Land Use Unless it Amends The Zoning Ordinance. City Staff believes that the City Council may regulate land use by means of amending a section of the Municipal Code that regulates Business Licenses. Staff is wrong. The City's only means to restrict land use is by amending the Zoning Ordinance, which is located in Title 25 of the Municipal Code. Unlike the Zoning Ordinance's purpose of implementing the General Plan's land use element, its purpose of uniformly regulating land within each district, and all the other land -use purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (e.g. Muni. Code, § 25.02.010 A. - D.), Title 5 of the Municipal Code regards business taxes, business licenses, and business regulations. Title 5 has nothing to do with land use regulations. Specifically, the purpose of Chapter 5.10 "is to regulate privately -owned residential dwellings used as short-term rental units, ensure that transient occupancy taxes (TOT) are paid and collected, and minimize the potential negative effects of short-term rental units on surrounding residential neighborhoods." Its purpose is not to modify the permissible use of land within a zoning district. That purpose is reserved for the Zoning Code. (Muni. Code, § 25.02.010 C [role of "Zoning Ordinance [is] to govern the uses of land and the density and intensity of development"].) The City may not lawfully ban a use of land (here, STRs) without modifying the existing permitted land use, which may only be done by means of amending the Zoning Ordinance. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 12 Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Is An Unlawful Attempt To Reizulate Land Use Without Amending the Zoning Ordinance. Despite the fact that all land use regulations must be contained in the Zoning Ordinance, Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 attempts to regulate the use of land under the guise of amending Chapter 5.10 regarding "business licenses." Despite its placement in Title 5 of the Municipal Code (`BUSINESS TAXES, LICENSES AND REGULATIONS"), Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 obliterates and restricts a permitted use of land. By definition, it is a zoning ordinance, which is subject to the requirements of the City's Municipal Code as well as the procedural and substantive rules of the Government Code. (Gov. Code, §§ 65850, 65853.) Despite the fact that the Zoning Code permits STRs at all properties in all zones, Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 bans STRs for all properties located in the PR zoning district that do not have HOAs, including those properties for which STR permits have been granted, while allowing other properties in the PR zone to be rented as STRs so long as the owners of these properties obtain a Permission Slip from the HOA. Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is an unlawful attempt by the City to restrict land use without properly following the procedures for a zoning amendment and without providing the required substantive justification. The City May Not Circumvent The Procedural And Substantive Requirements For Zoning Changes Under The Auspices Of Amending A Business License Ordinance. The Government Code sets limits on the substance of and procedures for enacting and amending land use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65850, et seq.) Any change or restriction of STRs must be made in the same mode as the original enactment of the Zoning Code (Johnston v. Claremont (1958) 49 Cal.2d 826, 835) and comply with the procedural and substantive rules of the Government Code. (Gov. Code, §§ 65850, 65853.) Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 does not comply with either. If The City Wishes To Ban STRs. The City Must Propose A Zoning Code Amendment And An Amendment To The General Plan. Banning STRs at some but not properties located within one zoning district is the exact type of haphazard land development that the Zoning Code prohibits. The City may not pretend the proposed STR ban is not a zoning ordinance and modify land use by means of amending a Municipal Code section regarding business licenses. The land- Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 13 use restrictions of the Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 should be proposed as amendments to Title 25, Zoning and to the General Plan. These proposed land use restrictions have no place in Title 5. THE CITY MAY NOT BAN STRS WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING AMENDMENT RULES The Municipal Code, the Government Code and the General Plan all contain restrictions and rules regarding zoning amendments and land use restrictions. For instance, the General Plan states, "Before ... the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary of the airport land use compatibility plan, [the] proposed actions [must be referred] for review, determination and processing by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission." If any PR properties are within planning boundary of the airport land use compatibility plan, then Proposed Ordinance must not be adopted without first following the above. In addition, "Notwithstanding any right of the Charter City of Palm Desert to govern independently from state law with respect to land use matters, the city of Palm Desert shall be governed in accordance with the terms of state law as regards to the application, interpretation and enforcement of land use, planning and zoning matters, including, but not limited to, the requirement of consistency between the general plan of the city and the terms of its zoning ordinances." (Muni. Code, § 1.02.070.) This means that the STR bans and Permission Slip mandate contained in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 must be consistent with the zoning ordinance, as well as the enforcement of land use, planning and zoning matters. The STR ban is not. The STR ban and the STR Permission Slip mandate contained in Proposed Ordinance 1360 fly in the face of the stated purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which is "to ensure that the zoning regulations will permit all similar uses in each district." (Muni. Code, § 25.72.020.) The Zoning Ordinance contains myriad substantive and procedural rules regarding land use regulation and zoning amendments. For instance, Zoning Ordinances and amendments must be presented to the council by the Planning Commission. (Muni. Code, § 2.20.040 D.; see id., Chaps. 25.72 & 25.78.) Proposed STR Ordinance 1360, which is a zoning ordinance by definition, was not prepared by the Planning Commission, nor approved in accordance with Chapter 25.78 of the Zoning Ordinance, as required. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 14 Because banning STRs requires a zoning amendment, the City must adopt an amended Zoning Map indicating the properties where STRs are banned. (Muni. Code, § 25.78.040.) This means that each time an HOA changes its mind regarding the issuance of an STR Permission Slip, the City must amend its zoning districts and amend its Zoning Maps. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE t1360 VIOLATES MYRIAD PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE The following are just a few provisions of the Municipal Code that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 violates. "Notwithstanding the provisions of [the Zoning Ordinance], no new or additional ... license shall be required for any land use heretofore authorized by the City ... by a ... license ... provided there has been substantial reliance upon the governmental entitlement mentioned in this chapter and, provided further, that conditions thereof are complied with and that substantial construction has begun on a portion of the project." (Muni. Code, § 25.02.030 G.) The STR ban and Permission Slip mandate, as applied to existing STR permittees, are expressly prohibited by the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission is designated "as the advisory agency to the City Council in connection with the administration of the State Map Act and Environmental Quality Act of 1970." (Muni. Code, § 2.20.040 E.) Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 contains no indication that the Planning Commission was involved with its purported CEQA evaluation, as required. Nor is there any evidence that the Planning Commission evaluated Proposed STR Ordinance 1360's compliance with the State Map Act. In violation of the rule that "Correspondence shall not be read aloud at a City Council meeting unless requested by a majority vote of the council," the City Clerk read multiple correspondences in favor of banning STRs but did not read correspondence that opposed banning STRs. The Municipal Code sets forth the circumstances that give rise to permit revocation and the means by which the City may revoke a permit. (E.g. Muni. Code, § 3.28.140.) Absent amendment to Title 3 of the Municipal Code, the City may not revoke any STR permit in a manner or upon a basis other than that identified in Title 3. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 15 PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 IS A PRODUCT OF UNLAWFUL PROCEDURES Notice Of Protosed STR Ordinance 1360 Was Not Properiv Given. Notice of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code must be properly noticed. (Gov. Code, § 36933). Compliance with the Brown Act notice requirements is not sufficient to provide the required notice. (Ibid.) The notice must contain specific information, it must be mailed or delivered directly to nearby property owners, and it must be posted. (Gov. Code, § 65091; e.g. Arnel Dev. Co. v. Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 524.) The "notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests." (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605.) No notice was given that contained the requisite information and no notice was delivered or mailed to all affected property owners. State law mandates, among other things, that the notice: be published in the newspaper; be posted at least fifteen days before the hearing, in at least three public places in the city; and be mailed to affected property owners. (Gov. Code, § 6500 et seq.) No such notice was given. In addition, "All local city and county zoning agencies shall develop and publish procedural rules for conduct of their hearings so that all interested parties shall have advance knowledge of procedures to be followed. The procedural rules shall incorporate the procedures in Section 65854 [of the Government Code]." (Gov. Code, § 65804.) Despite my multiple requests, the City failed to produce any such procedural rules and it appears no such rules exist or were followed. Failure to Provide Landowners Notice is A Violation Of Due Process. Government may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." (USCS Const. Amend. 14; Cal Const, Art. I § 7.) When zoning is enacted by the City Council, land owners by statute are entitled to notice and hearing. (Gov. Code, § 36933.) "[L]and use decisions which `substantially affect' the property rights of owners of adjacent parcels may constitute `deprivations' of property within the context of procedural due process." (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605.) Because the homeowners were not given proper notice, any vote regarding Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 will violate their statutory and constitutional rights. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 16 PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 WAS CREATED IN THE DARK "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." (Gov. Code, § 54950.) "The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny." (Cal Const, Art. I § 3, subd. (b)(1).) "The public's right to know is as fundamental as its right to vote. To act on truth, the people must be free to learn the truth..... The sun must shine on all the workings of government so the people may put their institutions right when they go wrong." (Rivers v. Superior• Court (1997) 54 Cal.AppAth 1048, 1053.) Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 was created behind closed doors, by persons unknown, at secret meetings that curtailed public input, and is contrary to the wishes of the people. All attempts to obtain information regarding the purported basis for the provisions in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 were futile. The City Clerk stated that information clearly within the definition of "public record" was exempt from disclosure based on abstract blanket exemptions that do not exist. The City Clerk claimed that the disclosable information would take weeks to compile and produce. If the information is not readily available to the City Clerk, then neither the City staff nor the "subcommittee" could possibly have based the provisions in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 on any relevant data. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 DOES NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN OR ANY SPECIFIC PLANS The Citv has Proffered No Evidence That Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Is Consistent With And Implements The General Plan. Land use changes must be consistent with the local general plan and must reasonably relate to the welfare of the affected region. (Gov. Code, § 65850; Muni. Code, §§ 1.02.070, 25.02,010B., 25.02.030; Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 28 Cal.3d 511; Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582; Muni Code, § 16.04.030.) To be "consistent" with the General Plan, the land use restriction Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 17 or modification must (1) be compatible with the General Plan, (2) not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies, and (3) include definite, affirmative commitments to mitigate adverse effects of the General Plan. (Napa Citizens.forHonest Government v. Napa County Board of'Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 342.) Here, there is nothing in the that indicates Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 implements and is consistent with any part of the General Plan. The Citv Has Proffered No Evidence That Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Is Consistent With And implements The Applicable Specific Plans. It is clear from the record that the City made no attempt to evaluate whether Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is consistent with or implements any Specific Plan, as required. Mvriad General Plan Provisions Indicate That Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Is Inconsistent With And Will Frustrate The General Plan. The General Plan states that Palm Desert is "a premier resort destination," and its "tourism market will remain a valuable core of our local economy." (PD Gen Plan pp.1, 2.) The General Plan also states that the city will "explore our opportunities to establish new industries, and enhance our community and improve quality of life for residents and visitor," and "will develop so as to be more welcoming and accessible to both its residents and its visitors." (PD Gen Plan p.2.) The General Plan also states that the City's goals are to create and sustain an "inviting economic climate" that offers "investment opportunities." (PD Gen Plan p.2.) Banning STRs will not implement and will frustrate each and every one of these goals. In addition, many STR owners have made vast improvements to otherwise tired -looking houses. Continuing to permit STRs will fulfill the General Plan vision of creating and sustaining "community revitalization opportunities." (PD Gen Plan p.2.) Banning STRs will frustrate this vision. The General Plan states that the City is a "premier destination for tourists, visitors, and shoppers," (PD Gen. Plan, p.22) and states that the City's "[p]riorities are to,improve access to the city and its attractions, ... to enhance the desirability of Palm Desert year-round, to attract new and developing markets (... cultural tourism, business,... emerging international markets and those for younger demographics), and to support Palm Desert tourism through enhanced marketing." (PD Gen Plan p.2.) Banning STRs is contrary to these priorities. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 18 The General Plan states that the City's goals include "Develop[ing] creative and innovative zoning and incentives to promote a variety of high -quality residential units that will also encourage a balance between housing and jobs." (PD General Plan, Rulemaking, p.208.) The General Plan encourages promoting "seasonal residents." (PD Gen. Plan, p.22.) Banning STRs will not implement and is contrary to effectuating these goals. "The Resort District also provides an opportunity for the City to capitalize on the part-time living and hospitality economic sectors." (PD Gen. Plan p.23.) Banning STRs will prevent this from happening. The Housing Element of the General Plan indicates that more than 30 percent of the housing is seasonal housing. (PD Hous. Ele. pp. 111-20-21.) Banning STRs could cause a glut in the rental market, and cause people to lose their homes to foreclosures. Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 cannot possibly be compatible with the General Plan. Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Is Not Consistent With And Does Not Implement The Economic Development Strategic Plan. According to the City website, "Palm Desert's existing economy is largely dominated by a few key industry clusters [including] []hospitality/tourism...... (https://www. cityofpalmdesert. org/departments/economic-development-/community-economic- profile.) In addition, "The Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) ... provides an assessment of existing conditions that drive the economy of Palm Desert and is intended to help local stakeholders and City staff implement strategies that contribute to the City's economic health."(11ttps://www.citvofpalmdesert.omfliomell'showdocument'?i(1-9273.) Banning STRs will cause financial hardship, will not assist "local stakeholders" and will not promote the City's economic health. The 2016 Envision Strategic Plan identifies the following: Priority 1: Improve access to Palm Desert and its attractions to enhance the ease of lifestyle. Measures of Success: • Increase in sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Priority 2: Grow existing events and develop new events to enhance the desirability of Patin Desert as a year-round destination. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 19 Measures of Success: • Adding annual year-round events on the established schedule • Increase in sales and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Priority 3: Attract new and developing travel/tourism markets. Measures of Success: • Increased sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). - Increased City staff and budget. • Completed Plan of Action. • Community stakeholder participation and sponsorships. Priority 4: Support the City's tourism industry through enhancement of its marketing efforts with an allocation of additional City resources, the development of partnerships, and coordination of existing efforts. (https:(;`www.citvofpalrndesert.orLlhome/showdocumcnt'?id-14089.) Proposed Ordinance 1360 does none of these. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 VIOLATES THE UNITY MANDATES State law mandates that land use "regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone." (Gov, Code, § 65852.). The purpose of zoning is the attainment of unity in construction and development. (Miller v. Board of Public Workv (1925) 195 Cal. 477.) A zoning ordinance must not unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land. (Reynolds v. Barrett (1938) 12 Cal.2d 244.) Banning and limiting land use in random areas within the same zoning district (here, PR) while allowing the same use in other areas within the same zoning district, obliterates the whole purpose of zoning and violates State and local law. The proposed STR ban for some, but not all of the residential properties within the city's PR zoning districts, the STR Permission Slip mandate, and the disparate treatment of STRs as compared to other properties in the same residential zones are arbitrary land -use restrictions that violate the law mandating uniformity laws among like properties. The proposed STR ban and Permission Slip mandate create an enforcement nightinare and give HOA boards unfettered power to act arbitrarily. First, it will be impossible for the City to verify the authenticity of the Pennission Slips. Second, valuable resources will be spent needlessly verifying which properties are governed by HOAs. Based on the City's poor record -keeping capabilities, this will become an impossibility. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 20 Importantly, granting HOAs the power to say which properties within a neighborhood may operate as an STR and which may not, is an unlawful usurpation of the City's police and land -use regulation power. The City may not relinquish its authority to private HOAs. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES VIOLATE THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT "Each local agency shall, by ordinance, regulate and control the initial design and improvement of common interest developments.... The local agency may by ordinance regulate and control other subdivisions, provided that the regulations are not more restrictive than the regulations for those subdivisions for which a tentative and final or parcel map are required by this division." (Gov. Code, § 66411.) The City's proposed STR ban at residential properties located in neighborhoods that are not governed by HOAs, while permitting STRs at properties governed by HOAs that provide Permission Slips, violates the Subdivision Map Act. (Ibid.) In addition, "In carrying out the provisions of [the Subdivision Map Act], each local agency shall consider the effect of ordinances and actions adopted pursuant to this division on the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated and balance these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources." (Gov. Code, § 66412.3.) The City made no such considerations or balancing. NEITHER PROPOSED ORDINANCE COMPLIES WITH CEQA State statute mandates that the City engage in CEQA evaluation before making land use J regulations. (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th ] ] 71, 1185.) The City engaged in no CEQA evaluation; it made no determination regarding the level of CEQA review, as required by State law. The boilerplate language contained in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 claiming that the City "has determined that the amendments to Chapter 5. 10 is [.sic] exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061 (b) in that the amendments to further regulate the use of short-term rentals will not have a significant negative impact on the environment," is not sufficient to comply with CEQA. The City must state and describe the reasons supporting this determination. (Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 CalAth 165, 184-185.) Where, as here the City determined that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is a project subject to CEQA, but concludes that the project is exempt from review, it must issue a notice of exemption citing the evidence on which it relied in reaching that conclusion. (Union of Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 21 Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of'San Diego (2019) 7 Ca1.5th 1171, 1186.) The City did not. In addition, city governments may not avoid CEQA evaluations by "chopping a proposed activity into bite -sized pieces which, when taken individually, may have no significant adverse effect on the environment." (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 73.) Specifically with respect to legislative action, a "project" subject to CEQA evaluation "means the whole of an action." (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 73.) Multiple government actions are considered one "project" under CEQA where the overall objections of the actions are related. (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 74.) Here, the 2018 STR ban in R-1 and R-2 zones, the 2019 and 2020 moratoria on new STR permits, and Proposed Ordinance 1360 all act to ban STRs. They are all part of one project that must collectively, undergo CEQA review. (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 74-75.) This means that the City must consider all of the ordinances as if they were combined as one when performing a CEQA evaluation. The City did not. Because CEQA review "is an integral part of any public agency's decisionmaking process," (Pub. Resources Code, § 21006), the City's failure to perform an adequate CEQA review renders any action on Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 void. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21005.) PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 IS UNLAWFULLY ARBITRARY AND WAS NOT BORNE OF ANY RATIONAL BASIS The STR ban and Permission Slip mandate in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 are arbitrary, have no rational basis or relationship to the goals of the City, and are contrary to the wishes and opinions of nearly all of the public participants. Government power to regulate use of property or conduct of business is not arbitrary. (Ex parte Hadacheck (1913) 165 Cal. 416.) A land use ordinance must not produce arbitrary or capricious results. (Arnel Dev. Co. v. Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Ca1.3d 511, 520.) An ordinance excluding any commercial use must be reasonable, and the exclusion must bear some reasonable relation to the public interest. (Sunny Slope Water Co. v. Pasadena (1934), 1 Cal.2d 87.) The proposed ban on STRs in some, but not all homes in the PR zoning district, and the Permission Slip mandate are arbitrary and actually cause a density problem. The City made no effort to evaluate the effect these provisions would have on the STR density in communities with Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 22 HOAs that are willing to write Permission Slips. It provided no information on the number of STRs presently located inside and outside these communities. It made no effort to survey STR owners that would be affected by the ban to see if they would sell their STRs and buy in a PR - Zoned community with an HOA in order to continue renting their property as an STR or if they would otherwise be forced to sell their properties and live or work elsewhere. It made no effort to evaluate the purported negative effect on an increase in density the ban would have on HOA neighborhoods or the potential for flight -and -blight that the ban will cause on the neighborhoods that do not have HOAs. It made no effort to provide data and analysis of the location of properties that have received citations, the types of citations that have been issued, or even the number of citations that have been issued. The City presented no facts indicating that the provisions in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 will have any positive effect or further the purported goals of the Proposed STR Ordinance. Instead, it appears that, with the blessing of the City Council, the City Staff created a ban on STRs that comports with the councilmembers' personal biases. A city's authority to regulate land use, although broad, is not unlimited. "A city's power to enact zoning regulation derives from the police power and, as such, zoning regulations must be reasonably necessary and reasonably related to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community." (In re White (1925) 195 Cal. 516, 520.) "To be valid, zoning regulations must be expressly or impliedly based upon a finding by the governing body of the municipality that such regulations are necessary for the general welfare of the community." (Friends of Davis v. City bf Davis (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1004, 1012.) The City made no such findings, as required. Municipal ordinances undertaking to regulate land use for business enterprises are subject to investigation in order to determine whether the regulations constitute lawful exercise of police power or whether, under guise of enforcing police regulations, the regulations amount to an unwarranted and arbitrary interference with a person's right to carry on a lawful business, to make contracts, or to use and enjoy his property. (People v. Hawley (1929), 207 Cal.395.) The City did not bother to identify any reasons for banning STRs anywhere, much less banning them only in areas that do not have HOAs and no valid reason exists. The General Plan, the public commenters, the majority of the STR neighbors, City Staff and even the City Councilmembers agree that STRs are a positive contribution to Palm Desert and their continuation is desirable and desired by the City and its residents. The fact that the City cannot produce any Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 23 evidence that a ban is necessary, prudent or even desired, the fact that the City has not provided any data regarding citations or evaluated the negative effects the ban would have on each neighborhood or on the City as a whole, is clear indication that the City did not propose Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 for the purpose of addressing any issues associated with STRs. The City's basis for contemplating or passing Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is arbitrary and unrelated to any legitimate rational basis for modifying land use. The provisions of Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 are equally arbitrary. There is no legitimate reason to ban STRs in PR Zoned neighborhoods except those governed by HOAs that issue permission slips for STRs. Where, as here, the provisions of an ordinance bear no relationship to any stated government purpose, the ordinance is unlawful. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 VIOLATE LAW PERMITTING LEGAL, NON- CONFORMING LAND USE AND THE BAN ON RETROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF LAND -USE RESTRICTIONS The Municipal Code specifically states that "Any use or development made nonconforming by new regulations, may continue that use" in accordance with Chapter 25.62 (Nonconforming Provisions) of the Municipal Code. (Muni. Code, § 25.02.030.) The City Counsel has no authority to overrule the rights contained in Chapter 25.62, which specifically permit continued use of land for five years after the adoption of an ordinance banning such land use. (Muni. Code, § 25.62.020 A.) And, "[t]he nonconforming use of a building may be continued, provided that such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended into any other portion of the conforming building." (Muni. Code, § 25.62.020 B.) Because STRs are presently permitted at all properties located in PR zoning districts, the use is permitted as of right by Chapter 25.62 of the Zoning Code and the City may not attempt to circumvent this right by amending a section of the Business Licensing Code. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION The government must not "deny .. any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (USCS Const. Amend. 14; see also Cal. Const., Art. I § 7.) "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." (Cal. Const., Art. I § 7.) Equal protection requires "that persons .similarly .situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment." (College Area Renters & Landlord Assn. Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 24 v. City of'San Diego (1996) 43 Cal.AppAth 677, 686.) "Although equal protection does not demand that a statute apply equally to all persons, it does require that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment." (College Area Renters & Landlord Assn. v. City of San Diego (1996) 43 Cal.AppAth 677, 686 [citing In re Antazo (1970) 3 Cal.3d 100, 110].) Where, as here, the provisions of an ordinance treat like property owners disparately, the ordinance violates equal protection. The Disparate Treatment in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Violates Equal Protection Laws. There is no rational basis to place restrictions on some properties (e.g. a ban on STRs) that are more onerous than those applicable to the house next door. Nor is there any valid basis to provide a two-year phase -out for properties located in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, but provide only a one-year Phase out period for properties located in PR zoning districts. The arbitrary nature of the phase -phase out period is especially evident, given the fact that the Staff Report recommendation to ban STRs in PR neighborhoods is entirely premised on the (unfounded) contention that the PR zoning district is essentially identical to the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Disparate treatment among like housing is impermissible. (College Area Renters & Landlord Assn. v. City of'San Diego (1996) 43 Ca1.App.4th 677, 688.) It is clear that Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 unfairly discriminates against properties not governed by HOAs or where the HOA refuses to provide an STR Permission Slip. By depriving these properties of vested rights without any logical basis, while permitting other residential properties in the same town to enjoy the rights deprived, the City violates federal and state statutory and constitutional law. Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 Unlawfullv Grants To Owners Of Some Properties, A Monopoly In STRs. A monopoly must not:be granted to business establishments and enterprises already situated in unrestricted districts under the guise of regulating business and segregating it to a particular district. (Wickham v. Becker (1929) 96 Cal. App. 443.) Prohibiting the existing and new STRs in all residential neighborhoods not governed by HOAs and at properties unable to obtain an STR Permission Slip from their HOA, will grant a monopoly on STRs to property owners governed by HOAs that provide STR permission slips. Where the plain effect of a zoning ordinance is to prevent all business within city except that of favored places already established, Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 25 and to grant to such places business monopoly, it is void. (Wickham v. Becker (1929) 96 Cal. App. 443.) This is the exact effect of Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. The Citv Failed To Provide Anv Legitimate Public Pumose For Enacting Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. Where, as here, an ordinance infringes on a person's right to contract, the government must support its action by proving it is based on a legitimate public purpose. (Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Assn. v. Alameda County Employees' Retirement Assn. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1032, 1075.) This requirement "guarantees that the [government] is exercising its police power, rather than providing a benefit to special interests." Because the City identified no legitimate public purpose in banning STRs at some properties located in the PR zoning district or in requiring Permission Slip for other properties located in the same zoning district, while allowing STRs at properties located in other zoning districts, these proposed actions are void. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 VIOLATES STATUTORY LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS REGARDING PROPERTY RIGHTS "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (Cal Const, Art. I § 1.) Regulation of use of property must rest upon reasonable exercise of police power, and restrictions that are unreasonable and unnecessary upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities may not be imposed. (Skalko v. Sunnyvale (1939) 14 Cal.2d 213.) In addition to offending the equal protection clauses of both the State and federal Constitutions, the provisions in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 that prohibit lawful conduct and curtail property rights, such as use of the back yard, violate due process, violate the Fourth Amendment of the State and United States Constitution, and are unlawful takings of vested property rights. The Proposed STR Ordinances Imnermissibly Take Vested Pronertv Rights. The City and its Council claim that the City may freely destroy vested property rights at any time. This is false. "The rights of users of property as those rights existed at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and have always been protected." (See, e.g., Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of'Supervisors (1996) 12 CalAth 533.) This is especially true where, as Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 26 here, the current local law specifically grants the property right that the proposed law seeks to take away. The City may not deprive STR permittees the right to carry on STR busines, especially, where, as here, the STR permittees purchased and improved their property and applied for and obtained their STR permits in reliance on the City's multiple assurances that STRs would be a continued permitted use at all properties located within the PR zoning district. The Citv's Phase -Out Plan Does Not Cure The Constitutional Violations. The City Council is aware of the Constitutional constraints in government taking of property rights such as STR permits and rights. (CC Min. Oct. 26, 2017, Nov. 16, 2017.) Even the City Attorney admitted that a phase -out period of less than two years is unconstitutional. (CC Min. Dec. 14, 2017, May 28, 2018.) Despite this, the STR ban in Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 beginning on December 31, 2021. This timeframe is not sufficient to allow STR permittees the opportunity to recoup their investments and realize profits from the fruits of their labor. This violates the constitutional protection against government taking of private property rights. The Citv Failed To Consider The Housing Needs Of The Rep -ion. The City shall consider the effect of any proposed land use ordinances on the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated and balance these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. (Gov. Code, §65863.6.) The City made no such consideration. PROPOSED STR ORDINANCE 1360 IMPERMISSIBLY INTERFERES WITH PRIVATE CONTRACTS The Contract Clause of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." (U.S. Const., Art. 1, § 10.) Municipal ordinances must comply with the U.S. Constitution's contracts clause. (United States v. New Orleans, 98 U.S. 381, 25 L. Ed. 225, 1878 U.S. LEXiS 1394 (1879).) "The obligations of a contract are impaired by a law which renders them invalid, or releases or extinguishes them." (Home Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 431; see also, Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gatewav Tenants Assn. (2001) 26 CalAth 1013, 1056, fn. 12.) Implementing a ban on short-term rentals commencing December 31, 2021 unconstitutionally impairs existing contracts that STR permittees have with rental listing websites and short-term rental tenants. (USCS Const. Art. 1, § 10, Cl 1.) Palm Desert City Council Letter Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning STRs November 19, 2020 Page 27 As previously stated multiple times, VRON-PD would be happy to meet with the City staff and/or City Council in order to create viable, effective changes to the STR ordinance that will promote the continuance of STRs in all neighborhoods and address actual issues associated with STR operations. Although future regulation and enhanced enforcement may be appropriate, Proposed STR Ordinance 1360 is inappropriate. For all of the above reasons, the City Council must not adopt Proposed STR Ordinance 1360. Yours truly, Melinda M. Luthin, Esq. of MELINDA LUTHIN LAW cc: Grace Rocha, City Clerk, s:rocha(ci.'),citvoipalmdesert.ora ATTACHMENT 411 Cathedral City • CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Study Session Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4:30 PM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 4:30 PM by Mayor Mark Carnevale. • ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Mark Carnevale Mayor Present 4:30 PM John Aguilar Mayor Pro Tern Present 4:30 PM Raymond Gregory Councilmember Present 4:30 PM Ernesto Gutierrez Councilmember Present 4:30 PM • AGENDA FINALIZATION • STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK 1. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no members of the public that wanted to address the City Council. 2. STUDY SESSION A. Results of Upper Cove Street Light Survey Recommendation: Results will be presented from City Staffs polling of residents in the Upper Cathedral City Cove on the question of keeping and/or removing the existing street lights. The presentation is for information, discussion and direction. John Corella, Director of Engneering/Public Works, presented the results from the polling of residents in the Upper Cathedral City Cove on the question of keeping and/or removing the existing street lights. He reported that of the 51 homes surveyed, 75% (38 of 51) of the residents responded with the remaining 25% (13 of 51) of the residents neither answered the door nor responded to the mailed out surveys. He stated that 16% (8 of 51) of the residents wished to Robert Rodriguez, Director of Planning/Building, gave an overview of the process for compliance and complaints related to the Short-term Vacation Rental Program. Dean OConner, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He stated that he has short term vacation rentals on both sides of his residence. He is having quality of life issues due to the short-term vacation rentals and would like to see a moratorium put in place and increase the compliance. Terri Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She urged the Council to place an immediate moratorium on issuing any future short-term vacation rentals until the City has conducted a comprehensive study, with ample citizen input. This will ensure sure short-term vacation rentals do not destroy the residential character of Cathedral City neighborhoods. Danny Lee, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with the short-term vacation rental program and the communication process between residents, realtors and HOA's. He also expressed his concern with the saturation of short-term vacation rentals in neighborhoods. He encouraged the Council to reevaluate the program. Ed Emond-Worline, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He stated that he supports a moratorium on short-term vacation rentals. He feels that the City is becoming very dense in terms of short-term vacation rentals. He feels that the neighborhoods that have CC$R's prohibiting short-term vacation rentals are life savers for them. He feels that the quality of life is being degraded because of these rentals. He also feels that Code Compliance takes the soft approach and should take a harder approach and utilize the stiff tines that were put into place. Sara Keskey, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She shared her experiences with a short-term vacation rental property behind their house. She feels this short-term vacation rental property is intrusive. She feels the hotline is not consistent and the current system is not working. Residents are not happy. Bob Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He stated that they have been happy residents of Cathedral City for more than 30 years until about 8 months ago. They now have a short-term vacation rental property behind them that has impacted their quality of life. Over time they have worked with the property manager to mitigate some of the issues. He feels that having too many short-term vacation rentals in one area destroys the character of the neighborhood and it is no longer a neighborhood. John Rivera, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He stated that he is not affected by short-term vacation rentals, however, he can appreciate the comments that have been made. He feels that it is worth reexamining the rules in order to make this work. Councilmember Raymond Gregory stated that based on what the Council has heard tonight there are serious concerns and it is definitely a problem. He feels that we need to re -open this issue and have the Task Force begin reviewing the Cathedra! City Page 3 Printed on 6/20/2019 I 2.B.a I May 26, 2019 Honorable Mayor Mark S. Carnevale and Cathedral City Councilmembers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 Dear Honorable Mayor Mark S. Carnevale and City Council Members: We are writing today to ask that Cathedral City impose a moratorium on new short term rental (STR) permits while the city undertakes a comprehensive study of the impacts that STRs are having on our community. Because of the restrictions imposed in other desert cities, Cathedral City has become the target of opportunity for STR owners. Cathedral City is experiencing a surge in new STR permits and complaints, and unless the City acts now to control the impacts and density of STRs on our residential neighborhoods, the City likely will face the turmoil that other cities have experienced. According to our public records requests, active STRs increased from 268 in January of this year to 339 the beginning of May —this equates to a 26% increase in just a matter of four months. (See the map of STRs prepared using the January data.) But if the pending applications for STR permits (60) are included, this increase is almost 50%. Complaints also have surged-53 complaints were lodged in the first four months of this year. Other cities have found that most disturbances are not reported. The quality of life of the City's residents can be greatly impacted. Unless tightly controlled, noise � impacts are inevitable, as short term vacation renters often come to party. When STRs become too numerous, they change the character of a neighborhood. Neighborhoods become dominated by itinerant strangers, not neighbors. STRs turn residential homes into mini -hotels. Additionally, housing prices become inflated and the losers are long-term residents who face higher costs as housing units are shifted from long-term rentals to short term accommodations. 301 Cities throughout the United States and world have banned STRs from residential neighborhoods. (See the accompanying articles. A more comprehensive report prepared by Josh Bivens, director of research of the Economic Policy Institute can be accessed at: httDs://www.e pi.ore/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benefits-of-ai rbnb-no-reason-for-loca l- policvmakers-to-let-airbnb-bypass-tax-or-reaulatorv-oblieations/). Locally, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage have banned STRs (with limited exceptions) from residential neighborhoods. Palm Springs has severely restricted them. in the cases of both Palm Desert and Palm Springs, the cities did not tackle the problem until neighborhood opposition became fierce, leading to a ban in Palm Desert and strict controls in Palm Springs. Cathedral City must act now to avoid the uproar faced in other cities. The City should impose a moratorium now on any new permits and initiate a comprehensive study with ample citizen input to make sure that STRs do not destroy the residential character of Cathedral City neighborhoods. Sincerely, Y,W, ��- Teri and Bob Hargreaves 68835 Minerva Road, Cathedral City CA 92234 Packet Pg. 15 % �e g.a r^ i► V V, PPI VAN s q �i OAX PPS � cfi Q C r t �"�. �r ?PUN 714tV,�,4 atPg. A6 S Up 2.B.a � � O �1 i -:Lkamr* CO. rj SW JUAN IR \�' �;� ,� j �!' 1 �� �, emim TR SwL&HT TR -'e 6S_ CFMSM RD r -.V WNW DR cc Cm Cr 21 IRANW TRANS AM!' LANMw RLVD CL wr [IV AVENISA LA PAZ Co LOUGO OR t AVENIDA LA PAUOM LA amOTA vmjsmiN(l PAIM'm 41 LX-wm&m— i cc AVENICA EL MUM L) AVENDA EL PUEBLO WKUM 9. % ____ ' j * - -_ —44-: J -%IN W!, FMW'AUA r AMMA VALCM A u SUMN Ca j�— = j _ AVM10A litwo &VENIDA ALVERA �_ _ —70- AVENIDA JUAREZ r AYENtrA DEL YERMQ- E T7 AWMDA LOS PODS AibomA LA mink 1ATE PAW OMM. as 6s" CA SIERRA, FL SM YMM ME (-% jjq� Packet Pg. 17 om EL,,,v R,,E is* on I nj t5E t5E t C�0 19 YCNINIEY PLACE 1T HOME NASNINUE I , � flDCBEvgT ��� t8 PLACE 18 TAFT PLACE _ 2 tT o 1 %tCttt\ 21 WSHINGTON SiAEEr - PP WILSON PLACE , If 1 �e' t T— I�3 e_ I IMEY au Is v _G r— _ 72 REZ ie Q F PEREZ RO I�II�II� aAVE LALA 0,E.RMR.WMM 10 AST O • 5T 1 o I 0 ST �I COE TAM" AW MMA Ctiq�if>R1E � WOOD l �y 4 V 241A 41EJ0 24 YMBrO0 \4 L_KLE RpWJhH LYw GUOM Y ROGERS ^�\� I am" Sr J Sf EM I= i GM'oROR RD I SM1 JhCTRO I Rn j II ' , 4 4 � 1, � _ q� I. 11(LST TERRACE , J SEEKER ALAoE NE TERRAeE RD � DANCE LANE — �I +IMOO Lt1 ` 1 1 1 _- �I I k] = 9WIPlESS R�Q O �"r�AAJlII JJJIII »f22YJJYYJII — RAC s TRFiV^URE Tit I LAS I In WOE c S I YODMMIE DR dMNIM AVE LN I L2tME I Fi rl-%Yrr,-�4 it --A� Oi Attachment: Short term rentals letter to Cathedral City (1581 : Update- Short -Term Vacation Rental Program) ' I ' 1600 80 N Attachment: Short term rentals letter to Cathedral City (1581 : Update -Short -Term Vacation Rental Program) TNA W +a + CI�u r ­ 1.3ZN3HWYA Ivt 'a vlh OWIN VA ��J f is Wsod Kah-L. , kill, ts n wa 3wm tie -gat -dkL—os r um An as win SAADTI VAI I�7D!`I C kI-C. Klu RKDULI IUJ A;iD leaPay;eO O; J9401 Sle;ueJ WJ8; :PoNS :;u0W438;;b (wuJ60.1d MUM u014eOen wiel-;aoyS -olupdn : mO m 00 f —=mum A 4N IDFAFA EWE sw( A f +�1i f MATISST OR k �V � I MC WAY M/N-6/10 RIO COLORADO ROAD MCKINLEY PLACE R-6/7 RIO DEL SOL ROAD MECCA DRIVE R-9 RIO DULCE ROAD MEDANO ROAD 5/6 J-5/6 RIO FELICIA ROAD MEGAN COURT RIO GUADALUPE ROAD MELANITA DRIVE J-6 RIO LARGO ROAD MELROSE DRIVE S/T-7 RIO MADRE DRIVE MEMORIAL DRIVE 0-10 RIO NACHES ROAD MERIT PARKWAY Q/R-8 RIO OSO ROAD MESA VIEW DRIVE R-9 RIO PECOS DRIVE MIA PLACE M-5 RIO ROSALIA DRIVE MINERVA ROAD L-8 RIO SILVERADO DRIVE MIRA VISTA DRIVE 0-10 RIO VISTA DRIVE MIRAGE DRIVE R-9 RISUENO ROAD MIRISMA WAY S-9 RIVIERA ROAD MISSION COURT N-5 ROBERT CIRCLE MISSION DRIVE N-5 ROCHESTER ROAD MISSION INDIAN TRAIL 0-7 RODEO ROAD MODALO ROAD M-7 RONALD COURT MOLINOS COURT K-7 ROOSEVELT PLACE MONET COURT S-10 ROSEMOUNT ROAD MONTE VISTA ROAD 0-8 ROUNDUP ROAD MONTE VISTA WAY 0-10 RUBY WAY MONTY HALL DRIVE S/T-8 MOONLIGHT DRIVE U--7/8 - S - MORENO ROAD P-8 SAGE LANE MORONGO ROAD P-8 SAINT ALBERTS DRIVE MOUNT ARARAT DRIVE Q-8 SALEM ROAD MOUNTAIN SHADOW LANE T-7 SAN ANTONIO DRIVE MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD E-7 SAN ARDO AVENUE MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD U-7 SAN DIEGO DRIVE MUIRFIELD WAY M-9 SAN ELJAY AVENUE MYRTLE DRIVE P-9 SAN FELIPE ROAD SAN GABRIEL CIRCLE - N - SAN HELENA AVENUE NATOMA DRIVE K-5/6 SAN JACINTO ROAD NAVAJO TRAIL O/P-7 SAN JOAQUIN DRIVE NEUMA DRIVE N-9 SAN JOSE DRIVE NIGHTINGALE ROAD U-8 SAN JUAN TRAIL NILDA DRIVE R-9 SAN LUIS REY DRIVE NORTADA DRIVE J-5 SAN MARTIN STREET NORTH PORTALES K-6 SAN MATEO DRIVE NORTH WASHINGTON R/S-6 SAN SUSANNA AVENUE NORTHHAMPTON AVENUE M-10 SAN SEBASTIAN COURT NOTTINGHAM DRIVE M-10 SAN VICENTE AVENUE SAN YSIDRO AVENUE - 0 - SAND CREEK OASIS DRIVE R-9 SANDIA COURT OASIS PLACE R-9 SANDY COURT OBREGON COURT L-8 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE OCATILLO ROAD P-8 SANTA ROSA STREET OFFICER DAVID VASQUEZ ROAD S-8 SANTELMO ROAD OLANCHA ROAD P--8 SANTIAGO ROAD OLEANDER DRIVE 0-10 SANTORO DRIVE ONTINA ROAD J-5/6 SAPPHIRE WAY OPAL WAY L-5 SARAH STREET ORANGETREE LANE 0-9 SATINLOAF DRIVE ORONTES WAY S-9 SAVAGE DRIVE ORTEGA ROAD P-7/8 SAWGRASS ROAD OSCEOLA PLACE M-9 SCARLETBUSH DRIVE CITTAWA STRFFT R-A ..�...,.. ..,...,� .�D W SHORE OR .. PAW GAD'DN %tW EL DDRADD 1 ALISC DRIVE 2 CLUB CIRCLE DRIVE G CORWVA COUNT 4 CORDXA DRIVE XDNTM 6 COYOTE DRIVE 6 CESERT ROLE DRIVE 7 ENCINO DRIVE 6 PIGWRO DRIVE 9 DUAY" DRIVE 10 KA019MDA DRIVE 11 JUNIPER DRIVE 12 LA INCINA DRIVE 18 LAREDO DRIVE 14 LAS HOPES DRIVE IS LDS PIMM DRIVE III 1 II 4I1 II. II 11 II II 11 11 11 II II 11 ll 11 Ifl (wea6oad MUM uoi;eoen wieklJoyS -aaePdfl wsO Amo levay;e3 of as;jai she;ua.+ waa; voyS wowyoew N U- I�IUUUUUU " NAl1DNE wr a - C2— • l VIA COU7 191 5 C3— a I-4— � 33 0. -WE - 4 — - I VIA BENICIA L CEDAR RD I Y VIA FELIZ y VIA PRESYD 3 n 4 VIA GRANGE 7f {yY. 5 VIA YEE I =J C I I 6 VIA 4 EV LLE QCAIIUD RD 7j l7 a 7 VIA VERDNCED VIA 1fOtA 1 a o I S a so YID PLAYA V III. z ;, 1 YD 1C0 RD ,I YU WACUS r 3 12 11 VIA VIA PPADCO {L WEM oRIEQA Im j DYNE Kai" RD - ' - ARRDM'HEN RD f O DIANCRA RO . \ 34TH AVE _�� DDi-M stm *1 > DOM — — LAKELA D DR 1� — SE711ES OR DR l SA1YAGE 1 — — W W s O \ i 91EPARD DR S 4 — O ME PL � ct ZMArFAIMOA- 7L-I �� COffiEUOR DR CAMIE z WAW I W— _. Q � nRInR eu a I1 a & _ 16 OLIN" DRIVE --- 17 � 18 SAGUARO DRIVE 20 SAN DDXIN60 21 YUCG DRIVE I ANVIEi1 A PlA[E 2 ARTND TtIUR BUCKAMAN PLACE 4 CLMUUID PLACE 5 CDCLIDGE PLACE 6 EISEMMDIER PLACE 7 DARFIELD PLACE 8 WARDING PUKE 8 fI M PLACE 1D MANRISDN PINE ' 11 NCDVFR PLACE 12 IKE'6 PLACE iG JGM &GM PLACE 14 KENNEDY PLACE E CE /IGH >� Arnnn,l ��-NC CALLE �1uuJ;uL.LL � Tar CCU EA1NA R � WIQ Cu18 RQ svum sLroW u+ IJI � S C ZORITA ' ' SYWIIAGQ � �.ALM.��1 I I If-7f if 11 1 r (WUJGOJd lElUaa U014UDUA wJal-lJOyS-aaepdn 24 ,--• �,/ OUTDOOR RE8ORT8 12 1 — i 1 BOAR000 DRIVE- 2 CACLANE S CUFL LANE DESERT , A FIFID DRIVE CR FIG fi FIDRIVE _$HADONS 1 AOAM DRIVE —41 a GOLF COURSE CIRCLE 7 GOLFCOME DRIVE B GOLF COURSE LANE 2 ILMIE PAY— a ALTA VISTA DRIVE _ 4 BUENO TEPRA MAY S COROOBA WAY 9 DRIVE 10 HIBISCUS DRIVE 11 NAP" DRIVE 6 BANAY CAM 7 DEL LIDO MY , 24 5 7 7 12 MYRTLE DRIVE a DESERT SHAODM9 DRIVE — OER DRIVE 1: M J� U PALOLEM 15 PALM BOULEVARD L �-E'bWE 16 PERAYYINIO.E DRIVE — 10 uwrs rAY _ — FA DRIVE 11 ALFALFA ORIYE , ALFALFA 12 DUTCH DRIVE B 71 17 PRINCEMDOD DRIVE 13 DM DIRIYE 16 OUR GANG CIRCLE J 18 PRIIRDSE CIRCLE 10 SW LANE 20 RATINLOAF DRIVE _ 16 PORKY DRIVE 18 RASCALS CIRCLE 4 221 2 SWACE VE H DRIVE 17 SPAN" DRIVE 17 SPAN" E WAY , RIVE ' I — J U lJ , 24 SR2ELGME0 GIRDLE 24 SUNtETE CIRCLE 26 SUNSET DRIVE 11y�I 2 20 TENNIS COURT DRIVE — 27 TENNISWASHKT COURTRIAD LANE =���J 28 BAfilNTDNIA GIVE M a— a — ,MORE ors �1 SUNMEST CIR K n — ASHLFY Cf e1eTTrar CT i 3 � , %r ROYAL PAlY9 1 UILdN DRIVE R S UFFALO S�1L AVE ; 9 WrrERFIELO • COLEYM CIROLE - -� D COYOTE — VERA DR } _ B LITTLE DEER 1 7 PRAIRIE it , B SMEEK g, STANDING BEAR 51 10 POST 3 I TRADING i V NLDA _ 11 WOLF I/VIE WOLF LANE CALIENTE 6M@9 1 BROMBARY CIRCLE � > z ouxFa eIRxLE a NE1CII.A DRIVE 4 USA VIEW DRIVE S MIRAGE DRIVE C�IYE0.SE S 0A8I8 DRIVE , SOUTH m1lLr�m 31 l — 7 DRIVE B OASiIGa PLAN SOUTHW i f l a ow. — I 1 6996) A1!o le*8141e3 01 Ja;;al sluluOJ wJa; IJ04S :}UOLULPO ;y I I — K — PASEO MALAGA KAREN STREET V-7 PASEO PERDIDO KATHY DRIVE U-7 PASEO REAL KITH AVENUE M-6 PASEO SORIA KEMPER COURT M-9 PATRICIA CIRCLE KEMPER ROAD M-9 PAULINE AVENUE KENNEDY PLACE R-6 PAUL ROAD KENT PLACE M-10 PEACHTREE COURT KENWQOD DRIVE M-10 PEGGY WAY KIELEY ROAD S-7 PEINETA ROAD KINGS ROAD T-7 PELADORA ROAD KNOLL VIEW CIRCLE V-7 PEREZ ROAD KYLE ROAD S-7 PERLITA ROAD — L — PERRYWINKLE DRIVE LA MEDERA J-8 PICASSO COURT LA PALOMA DRIVE L-10 PICKFAIR STREET LA VISTA COURT K-6 PINE PLACE LAGOS WAY L-6 PINNACLE DRIVE LAGUNA COURT N-5 PLACID PLACE LAGUNA DRIVE L-5/6 PLAZA DRIVE LAKELAND DRIVE Q-7 PLEASANT GROVE LAKEVIEW CIRCLE N-5 PLUMLEY ROAD LANDAU BOULEVARD J/N-7 POMEGRANATE LANE LARSON DRIVE 0-8 PORKY DRIVE LAS BEGONIAS S-9 , PORTALES DRIVE LAS CAMELIAS S-9/10 PORTER DRIVE LAS GARDENIAS S-9/10 PRAIRIE LAS TUNAS WAY U-8 PRIMROSE CIRCLE LILLIE CIRCLE V-7 PRINCEW000 DRIVE LINCOLN PLACE R/8-6 PUEBLO TRAIL LINDA WAY Q-9 LITTLE DEER Q/R-8 — Q — LOS GATOS ROAD K-7/8 QUIJO ROAD LOZANO COURT L-8 QUISTA COURT LYTLE LANE U-7 — R - - M — RAMON PLAZA MADRID ROAD J-7 RAMON ROAD MALIGNE WAY 0-7 RANCHO ALDEA MANSFIELD WAY M-10 RANCHO VISTA DRIVE MANZANAR COURT K-7 RANGO ROAD MANZANITA COURT L-10 RAPOSA ROAD MAPLE DRIVE P-9 RASCALS CIRCLE MARCIA ROAD Q-9 REED CIRCLE MARGATE WAY M-10 RIDGEWAY AVENUE MARIA ROAD R-9 REGENT STREET MARTFTTA CTRCIF V-7 RIO ARAPAHO ROAD 2.B.a Opinions Is Airbnb taking over the hotel business? Here's the latest on Airbnb's three -pronged battle against municipalities, hoteliers and housing advocates. By Robert Rauch and Sarah Andersen In 2008, when Airbnb was founded, the company's platform was based on offering peer -to -peer room, apartment and home sharing as a way for people to earn extra cash. The company's rapid success came in part from the fact that it operated in an unregulated arena, able to avoid many of the legal requirements placed on hotels. However, there has been a shift over the past few years as the platform continues to face increasing regulation and scrutiny by municipalities, hoteliers and housing advocates around the world. Although perception might lead some to believe these regulations arc being driven by hoteliers, restrictions are mainly supported in the name of protecting afiurdable long-term housing. A study last year from McGill University estimated that Airbnb and similar nightly rental companies increased long-term rents in New York City by 1 A% over the last three years. The study found that Airbnb has removed between 7,000 and 13,500 units of housing from New York City'slong-term rental market Additionally, worldwide short-term rentals grew more than 80% from $46 billion in sales in 2012 to $83 billion in 2017, Now we can't sensibly attribute that yearly increase entirely to Airbnb, but it has been identified as a major influencing factor. How cities are responding Major cities around the world such as Los Angeles, Amsterdam, Paris and Vancouver have already ail passed laws restricting Airbnb rentals. Earlier this year, Detroit instituted a new ordinance that bans short-term rental of rooms in single family and duplex homes, though the ordinance is currently under legal review and is not yet being enforced. Last July, Pahm de Mallorca became the first city in Spain to ban Airbnb. The company took arguably its biggest hit when San Francisco put strict rules in place for short-term rentals this year to deal with too many rental units being turned into hotel -type rooms during a severe housing crisis. Airbnb listings fell by almost half when the rules went into effect. Now, inmost Amipan c}�iers, short-tgrttti rentals to tourists are illegal in residential neghbarhaods. Dale Carlson, who founded ShareBetterSF, the coalition that pushed to regu]]ate Aur n and make it remove listings tt�`gtsteWWifii$re d3ty added, "As more and more cities crack down on them, the home `sbaring that they grew up with is going away and is less and less profitable." How Airbnb is fighting back Earlier this year, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky announced company plans to broaden its appeal by highlighting hotels on its website, creating a loyalty program and matching guests with accommodations that fit their budgets and tastes. They are following through on this promise with the recent launch of a new program called Airbnb Plus, which features a selection of homes verified for quality and design, Another new offering is Beyond by Airbnb, which will offer custom -designed trips in what the service touts as "the world's finest homes." It comes after Airbnb last year acquired Luxury Retreats, which offered professionally inspected villas across the globe aimed at higb-cud travelers. Creating these loyalty programs will be difficult because the Airbnb platform is not a fiequency-based business, which makes incentivizing guests a feat. The majority of guests use the platform a few times a year, so it will be interesting to see whether Airbnb can create a meaningful program that drives increased How the hotel industry Is responding It's been made clear that Airbnb aims to enter the hoteling business and take market share from the industry. Some feel that this is further supported by the company's recent acquisition of HotelTonight Brian Chesky said the purchase of HotelTonight was a key component in Airbnb's desire to become a comprehensive travel marketplace. The American Hotel and Lodgiug Association continues to take a clear opposing stance on this evolution. Troy Flanagan, AHLA's SVP of government affairs and industry relations, said: "Whether it's called Plus or Boutique program, Airbnb's latest scheme is just further proof the company is trying to play in the hoteling space while evading industry regulations." The truth is, while we should continue to be diligent in raising awareness about issues brought about by Airbnb's arrival, OTAs are likely more concerned about Airbnb than we are. Think about the 3% commission model Airbnb has versus OTA commissions of 101/6,15%,181/6, 20% and more.'fhe acquisition of HotelTonight might kick Airbub into an OTA transition strategy. Q Copyright 0 2008-2019 S7R, Inc. I Packet Pg. 24 1 2.B.a I Robert A. Rauch, CHA, is an internationally -recognized hmdier, CEO and founder ofRAR Hospitality, o leading hospitality management and consulting firm based in San Diego. Rauch has more than 75 years of hospitality -related managemept experience in all facets of the industry. Sarah Andersen is the Business Development Manager at RAR Hospitality. She earned a Master's degree in Hospitality Management from Boston University with a focus in real estate development and marketing and has experience in event coordination and sales. The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions offlotel News Now -or its parent company, STR and its affiliated companies. Bloggers published on this site are given the freedom to express views that may be controversial, but our goal is to provoke thought and constructive discussion within our reader community. Please feel fret to comment or oontact an editor with any questions or concerns. E t0 L 0 L (L a ar C !v fY C 0 r t0 U ro L 4) .i L 0 qi a+ t0 t1 c— oo tfi r v Copyright 0 2008-2019 STR Inc. I Packet Pg. 25 I 2.B.a ftcfficS & "dardmum, HOME > ECONOMICS WHAT AIRBNB DOES TO RENTERS, EMPLOYEES, AND CITIES A recent study argues that cities need to start treating Airbnb like any other hotel business, and regulate it accordingly. SARAH HOLDER • FEB 7, 2019 Washington, D.C., is restricting-ft. Florida might sWV investing-init. New Orleans is ttyiug to ban it completely_. Across the country, legislators are not happy with Airbnb. Since it was founded in 2oo8, the short-term rental platform has been the subject of several critical 2 research papers that have blamed it for raising housing prices, changing employment dynamics, and $ taking chunks out of city tax revenue. A new aaaly§jA from the Economic Policy Institute attempts to more comprehensively catalog these local impacts —and measure what, if anything, cities get out of the deal. To better align the costs and benefits, the study's author, josh Bivens, argues, cities need to start treating Airbnb like any other hotel business, and regulate it accordingly. w U "It becomes a straight conflict between whose interests you care more about: long-term residents of th, L city orthose that visit it," iB`v�fi�s WHAT RENTERS LOSE U 0 L Since Airbnb helps homeowners take existing housing stock and turns some of it into short-term units, w its biggest measured effect so far has been on housing prices —by repurposing units that might 2 otherwise be long-term housing, it's straining an already supply -short market. Rents rise in the o process. The cities researchers have analyzed happen to be already -pricy coastal metros, meaning L Airbnb is just one of many factors at play. But, researchers say it's a powerful one. "I was surprised at E how early in the process of Airbnb expanding into cities that it has measurable impacts on housing a; costs," Bivens says. o In Boston, one working paper from the University of Massachusetts-Boston's Department of Economic, found a causal relationship between Airbnb proliferation and housing prices: with every 12 Airbnb listings per census tract, asking rents increased by 0.4 percent. These findings were reinforced at the E national level in another_working_gaper in SSRN, which used American Community Survey data to find that, with each io percent. increase in Airbnb listings in a United States zip code, there was a 0.42 a percent increase in rental prices, and a 0.76 percent increase in house prices. Then, using that working paper's same regression model, Dayid Wad, a professor of urban planning at McGill. University, found that, in New York City, Airbnb was associated with a 1.4 percent increase in NYC rents from 2015 to 2017. Packet Pg. 26 I 2.B.a Parsing just how much of those bumps were natural growth and how much was Airbnb-related has proven difficult. In Boston, "a one standard deviation increase in Airbnb listings ... relative to total housing units is correlated with a 5.9 percent decrease in the number of rental units offered for rent," University of Massachusetts researchers wrote, which they say then translates into the price changes outlined above. But take the Brooklyn neighborhoods Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant, which observed a 41 percent jump in the number of Airbnb listings from 2012 to 2016, for example: While rent there leapt an average of about $131 per year, r i g-i the SSRN working paper, only about $27 of it can be attributed to Airbnb. E Airbnb did not respond to CityLab's request for comment on these findings. o WHAT EMPLOYEES LOSE a` Something else happens when Airbnb enters a city: People rent Airbnbs, not hotel rooms. "Part of what Airbnb is doing, especially at the beginning of its expansion, is it's displacing regular payroll jobs that are now being done by Airbnb owners," Bivens says. Hosts are doing the renting, but they're also often doing the cleaning or other service work that hotels hire for. If not, hosts may hire third -party cleanin€ services, which aren't mandated to offer the same employment benefits as hotel staff. "It's a form of this kind of fissuring of the economy," Bivens says. "Spinning off jobs that used to be part of a big corporation ... into a more insecure part of the economy."�., L 0 Airbnb itself acknowledges this potential consequence, the study observes: "Airbnb offers hosts the v opportunity to advertise that they have taken the "living wage pledge" by committing to pay a living y wage to the cleaners and servicers of their properties. It is not clear how commitment to this pledge is CL (or can be) enforced, however." Large hotel chains are doing similar outsourcing themselves, though —some of it to technology, which co was a central 'complaint of Marriott hotel workers who went on strike in 2018. Workers' am contracts, negotiated by the labor union Unite Here stipulate that union representatives have to be part of the discussion behind how and when to implement new technologies in the workplace. Marriott also agrees to a raise, and more protections from sexual harassment. That's a bargaining capability contractors working at Airbnbs don't have. According to Bivens, "combined unionization rates for maids and cleaners in the hotel industry are nearly double the o unionization rates of maids and cleaners in other industries in the economy" in the 10 U.S. cities with a particularly large Airbnb presence, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. w fA WHAT CITIES LOSE m L While Airbnb is said to increase tourism revenue --a NERA Economic Consulting study found that Airbnl E supported 730,000 jobs and $61 billion in global output—Bivens cited two surveys that found only 2 to, percent of respondents wouldn't have gone on trips if Airbnbs weren't available. So, while Airbnb guest o do participate in local economies, as the NERA study showed, Airbnb isn't necessarily facilitating that cn spending more than other short-term rental options might. "It really seems to be almost a pure substitution of hotels," he says. E And cities with less stringent Airbnb regulations might also be losing out on a lot of tax revenue. r Traditional lodging entities (when combining city, state, and county taxes), are taxed at an average rate Q Of 13 percent in the 150 largest cities. But Airbnb is treated differently in differedjurisdictions, and is trusted to self -report its own occupancy and revenue data. Per a 2m7-paper from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy: I Packet Pg. 27 I I 2.B.a I t0verah, by Airbnb's count, the company is collecting sales, hotel, or other taxes in 26 states and the District of Columbia (DC) as of March 9, 2097. State -level taxes are collected in 98 of those states. Among this group, some or all local -level taxes are also being collected in every state except Connecticut, which lacks local lodging taxes. in the remaining eight states, Airbnb collects a patchwork of local taxes but no state taxes. In three states --Alaska. Maryland, and Now Jersey—Airbnb's tax collection is limited to a single locality (Anchorage, Montgomery County, and Jersey City, respectively). E L To be clear, Airbnb is paying taxes. But, Bivens says, it could be paying more., One analysis by c AlltheRooms.com estimated that, in 2016, incomplete accounting -rand illegal rentals —could have cost at local and state governments $440 million in lodging taxes, $tio million of it from New York City's budget alone. Since then, New York City has established some of the strongest Airbnb regulations in the 4 country: It's cracked down on illegal listings, and advanced legislation to require Airbnb to submit o monthly revenue reports, and share information on hosts and their addresses. u "So far, it seems like a lot of the Airbnb tax relationships with cities is very much a negotiated, city -by- > city kind of thing, where there's not a lot of transparency," Bivens says. "I think the No.1 thing would be for cities to step up, make transactions with Airbnb transparent to the public, and demand actual y data from Airbnb." o s SO VMO WINS? a. CL For vacationers who want more options, at cheaper prices, Airbnb is great: Studies show that Airbnb expansion is correlated with lowered local hotel rates. And for renters who want to make an extra buck, co it's a welcome side hustle--Airbnb told USA Today. that a proposed "whole home" short-term rental ban Ln (requiring that owners be present and not rent the entire home) in New Orleans would "devastate" homeowners who depend on the platform. But even those benefits aren't distributed equally, Bivens U says. Airbnb "landlords" who own multiple properties (one for occupying and at least one for renting) L likely have an advantage on the platform, he argues, because "any economic occurrence that provides benefits proportional to owning property is one that will grant these benefits disproportionately to the wealthy." Since 6o percent of the property wealth in homeowners' primary household is concentrated in the top 20 percent of households —and more than 8o percent of the wealth is held by white households —it stands to reason, Bivens says, that the ones who stand to make the most from Airbnb are already the wealthiest, and the whitest.' There are some cities that have tried to level the playing field. -D.C.'s new-Airbnb- restrictions prohibit property owners from using Airbnb (or other short-term rental platforms) to rent out their second homes, according to the Washington Post, and limits the number of days any primary residence can be rented out when owners are out of town. Airbnb objected to the bill, saying it favored hotels; as did some city councilors who warned the measure could cost as much as $96 million over four years in lost taxes—D.C. taxes Airbnb rentals at a steep 14.5 percent. Not all renters are multiple -home -owning landlords of mini -hotels. Not all cities exempt Airbnb from traditional taxes. But, the report concludes, "there is little evidence that the net benefit of accelerated Airbnb expansion is large enough to justify overturning previous considerations that led to the regulatory status quo." This sty originally appeared on CitvLab, an editorial partner site. Subscribe to CitvLab's newsletters and follow CityLab on Facebook and Twitter. I Packet Pg. 28 ilt Cathedral City • CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Wednesday, June 26, 2019 6:30 PM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 6:35 PM by Mayor Mark Carnevale. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Raymond Gregory led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION (MOMENT OF REFLECTION) Councilmember Ensesto Gutierrez offered the invocation. • ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Mark Carnevale Mayor Present 6:35 PM John Aguilar Mayor Pro Tern Present 6:35 PM Raymond Gregory Councilmember Present 6:35 PM Ernesto Gutierrez Councilmember Present 6:35 PM AGENDA FINALIZATION • STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Simeon Den, Agnes Pelton Society, was called to speak. He thanked the Council for their support and sponsorship over the years. He indicated that they will not be requesting a sponsorship in the future. Allen Worthy, Palm Springs, was called to speak. He discussed the crime and criminals in the City and surrounding cities. He also expressed his concern with staff not returning his phone calls. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Raymond Gregory, Councilmember SECONDER: John Aguilar, Mayor Pro Tern AYES: Mark Carnevale, John Aguilar, Raymond Gregory, Ernesto Gutierrez B. Approve an Urgency Ordinance to establish a temporary moratorium that prohibits short term vacation Recommendation: Waive further reading and adopt interim Urgency Ordinance No. establishing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Short -Term Vacation Rental permits. Simeon Den, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He yielded his time. Jennifer Middle, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She indicated both properties on either side of her home are short-term vacation rentals and she has had some issues. She feels she has a right to peaceful existence in her home and that something can be done so both can exist. Teri Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She supports a moratorium and urged the City Council to approve the urgency ordinance until the City can analyze how short-term vacation rentals are affecting the community. Charley Bee, Cathedral City short term vacation home owner, was called to speak. He feels the program needs to be improved and doing away with a courtesy call will make owners more accountable. He suggested modeling enforcement after what the City of Palm Springs does. Tee Taylor, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She is opposed to the moratorium. She stated that there are permanent residents that are nuisances. She feels education and enforcement are key and urged the City Council to allow short-term vacation rentals to continue. Mike Fish, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He indicated that he just purchased a home in Cathedral City for a short-term vacation rental. He does not support the moratorium and feels there are options that need to be explored. Cyndie Swauger, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She discussed the number of short-term vacation rentals in her neighborhood, parking issues, and noise problems. She urged the Council to consider limitations and supports a moratorium. Karen Panico-Willis, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She inquired about mail card notifications that are supposed to be sent out when a short-term vacation rental renews their license. She discussed backyard trash issues and safety concerns for her grandchildren. She supports a moratorium. Lynn Okerblom, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She would like the Cathedral City Page 6 Printed on 7/08/2019 moratorium. Lindsay Jones, Palm Springs resident and local vacation home operator, was called to speak. She feels that the majority of vacation rental owners truly care about Cathedral City. She would encourage that action be taken on the problem. sites. Bob Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He discussed an article on short-term vacation rentals and his experience with a vacation rental near his home. He also feels that there is a lot that can be done to gain balance. He supports a moratorium. Peter Palladino, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He does not support a moratorium. He feels enforcement is important and there are options that could be considered. He suggested raising the standards. Danny Lee, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He supports a moratorium. Abel (did not provide a last name), Cathedral City resident and Contractor, was called to speak. He feels enforcement is key and one bad apple can ruin it for everyone else. He does not support the moratorium. Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez indicated that he has met with many residents regarding problematic short-term vacation rentals. He feels that the ordinance needs to be reevaluated and supports a moratorium._ Councilmember Raymond Gregory thanked everyone for speaking. He appreciates everyone sharing their personal stories. He would like to draw the line now and is supportive of a moratorium to give the Task Force the opportunity to do their job. Mayor Pro Tem John Aguilar stated that the work of the Task Force is going to be critical and the composition of the task force needs to be balanced. He also feels there is a breakdown with the communication between departments and code enforcement and would like the Task Force to focus on the issues. Mayor Mark Carnevale thanked everyone for all of their comments. He feels the City needs to have stronger regulations and enforce them. He feels that there can be balance and the Task Force can create rules that can make a difference and solutions to make everyone happy. Ord 824 Motion by Councilmember Gutierrez to adopt an interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Short -Term Vacation Rental permits. Motion died due to a lack of a second. Motion to approve an Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the establishment, permitting and approval of short-term vacation rentals uses in the Cathedra! City Page 8 Printed on 710812019 6.B.b Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 8:38 PM To: Mark Carnevale <MCarnevale@cathedralcitv.gov>; Raymond Gregory <RGregorv@cathedralcitv.gov>; Ernesto Gutierrez <EGutierrez@cathedralcitv.gov>; John Aguilar <JAguilar@cathedralcitv.gov> Cc: Charles McClendon <CMcClendon@cathedralcitv.gov>; Tami Scott <TScott@cathedralcitv.gov>; Robert Rodriguez <RRodriguez@cathedralcitv.gov> Subject: City Council Meeting on June 26 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I look forward to speaking at the upcoming city council meeting about short term vacation rentals and the need to impose a moratorium on issuing permits. I have attached a letter dated June 20 expressing my opinion why a moratorium is imperative. Included with that letter is a revised map showing the location of short term vacation rentals using information obtained pursuant to my public records request in May. At first glance it may be a little confusing with all the different colored dots, with pink representing the original rentals from January, green representing the additional new rentals as of May, and blue representing pending applications. But overall the map is compelling --particular neighborhoods, like mine, are being inundated with STVRs and are turning into little hotel districts. Also included with the letter are more articles explaining how short term vacation rentals are hurting cities. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to seeing you June 26. , Teri Hargreaves Packet,Pg.103 1 I6.B.c I June 20, 2019 Honorable Mayor Mark S. Carnevale and Cathedral City Councilmembers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 Dear Honorable Mayor Mark S. Carnevale and City Council Members: I am writing to urge you to put an immediate moratorium in place to stop issuing short temp vacation rentals (STVRs) in Cathedral City. I applaud the council for supporting the idea of reinstating the task force to see how STVRs are affecting our neighborhoods and to consider how, if at all, our current ordinance needs to be revised. But if you do not put a temporary moratorium in place while the task force does its review, the number of STVRs will continue to rise unabated. From January to May, the number of STVRs in the city increased from 268 to 339, and if pending applications for STVR permits (60) are included, that equals an increase of almost 50%. (The number of current STVRs given by staff at the study session was even higher— 352- presumably because some pending applications were approved.) I revised the map I previously prepared showing the location of STVRs using the new data obtained from the City in May. That map is included with this letter. The pink dots represent the rentals from January; the green dots are the new active rentals; and, the blue dots are the pending rentals. The map speaks for itself —our city, particularly certain areas, is being overrun by STVRs. (The map is not entirely accurate as some of the active rentals (22) from the January list may no longer be active, and some of the rental applications from the January list no longer appear to be pending.) Cathedral City has become an easy target for STVRs because our neighboring cities of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Indian Wells have prohibited them with limited exceptions and Palm Springs 2 has enacted very strict regulations. Once permits are granted, it is much more difficult to make v necessary adjustments. If you're in a hole, quit digging. a Many speakers at the study session spoke of the effects STVRs are having on their quality of £ life --noise, parking, trash, parties, strangers coming and going, grub hub mistakenly arriving in the y middle of the night, to name a few. Some speakers suggested that the solution is simply better 3 enforcement. I agree that stricter regulations and better enforcement are imperative. d But that does not resolve the core problem —that there simply are too many S7VRS in our city and the numbers are exploding. Cities all over the world are grappling with this problem. There now is extensive research showing the devastating effects STVRs are having on neighborhoods. I sent you copies of a couple of articles and have included more showing how STVRs not only affect the quality of life but also destroy neighborhoods and decrease the availability of affordable housing. As one of the speakers at the study session said, STVRs are a business and do not belong in residential areas. Packet Pg. 104 I 6.B.c Some speakers at the study session expressed the opinion that there should be a balance, that there should be a way to make STVRs work In our city. One speaker argued that these renters often bring other sources of revenue to the city when they stay here. Let's be honest --short term vacation renters do not come to Cathedral City to spend money here; they're staying here because it's relatively cheaper to stay here and then they go to Palm Springs to spend their money! The house behind ours is specifically marketed on AirBNB as being "... just minutes outside downtown Palm Springs. A short drive opens up a world of award -winning golf courses, unique California boutique shopping and restaurants where Michelin -star chefs serve everything from nigiri to grass fed tenderloin." Not to disparage Cathedral City (I've lived here over 30 years and love living here), I know they don't mean Cathedral City in this description. Decades ago, before incorporation, Cathedral City was the dumping ground for illicit activities from surrounding cities; hence its name, "Cat City." Citizens incorporated to take control and clean it up. Let's not return to being the dumping ground for short term rentals. Quality of life, improved enforcement, reducing the number of STVRs and/or striking some kind of balance are all issues that should be addressed by the task force. But while the task force does its work, we simply cannot allow more and more STVRs to invade our city, making any future adjustment to regulations just that much more difficult. above. I urge you to place an immediate moratorium on issuing new permits for all the reasons I stated Thank you, 421tj ffd'We5) Teri Hargreaves N G7 v L M Q ro E s :t L d r+ d Packet Pg. 105 k �r�AmrrdR EM p=ALES DR _ LAND W BOULEVARD icy %N M A%WMA LWiANL1A LA.M* DaNDESA AVFNIDA DUQUM IAVEMDA YARQUESII N / AMIDA LA VIWA van r✓��, MrU AJ I rn m I��r ABRrL De \� �TADA DR �� p o FOUCIA RD it E i 4�c� O QUINTANA ° _ m R!f uwz A o AVQQAA SO W IAMDIIJ BOULfllAR0 I Aw LA An , TR ' $ a s ° • VAIMCIA SR AWNPAI INARAVIUA SO DAM PALM DR 0 tj 7 to I Ito I AID d O Iwo roR � m c g E 0 V d d Q Q EA / ' N O M W N ti.. C a m E c � m y Packet Pg. 106 MY LEWWD DR I EIV SAN LUIS HEY \DR� µ� L4KWEW DR r SOH MM TR J� JAM MOM TR� V / ._ -.. .._ ..-.-�.. CRD'35M RD L_ 11r y � I ov REcort CRDHIN I y ) I%n mains DR , J Km ME I l�1TH A 6fE11oA Y Q -- PEM IANDAU BLVD I 6.B.c I I R*w Cr ow mvw_lkS DR AVENIDA U PAZ rr II � AVENIDA U PALDW II AVENICA LA GWWA _ I r1fISPERING PALMS 7R I�_J � ._. Ll �_ I I� s sK~Y BLW WAIIIi TR II7 l�AVENIDA EL UUNDG AVENIDA EL PUEEILO ._ PAUUNC Aft I1WX M ST , I I Il ry jI� i�{ 1 I RANID I VALDEZ - I.II AVENIDA M~LLA 1 + I I AVENIDA %INDiO I r Q AVENIDA &VM D I A%VCDA AMEZ I I I AVENIDA JUAM2AVENI / II I J I I AVENIDA DQ-nOF-1 a I i II AVENIDA LDs NIND9 I I L.- � L GTE PALM DRIVE 1 1 t ALE WDER DR SAN a ELJAY AVE II - I n n ISAN E-e DR l a7 \ EL TORD RD 0 h- q,, AYP73 nvs n I AVENIDA LA VISTA SAN ELAY DRNE j I Packet Pg. 107 I 35E 35E cP 0 co "I", 5 L1NI:UIII PPLAC (�11 1° 1tdfINUY PLACE / 1 `10 17 NONTN NA9XINAC _ \ 19 TAFr PLACE �CE \ 21 W INNSTSX STREET , 22 NILSTRIAM PLACE ON PUCE A U. Mt4-' M T— t3 ice„ - ti I MIQEY Afl �° � ?ERA RD t2 PEREZ RID g t W3 TAM" Xfi 80AA a �— WON MONFORTE CI.iPALD FIORD OR V" Qp d �V CAI AVE LALO GUERRERO YOIAWYE ® WEST eUON RIOT P— FlRSr sf ry - t/^ O • QM ST I �J r sr ` ( D Sf l� JRID �I ESf � 1 SW it F Ur I 3I SAN J,,,r, i RO I H ST Qom IROQUM SKYFMW /op J_ST 2 VLEJO 3 VIA MARENGO �4 CACA LLE RSIANNA W ROD C4(MYONDR QII SLTWA E , 11 SUI-aURST TERRACE 2 SU.-SCAPE LANE _ 3 SUI SEEKER PLACE 4 SU'DANCE LAKE '. IF - - TERRACE RD / RD to Iwo. is W r TR -24 I 6R wrw AVE {I I 1 DER£ OR Attachment: June 20 STVR letter with map and articles (1632 : Approve an Urgency Ordinance to establish a temporary moratorium that )09 009 L Of i 1 `O Attachment: June 20 STVR letter with map and articles (1632 : Approve an Urgency Ordinance to establish a temporary moratorium that / n t4yl-NwU N FOR s u lod C6 u 9y;ey;'wniao;eaow Ajeaodwa; a gsilge;sa o; aoueuipap f(ouaBin ue anoaddV : Z£9 �) sapi;ae pue dew u;inn canal r -I MATISSE DRIVE S—l0 COM A tn� ou �MCCALLUM WAY M/N-6/10 MCKINLEY PLACE R-5/7 aw�+o eoi+ru _t ,_- i_, � i i � i i — _ MECCA DRIVE R-9 ■ MEDANO ROAD J-5/6 MEGAN COURT N-9 MELANITA DRIVE J-6 MELROSE DRIVE S/T-7 MEMORIAL DRIVE 0-10 MERIT PARKWAY Q/R-8 MESA VIEW DRIVE R-9 MIA PLACE M-5 MINERVA ROAD L-8 MIRA VISTA DRIVE 0-10 MIRAGE DRIVE R-9 MIRISMA WAY S-9 MISSION COURT N-5 MISSION DRIVE N-5 MISSION INDIAN TRAIL 0-7 MODALO ROAD M-7 MOLINOS COURT K-7 MONET COURT S710 MONTE VISTA ROAD 0-8 MONTE VISTA WAY 0-10 MONTY HALL DRIVE S/T-8 MOONLIGHT DRIVE U-7/8 MORENO ROAD P-8 MORONGO ROAD P-8 MOUNT ARARAT DRIVE Q-8 MOUNTAIN SHADOW LANE T-7 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD E-7 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD U-7 MUIRFIELD WAY M-9 MYRTLE DRIVE P-9 — N — NATOMA DRIVE NAVAJO TRAIL NEUMA DRIVE NIGHTINGALE ROAD NILDA DRIVE NORTADA DRIVE NORTH PORTALES NORTH WASHINGTON NORTHHAMPTON AVENUE N07TiNGHAM DRIVE 0/P-7 N-9 U-8 R-9 J-5 K-6 R/S-6 M-10 M-10 — 0 — OASIS DRIVE OASIS PLACE OBREGON COURT OCATILLO ROAD OFFICER DAVID VASQUEZ ROAD OLANCHA ROAD OLEANDER DRIVE ONTINA ROAD OPAL WAY ORANGETREE LANE ORONTES WAY ORTEGA ROAD OSCEOLA PLACE OTTAWA STREET R-9 R-9 L-8 P-8 S-8 P-8 0-10 J-5/5 L-5 0-9 S-9 P-7/8 M-9 R-9 OTn ADOM TrnC NA1S OZ aunE :;uawyoe;;d miv Dnn•V r%vnu RIO COLORADO ROAD RIO DEL SOL ROAD RIO DULCE ROAD RIO FELICIA ROAD RIO GUADALUPE ROAD RIO LARGO ROAD RIO MADRE DRIVE RIO NACHES ROAD RIO OSO ROAD RIO PECOS DRIVE RIO ROSALIA DRIVE RIO SILVERADO DRIVE RIO VISTA DRIVE RISUENO ROAD RIVIERA ROAD ROBERT CIRCLE ROCHESTER ROAD RODEO ROAD RONALD COURT ROOSEVELT PLACE ROSEMOUNT ROAD ROUNDUP ROAD RUBY WAY — S — SAGE LANE SAINT ALBERTS DRIVE SALEM ROAD SAN ANTONIO DRIVE SAN ARDO AVENUE SAN DIEGO DRIVE SAN ELJAY AVENUE SAN FELIPE ROAD SAN GABRIEL CIRCLE SAN HELENA AVENUE SAN JACINTO ROAD SAN JOAQUIN DRIVE SAN JOSE DRIVE SAN JUAN TRAIL SAN LUIS REY DRIVE SAN MARTIN STREET SAN MATEO DRIVE SAN SUSANNA AVENUE SAN SEBASTIAN COURT SAN VICENTE AVENUE SAN YSIDRO AVENUE SAND CREEK SAND) A COURT SANDY COURT SANTA BARBARA DRIVE SANTA ROSA STREET SANTELMO ROAD SANTIAGO ROAD SANTORO DRIVE SAPPHIRE WAY SARAH STREET SATINLOAF DRIVE SAVAGE DRIVE SAWGRASS ROAD SCARLETBUSH DRIVE cru r unr rnoT j 1j `� oartll�+s 3TIV3 vim] IR 74-1 "i FIF �L!n� -r IE,a�Fj� uuu ,f 1N CH S3IW i MIX! V'.0" tL t);IN7310O MYs 9L 3AIM ONIM 91 3AIY0 39YS 9l 3A3tl0 011000d Ll — 3AiM VENIlO 9t .alum 90NId 9O1 9t ZOO 63 Id 9Y3 ►I 3AIM 003YY1 CI 3AlNG VUON3 Vl 31 MIN tl3 UM I l 31% ItlO VON33M Ol WaL'a SVNAVOO 6 3A3tl0 0HIM d 9 3AIM DNtON3 L MHO 39CH 1tl3930 9 3AIM 3AIM 31OA00 9 I UIJ u d I i v0°''- I j/{) �'\ — HIYDNIUM03 AOOtltlryJ C 15 MU.iIYII 311ItlO 3ANG 91 3 I ^ U 3AIa0 O93N I aO 31800 l \ a OCVM9 13 Id Id 3+— 4 � tw rplyd3Hs '{S _ IT au �� — ao (IINMN3so IM00 , @1 YIW/10 \Y FwK%C;lw NI3R3Vd VIA Sn3MfflI A Cl J MW VIA' I�QI VAV1d VIA tl I c�iliOaOn { G £ TI 1 VAV1d YIA 91 pp 1j 2 R A3tl31Vp1 VIA 9 g p — t1�� p LNCA YIA 9 {c J 333ItlA79 VIA 9 a as D17lIKJ0 VIA MOM VIA 9 30N,M9 YIA ► O ONS3Yd VIA n z C A I MI WMMO 13 rI �'rU�^ Y• 3OI1d M3MIi371 ►l / 3OV',d tl3A0O7It 37na I9Is7tllrn4 at Ni 380M HALOS 32Yld S3AVN 6 33YId t7NI0tldX e 3]YTd 0137dIMJ L MUT�/6i.• 3T11d a31tl11N39I3 9 N Nh 3OVld 30031007 9 4 Ni >yatl, NWN 3.3OV-1 ORVWN 9O ► �/ 39Y1d NYNYHOIt9 [ tY91 UdlYa 3TIC - 3?Ad 89'tor t / IA3IARVtlL — t�d �S C � °go- j 1 el " t ►OAS filed VIOIM39 Y7A IF 80NY9 1tl3930 J ' iw 3aatS NYN10 ih V M Rw J >w P i N in71nF1-1nI 1^l7 C� Attachment: June 20 STVR letter with map and articles (1632 : Approve an Urgency Ordinance to establish a temporary moratorium that q Dlft iHCFE OR }ey; wnpo;ejow tieiodwa; a gsilge;sa oa a3ueuipap AouaBin ue anoaddV : ZSg6) sapipe pue dew gjIM aa;}al a/u,g pZ aunt :luaw43ea;V OUTDOOR RESORTS T 1 BOIRIOOO DRIVE 2 CACTUS LA1� 3 COCOPLUM LANE , A FICUS DRIVE OILERS RNADWB 5 FIG DRIVE 1 ADAM CHIVE 6 GOLF COURSE CIRCLE 2 ALAMEDA ,RAY — 7 GOLF COURSE DRIVE 3 ALTA VISTA DRIVE B GOLF COURSE LANE 4 BUENO TEHPA WAY S GUAVA DRIVE 5 CORDOBA WAY 10 HIBISCUS DRIVE B DAMA WAY ' 11 MAPLE DRIVE T DF1 LACO MAY 12 M11RLE DRIVE B DESERT SHADOWS DRIVE — 13 OLEANDER WIPE R NIRA VISTA DRIVE 1D —rc vrrrn u.r yE 15 PAW BOULEVARD 17 ALFALFA DRIVE J F 16 PERRYWIl DRIVE 12 BUTCH WIVE , 17 PRINCEWOD DRIVE DR �Ca1NG .y7J I 13 OSE CIRCLE 14 D13 CIRCLE 9 LANE lE PORKY OLIVE ZONLOAFDRIVE16 FELETBUSH RASCALS CIRCLE 21 DRIVE 17 SPANKY DRIVE 1B SUNSHINE WAY ' 22 SUTAC DRIVE 23 6UMFLTR CIRME L J RN 24 SRISE CIRCLE I 25 TENNIS DRIVE — 2B TENNIS COURT DRIVE 27 TENNIS COURT D 28 WASHATONt1IA DRIVE 1 1 SUNMOP7 CIR — AWLEY CT BLEnNAY Cf _ ROYAL PALLS 2 BUFFALO 3 BUTTERFIEiD —it3:RA AVE R r����y�4 Ci�� !'UVOTE LITTLE DEER VEPA IDR 1 7 PRAIRIE B SAND CREEK B STANDING BF/UI +1 Im OR — 10 Txnons PD6F SI if %LIRE WIE I afla tOARY C DR CIRCLE — 2 DUNES CIRCLE r S MECCA DRIVE `I ♦ MESA VIEW DRIVE ] covam Ra -_-�, 5 MIRAGE DRIVE 6 OASI9 DIIIVE NQTTH e ,,,� 7 DF5I8 WIVE SOUTN MTN R B 011618 PLAT£ - K - PASEO MALAGA KAREN STREET V-7 PASEO PERDIDO KATHY DRIVE U-7 PASEO REAL KEITH AVENUE M-6 PASEO SORIA KEMPER COURT M-9 PATRICIA CIRCLE KEMPER ROAD M-9 PAULINE AVENUE KENNEDY PLACE R-6 PAUL ROAD KENT PLACE M-10 PEACHTREE COURT KENWOOD DRIVE M-10 PEGGY WAY KIELEY ROAD S-7 PEINETA ROAD KINGS ROAD T-7 PELADORA ROAD KNOLL VIEW CIRCLE V-7 PEREZ ROAD KYLE ROAD S-7 PERLITA ROAD - L - PERRYWINKLE DRIVE LA MEDERA J-8 PICASSO COURT LA PALOMA DRIVE L-10 PICKFAIR STREET LA VISTA COURT K-6 PINE PLACE LAGOS WAY L-6 PINNACLE DRIVE LAGUNA COURT N-5 PLACID PLACE LAGUNA DRIVE L-5/6 PLAZA DRIVE LAKELAND DRIVE Q-7 PLEASANT GROVE LAKEVIEW CIRCLE N-5 PLUMLEY ROAD LANDAU BOULEVARD J/N-7 POMEGRANATE LANE LARSON DRIVE Q-,8 PORKY DRIVE LAS BEGONIAS S-9 PORTALES DRIVE LAS CAMELIAS S-9/10 PORTER DRIVE LAS GARDENIAS S-9/10 PRAIRIE LAS TUNAS WAY U--8 PRIMROSE CIRCLE LILLIE CIRCLE V-7 PRINCEWOOD DRIVE LINCOLN PLACE R/8-6 PUEBLO TRAIL LINDA WAY Q-9 LITTLE DEER Q/R-8 - Q - LOS GATOS ROAD K-7/8 QUIJO ROAD LOZANO COURT L-8 OUISTA COURT _ LYTLE LANE U-7 _ R _ _ M _ RAMON PLAZA MADRID ROAD J-7 RAMON ROAD MALIGNE WAY 0-7 RANCHO ALDEA MANSFIELD WAY M-10 RANCHO VISTA DRIVE MANZANAR COURT K-7 RANGO ROAD MANZANITA COURT L--10 RAPOSA ROAD MAPLE DRIVE P-9 RASCALS CIRCLE MARCIA ROAD Q-9 REED CIRCLE MARGATE WAY M-10 RIDGEWAY AVENUE MARIA ROAD R-9 REGENT STREET MARIETTA CIRCLE V-7 RIO ARAPAHO ROAD co C6 ;ey; wnlao;eiow Ajujodwo; a Lisiige;sa o; eoueulpio Aoue6.1n ue anoiddy : ZEgi,) saloi;Je pue dew Ll;imjel;al MA -Ls OZ aunp :;uawLioe;;y Airbnb is getting a free rider and it's hurting renters BY JOSH BIVENS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/10/19 09:30 AM EST THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL 50 SHARES Just In... Jordan lambasts Cohen x over past crimes, x questions credibility HOUSE — 1M 49S AGO Stone denies Cohen allegation on Trump's knowledge of WikiLeaks email dumps NATIONAL SECURITY — 2M 19S AGO Stayer says Mueller report only needed as 'supporting evidence' against Trump RISING — 6M 18S AGO Many of the companies that make up the "sharing economy" have Annual scorecard ranks something useful to offer American families by introducing competition or GOP environmental more efficient business practices into a range of industries. efforts far below Dome In 2018 But too much of what these companies have offered so far is an end -run ENERGY& ENVIRONMENT around regulations and taxes. This end -run definitely benefits some but —6M21SAGO also inflicts costs,on many. Tolea tho rr7co of A 1rhnh an intorncat.hZeari nistfnrm thOt Alin%ue nrnnnrtu }etl; wnl.lo;e.Iow Aiviodwa; a ysllge}se o; aoueulpap Raue6jn Lie ano.lddV : Zeg6) salol;ae pue dew ti;Imjol}al bn1S OZ aunp :juawtloejjV Sell nuclear plants to the Saudis? Are you owners to rent out their residences for short-term travel lodging. I recently kidding? reviewed the research on the costs and benefits of Airbnb's rapid OPINION —6M22SAOO expansion in recent years. The upshot of this research is that for long-term residents of a city, the Cohen: Trump directed costs of Airbnb's expansion are significant and widespread, while the me to threaten schools not to release grades, benefits are narrow and skewed toward wealthier households. SAT scores The biggest benefit from Airbnb accrues to property owners in cities that ADMINISTRATION —11M 89 AGO attract lots of out-of-town travelers. Whereas previously, property owners were largely limited to renting out their property on a long-term basis, Cohen in testimony:'1 Airbnb gives them more options to generate revenue from their property, am no longer your fixer, Mr. Trump' by reducing the logistical costs of offering their properties as short-term ADMINISTRATION —14M 50S AGO rentals. Providing benefits to homeowners is nice, but while housing wealth is Cohen compares Trump more democratically distributed than other forms of wealth (like corporate to mobster seeking to intimidate him ahead of stock, for example), it's still quite concentrated. For example, the bottom testimony 5o percent of the wealth distribution only holds about 10 percent of all NATIONAL SECURITY housing wealth. — 16M 68 AGO Further, well over a third of Airbnb's revenue is generated by hosts renting VIEwALL out two -or -more whole -home units —meaning people who own substantial property besides their primary residence. View Latest Opinions» The distribution of housing wealth excluding one's primary residence is extremely skewed, with the top 1 percent of the wealth distribution holding almost a third of this type of wealth. In short, lots of the revenue generated by Airbnb is going to quite -wealthy households. As property owners take advantage of new options made available by Airbnb, they shift housing units from the long-term rental market to short- term accommodations. The winners of this shift are travelers who now Related News by have more options (and likely lower prices) for places to stay on their vacations. The losers are long-term residents of a city who may face higher costs as housing unl s are mo a out of the long-term rental sector and into short- term accommodations. in New York laity, for example, estimates are that "1 thr, avnnneinn of Airhnh min -it Na hnnetinn rante by ncarkr ItAOCI anni salter u In Cd leyl wripoleaow fue.iodwal a ysiigelsa of eoueuipio AouaRin ue ano.iddbr : ZEgi,) saioilie pue dew ylinn aapal UA.LS OZ eunl-:luawyoellV rq for families. _ _ a The rising cost of housing in American cities is a key problem for tens of Y millions of American families. Housing is the single biggest component of R South Korea remains families' consumption basket, and housinQ prices have outpaced overall a essential part of any... inflation for years. Doctor Warns: Carbs Are Likely Not The Problem... Sponsored I Active PK The US is finally moving towards an Al strategy Short-term travel accommodations constitute a far smaller part of family budgets, and the last decade has seen no real difference between prices in this sector and overall inflation. In short, the shift of housing supply from long-term markets to short-term travel accommodations exacerbates a key economic problem facing many families while providing no real solution to any pressing problem. Other losers from Airbnb's expansion include traditional short-term travel accommodations (hotels), who have seen their business eroded by Airbnb's introduction. Further, long-term residential neighbors of Airbnb units might suffer from more noise and stress on neighborhood infrastructure (more trash, for example) that stems from having lots of short-term travelers cycling through their block. These considerations are exactly why parts of cities are zoned only for - residential dwellings and not for short-term otels. Yet these regulations are being effectively rolled back -- not by a tra psi arent and democratic de a ee,but simply by being ignored. Some have argued that Airbnb's expansion in cities has attracted tourism A'5 percent monthly' and spending that would not have happened otherwise. The evidence on plan to denuclearize... this, however, is weak. One survey found that only 2-4 percent of travelers who used Airbnb said that they would not have made their trip absent Airbnb. The remainder of these trips essentially replaces hotel business. As Airbnb substitutes for hotels, often -significant lodging taxes are not collected in full by cities. All in all, the story of Alrbnb is a familiar one in the sharing economy. There is real value-added in their platform, and using technology to lower logistical costs that are blocking economic transactions that both parties would like to make is great. R,it tnn miinh of tha rnra hiteinace en far hac horn irrnnrinrt roniiIatinne t, oc 4D ;eLp wni.lo;e.low fuejodwo; a gsiige}sa o; aoueulpio Aoue6.1n ue ano.lddd : Zggl,) salolpe pue dew gllm aa;;al 2In1S OZ aunt :;uawyoew that bind their more -traditional competitors. Airbnb is free to argue that these regulations don't make sense and should be changed through the democratic process. They shouldn't be free to ignore them completely. Just In... Schumer: McConnell plan to force Green New Deal Vote a'diversion' SENATE — SM 126 AGO Cohen testimony: Lying to First Lady about hush -money payments 'one of my biggest regrets' ADMINISTRATION — SM 469 AGO Netanyahu ignores global opinion at Israel's peril OPINION —IBM 2S AGO Josh Bivens is the director of research at the Economic Policy Institute. We have reached the end game in the trade war BY STUART EIZENSTAT, ANNE PENCE AND CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS - 02/27M 08:30 AM EST THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARETHEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL 3 SHARES 0 Getty Images Arocieiant Trnrrtn twootael ni it nn Cnnriav uuhQt cn: inde lino nnnrl ncuic. I 6.B.c ECONOMICS Research: When A*rbnb Listings in a City Increase, So' Do Rent P rio c es' by Kyle Barron, Edward Kung, and Davide Proserpio APRIL 17, 2019 R I r. a -m i ?r q. .. r• HBR STAFF/WESTENDM/GEn Y IMAGES Lead your way to success with HBR Subscribe now > a I Packet Pg. 118 1 demand for short-term rentals through Airbnb, rather than local economic conditions. I 6.B.c I Under this assumption, we show that a i% increase in Airbnb listings is causally associated with a CU 0.oM increase in rental rates and. a 0.026% increase in house prices. While these effects may see] E _ very small, consider that Airbnb's year -over -year average growth is about 44o%. 0 L c0 C This means that, in aggregate, the growth in home -sharing through Airbnb contributes to about on 0 fifth of the average annual increase in U.S. rents and about one -seventh of the average annual increase in U.S. housing prices. By contrast, annual zip code demographic changes and general city s N trends contribute about three -fourths of the total rent growth and about three -fourths of the total housing price growth. 0 r d c ea These results show that Airbnb does have an impact on the housing market. However, they don't to E L the full story of how it is happening. In our study, we present two additional results that help expla the underlying economics. L First, we show that zip codes with higher owner -occupancy rates (the fraction of properties o cL occupied by the owners themselves) are less affected by Airbnb. Those rates are important because a the landlords who switch their properties from long-term rentals to short-term rentals are those wl: don't live in the houses they rent. Owner -occupiers do use Airbnb, but they use it to rent out their y spare rooms or perhaps the whole home while they are away. However, these homes are still primarily occupied by a long-term resident (the owner), so they are not the ones being reallocated r short-term rentals through Airbnb. M E s Second, we present evidence that Airbnb affects the housing market through the reallocation of housing stock. By looking at housing vacancies, we show two things about the Airbnb supply: it is positively correlated with the share of homes that are vacant for seasonal or recreational use — whic Cn a is how the Census Bureau classifies houses that are part of the short-term rental market — and .�nfiOT�p-latpcl 't the Share �hnmPc in them E Lead your way to success with HBR w Subscribe now > Packet Pg. 119 1 Policy makers around the world are struggling to find the best way to regulate home-shann� s'B.c platforms like Airbnb. On the one hand, these platforms allow homeowners to make money when they have more room than they need. On the other hand, absentee landlords are reducing the housing supply, which, in turn, increases the cost of living for local renters. According to our result one way to reduce the latter effect while retaining the benefits of home -sharing would be to limit how many homes can be added to the short-term rental market, while still allowing owner - occupiers to share their extra space. Kyle Barron holds a BA in economics from UCLA and is a former healthcare researcher at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Passionate about contributing to open -source software. Kyle developed an interface to connect Statz and Jupyter that has exceeded 50,000 downloads. Edward Ku ng is an assistant professor of economics at UCLA. He is interested in how technology affects housing markets and urban economic outcomes, and his work has appeared in peer -reviewed journals such as the American Economic Review and the Journal of urban Economics. David@ Proserpio is an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Southern r. + California. He is interested in the impact of digital platforms on industries and markets, and most of A his work focuses on the empirical analysis of a variety of companies including Airbnb. TripAdvisor, ar : Expedia. : Q ro E s r 3 L d rt+ d This article is about ECONOMICS > Q+ Follow This Topic o N d C 7 d E Lead your way to success with HBR w a Subscribe now > Packet Pg. 120 1 k. aj,61niePofievbw itute I s.B.c News from EPI E Evidence shows no compelling reason 0 why policymakers local should keep the,-. � layin field tilted toward Mrbnb E pg s Press Releases • January 30, 2019 y �o d 0 y d <.i In a new paper, BPI Research Director Josh Bivens examines the economic costs and benefits of Airbnb's expansion into U.S. cities. He finds that the costs Airbnb imposes likely outweigh the benefits _for city residents, and certainly provide no reason for local policymakers to change local regulations and tax structures to benefit Airbnb. d L Bivens explains that the single biggest cost Airbnb imposes on communities is limiting the number of long-term rental housing units. Because housing demand is relatively "inelastic" (people's demand for a somewhere to live doesn't decline when prices increase), even small changes in housing supply —like a those caused by converting long-term rental properties to Airbnb units —can cause significant price a increases for local residents. Housing costs have risen significantly faster than overall prices since 2000, and housing accounts for more than 15 percent of overall household consumption expenditures. In shore housing costs are a serious issue for typical American families, and anything that exacerbates their d upward trend is cause for concern. "The evidence is clear that a� benefit that the introduction or expansion of Airbnb provides to a city's cc residents can be quickly offset by the costs it imposes," said Bivens. "Because Airbnb doesn't provide a 0 compelling net benefit to city residents, there is little reason to think that traditional tax and regulatory r structures governing travel accommodations should be changed to aid Airbnb's expansion." 3 One of the potential benefits of Airbnb is that it increases supply of short-term travel accommodations, and thus lowers its cost. However, the price of travel accommodations in the United States has not risen particularly quickly in recent years, and accounts for just i percent of overall household consumption N expenditures. Additionally, Bivens shows that while Airbnb allows property owners to diversify potential revenue C streams from owning homes, the total value of housing wealth —and especially housing wealth besides E primary residences —is quite concentrated among white and high -wealth households, so these benefits disproportionately accrue to the wealthy. a I Packet Pg. 121 1 Another large potential cost of Airbnb expansion is the loss of tax revenue as travelers switch to I s. B.c from tradit:Dnai hotels. Many cities impose relatively steep taxes on short-term lodging, hoping to obtain revenue from out-of-town travelers. The most common and straightforward of these revenue raisers is a tax on traditional hotel rooms. If Airbnb expansion comes at the expense of traditional hotels, and if the apparatus for collecting taxes from Airbnb or its hosts is less well -developed than the apparatus for collecting taxes from traditional hotels, this could harm city revenues. Packet Pg. 122 I I 6.B.d I From: Peter Palladino Sent: Friday, June 21, 201911:52 AM To: Mark Carnevale <MCarnevale@cathedralcity.gov>; Charles McClendon <CMcClendon@cathedralcity.gov>; Tracey Martinez <TMartinez@cathedralcity.gov>; John Aguilar <JAguilar@cathedra lcity.gov> Subject: Palm Springs Votes Down Short -Term Rental Ban - VRM Intel To all the above. The rush makes no sense as it doesn't address the problem. The owners that are offending will still be doing so. The local business make money from vacationers that spend more than locals. It can't wait until we have a fifth councilman ? Why? The task force is a good idea and they need to be given teeth. https://www.vrmintel.com/palm-springs-votes-down-short-term-rental-ban/ Sent from my iPhone Packet Pg. 123 6.B.e MEASURE C, A PROPOSITION TO PHASE OUT VACATION RENTALS IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN PALM SPRINGS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, WAS STRUCK DOWN WITH 69 PERCENT OF THE VOTE AGAINST IT. On Tuesday, June 5, 2018, Palm Springs, California voters turned down Measure C, a proposition to phase out vacation rentals in single-family neighborhoods in the city over the next two years. The measure, brought forth by the Palm Springs Neighbors for Neighborhoods group, was struck down by a wide margin, with 6,764 of the votes (69 percent) against it. Palm Springs is a part of the greater Coachella Valley in California, where tourists spent $5.5 billion and generated $592 million in state and local tax revenue in 2017, according to the Before Measure C, Palm Springs had been (and still is) one of the most strictly regulated vacation rental markets in the country. In the most recent version of Ordinance 1918, vacation rental owners must apply for and renew a vacation rental registration certificate annually for $923, as well as submit a transient occupancy tax permit application, pool compliance statement, and HOA letter (if applicable) to the city's Vacation Rental Compliance Department before the home can be advertised or rented. Registrations are limited to one home per owner. Additionally, the home's city identification number is required in all advertising, safety inspections are required, and owners must provide a list of family and friends who may stay in the home at no cost and without the owner present. Guests of vacation rental homes must sign a city regulations form in person confirming their understanding of the area's good neighbor policies on parking, noise, trash and pets — rules several locals in the vacation rental industry have said are so strict that they are making guests want to travel elsewhere. Despite these existing regulations, the Palm Springs Neighbors for Neighborhoods group brought Measure C to the June ballot in an effort to ban vacation rentals entirely from residential areas. Local vacation homeowner, Bruce Hoban, co-founded in April of 2017 to advocate for local vacation rental owners, and then the group formed the in opposition to Measure C. According to Hoban, the campaign succeeded due to voter education. The group led focus groups, large field survey polls and tested its messaging. Successful messaging focused on the economic impact of tourism in the area and vacation rentals' role in it. Hoban said he counted 11,000 total beds in the city available to tourists; 46 percent of those beds were in vacation rentals. "People could understand that stat," he said. "That had a big impact." "The normal day-to-day citizen in Palm Springs sees the good that we in the vacation rental industry bring to the community from job opportunities, tax revenues, as well as how much we gave back," said Ian Patterson, previously the executive general manager of now president and CEO of in Steamboat Springs, Colorado and in Breckenridge, CO. Hoban also attributed the campaign's success to organizing other local groups, including business associations, hotels and more than 700 individual donors. Packet Pg. 124 6.B.e I Greg Holcomb, government relations manager with the Vacation Rental Management Association "The campaign organization was the true star here," said Greg Holcomb, government relations manager with the . With property owners, management companies, suppliers, employees of the various impacted companies, community groups, real estate professionals and others, "this unity is how a clear message was able to win over voters," he said. "What happened in Palm Springs is a bellwether for rest of California and the US," said Philip Minardi, director of policy communications at . [The city] recognized the value of traditional vacation rentals to the community, and every citizen heard that message loud and clear, he said. "We as an industry should be banging pots and pans around the country about this vote." Following the vote, the posted a message including the following statement: "Our work here is not over. And, the experience we have gained over the past year will be shared with other communities. We have already received requests from South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, and Pacific Grove and the other tourist cities across the country. This is a movement and it is growing." Minardi, Holcomb and other industry professionals acknowledge the spread of regulations, "This is something that every community in America is starting to face or will face," Minardi said. For those communities, "Work together and keep it local," Patterson said. "Come together as a team and ensure you speak with one voice." I Packet Pg. 125 1 Short-term Rental Regulations In Palm Desert, CA Page 116.B.f 1; : 7—� 1 FEATURES - WHO IT'S FOR - PRICING RESOURCES Request A Demo SIGN IN Short-term Rental Regulations In Palm Desert, CA Short-term Rental Regulations In Palm Desert, CA < Back to all short term regulations Try It For Free Submit a correction or update News headlines related to Palm Desert short-term rental regulations. Visitors in 2017 spent over $5.513 in the Coachella Va I ley. Here's how tourism FA O a. 0 N CO I N �O 0 s 0 E O U m E t a https://\vNvw.usecuestbook.com,.short-term-rental-regulations/sliort-term-rental-reguIations...I Packet Pg. 126 Short-term Rental Regulations In Palm Desert, CA Page _'I 6.B.f Palm Desert is a cite in California's Coachella Vallee. near Palm Springs. It's home to country clubs. golf courses and ships. In the center. The Shops im GI Pasco feature designer boutiques, plus restaurants and art galleries. The Living Desert Zoo &. Gardens shelters desert -dwelling kyildlite. including cheetahs and camels. from around the tvorld. Shows at the McCallum Theatre span music, comedy, dance and drama. Effective January 1, 2017, the Transient Occupancy Tax increased from 9% to 11 % On March 22, 2012, the Palm Desert City Council established regulations for the licensing of all residential short-term rentals within the City. Each property being rented for 27 days or less is required to have a Short-term Rental Permit whether it is operated by a property owner or by a property management company. Property owners also must inform their renters about all of the City's requirements and provide a round-the-clock contact person who can respond to the property within 30 minutes. Violations of these rules can result in the short-term rental permit being modified, suspended, or revoked as well as fines up to $5,000. managed to rebound from the recession. May 3. 2018 The Coachella Valley's tourism industry continued to grow last year, bringing in rougltlV 13.6 million visitors spending more than 55.5 billion in the greater Palm Springs area. according to an economic impact report released Thursday. Read More Yes, you can make bank renting your home during Coachella. But here's what you need to know. Fifty weekends a year, Nick Miller's hrtps://www.useguestbook.com! hort-term-rental-re gulatioil s,'short-term-rental-re gulations...I Packet Pg. 127 Short-term Rental Regulations In Palm Desert, CA Page jI 6.B.f Neighboring residents who wish to report a house in Palm problem with a short-term rental are encouraged Desert is a humble to call the City's Code Compliance Department home... during business hours at 760-346-0611 or the after-hours hotline at 760-862-6900. Read More The rules are intended to ensure that short-term Council rentals are convenient to register, compatible sticks with with surrounding uses, and not disruptive to the vacation neighborhoods in which they are located. For rental ban more information, please call 760-776-6335. in some REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRBNB PLATFORM areas of USERS WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT palm As of August 1 st 2016 the City of Palm Desert Desert; has entered into an agreement with Airbnb for extends the collection and remittance of Transient sunset Occupancy Tax (TOT) on behalf of the rental unit provision (s) owners that utilize the Airbnb platform to rent their units within Palm Desert city limits. The following are required for Airbnb platform users: November 16. 2017 • An annual short-term rental permit is required for registration of the property for .1 late -night Palm Desert City Council rent• meeting ended • Due to Airbnb citing confidentiality issues shortly after midnight homeowners must complete a TOT Return Friday with all form for the month applicable that Airbnb amended short-terrn paid and may be submitted via email or fax. rentals ordinance Please write "Paid by Airbnb" by line #7 of being reintroduced the TOT Return form. for a first read;12 but • Property Management Companies are leaving a ban on the vacation homes in required to submit a TOT Return for the single-ra,nily company's in house bookings that identify ,leijhborhoods in gross rent, additional fees and tax due.ln place. regards to Airbnb only bookings and to assure proper accounting practices are Read More followed we are asking for cooperation in https:i/wwix-.useguestbook.com short-term-rental-re-ulations/"shor-t-tenn-rental-reculations...I Packet Pg. 128 I Short -teen Rental Regulations In Palm Desert, CA Page 1 6.B.f I submitting a separate document, spreadsheet or a TOT Return for those Airbnb only bookings which identify gross rent, additional fees and tax due. • If any other platform, company, website to include in-house company portal other than Airbnb is used to book and pay for the rental of property, you are required to collect and remit the required Transient Occupancy Tax per Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 for the non-Airbnb booked nights. • It is your responsibility to ensure accurate accounting records are kept and submitted with TOT Returns if using Airbnb for any short-term rentals,.Any errors will only be corrected and/or refunded with appropriate documentation as per PD Municipal Code 3.28 of the overpayment and may be subject to review by an independent auditing firm. • Failure to register, collect and remit these taxes will subject the property owners for fines, penalties and interest due. • If your short-term rental property was not rented for a particular month, you are still required to submit your monthly TOT Return per PD Municipal Code 5.10.070 para p. If a long-term stay occurred, 28 consecutive days or more, both the TOT Return form and Exemption report are required for monthly submittal. You may submit your completed TOT Returns for all short-term, long term or no stays via email at tot@cityofpalmdesert.org, fax at 760-341-4564 or via U.S. Mail to the above address. If you have any question please call the Short -Term rentals desk at 760-776-6335. }tttps:!/rlvww-.useguestbook.coni;'shoit-tenn-rental-regulations%short-term-rental-regulations... Packet Pg. 129 Short -terns Rental Regulations In Palm Desert, CA Page I 6.B.f I NOTICE: Residents who wish to report a problem with a short-term rental are encouraged to call the City's Code Compliance Department during business hours at 760-346-0611 or call the Short -Term Rental Hotline at 760-862-6900. Palm Desert Rental Regulations Here Article Sources: PALM DESERT RENTAL REGULATIONS: ��ttp:..'v%\.v...citvofuaIt-1r!ese­i.org/ou, - city,`ciepa~tments/finanr-e/transient-occupany- tax-sno t-term-rentals PALM DESERT SUMMARY: https://www.useguestbook.corn, short-tern-rental-regulations/short-term-rental-regulations.. Packet Pg. 130 ilt Cathedral City • CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Wednesday, July 24, 2019 6:30 PM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM by Mayor Mark Carnevale. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Raymond Gregory led the Pledge of Allegiance. • INVOCATION (MOMENT OF REFLECTION) Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez offered the Invocation. • ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Mark Carnevale Mayor Present 6:30 PM John Aguilar Mayor Pro Tern Present 6:30 PM Raymond Gregory Councilmember Present 6:30 PM Ernesto Gutierrez Councilmember Present 6:30 PM • AGENDA FINALIZATION Tracey Martinez, City Clerk, announced that items 3F, 3G and 3H will be pulled from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Brad Anderson, Rancho Mirage resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with the work of the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District and feels that the District is not using their resources the way they should. believes short term vacation rentals are a strong back bone to the local economy. He feels that the existing Ordinance should be repealed or at least have an end date included in the proposed. Ordinance. Doug Evans, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He feels that short term vacation rentals have an impact on housing in Cathedral City. Available housing has been taken out of the market place. He stated that there are 15 vacation rentals on his street alone. He feels that it is out of control and it is not going away., Rudy Garcia, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He feels that there needs to ' be solid rules and enforcement with regard to short term vacation rentals. He feels that having good communication and relationships with their neighbors is important. He would like to see an end date in the proposed Ordinance or see the current moratoruim expire. John Cortez, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He stated that he is opposed to -the moratorium and feels that short term vacation -rentals stimulate the economy. He feels that it is important to have good communication with neighbors and strong rules and regulations. He suggested placing a time limit on the Ordinance. Lisa Taranto, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She feels that enforcement is the key to the success of the program. She indicated that she purchased a home with the intention of it being a short term vacation rental property. She has invested a lot of time and money into the property and is now unable to license it. She would like to be an exception. She would like the moratorium to expire. Boris Stark was called to speak. He stated that he is on the Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force and feels it will be a 9-month process to finish their work. He requested that the City allocate funds for enforcement in the meantime and that acting immediately could help alleviate concerns. He urged the Council to consider a deadline on the moratorium. Leslie Barragan-Scott, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She expressed her concern with a short term vacation rental behind her property and her experience with City staff when she has made complaints. She stated that she is harassed by the property owner and living a nightmare. She stated that the moratorium does not help her because the property behind her is already licensed. She expressed her frustration and doesn't know what to do. Ed Emond-Worline, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He stated that he is on the Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force and feels that the moratorium needs to be extended so that they have time to do their job. He discussed the issues with the calls for service through the hotline and feels Code Enforcement is an. area that needs to be addressed. Teri Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She stated that she is on the Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force Density Team and Cathedral City Page 8 Printed on 812212019 reassured the Council that they are working diligently. She feels their work is going to take time and encouraged the Council to approve the Ordinance. Michael Hagedorn, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He feels there are no more neighborhoods in the City. He supports the Ordinance and wants the Council to give the Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force time to do their job. Bob Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He supports a moratorium. He discussed the issues that good short term vacation rental operators are facing and feels they cannot control some renters. He feels the residents want quality neighborhoods and the City needs to figure out how to do that. Mary Moriian, Cathedral City short term vacation homeowner, was called to speak. She discussed her experience with false complaints and the financial investments in her home. She stated that she is opposed to the moratorium and hopes that a deadline is included. Carolina (Did not disclose her last name), Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She discussed her family's rental home and stated that they run their business by the rules and regulations of the City. Sergio Espericueta, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with the City not enforcing the zero tolerance of noise and feels this is the main issue. Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez feels that there should not be a time limit on the Ordinance. He feels that there is a lot of work that needs to be done and it needs to be done properly. He is a strong supporter of real estate and real estate rights, however, he also feels that the property rights of the people should be protected. He stated that he was elected to protect the residents and that is what he is going to do. Pro Tern John Aguilar stated that he is not in favor of imposing a deadline on the moratorium and does not want to rush the Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force. Councilmember Raymond Gregory does not support imposing a deadline on the moratorium. He feels that the Short Tenn Vacation Rental Task Force needs to take as long as it needs to, to be effective. Mayor Mark Carnevale thanked everyone for their comments and feels there is clearly a problem with short term vacation rentals. He stated that he does not support imposing a time limit and feels that the Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force has a lot of work to do and they need time to do it. Eric Vail, City Attorney, explained the moratorium does not, apply to pending applications for short term vacation rental permits, existing short term vacation rental permits, renewals of existing short term rental permits, or areas governed Cathedral City Page 9 Printed on 812212019 ilt Cathedral City • CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 25, 2019 6:30 PM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 6:34 PM by Mayor Mark Carnevale. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Rita Lamb led the Pledge. of Allegiance. • INVOCATION (MOMENT OF REFLECTION) Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez offered the Invocation. • ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Mark Carnevale Mayor Present 6:30 PM John Aguilar Mayor Pro Tern Present 6:30 PM Raymond Gregory Councilmember Present 6:30 PM Ernesto Gutierrez Councilmember Present 6:30 PM Rita Lamb Councilmember Present 6:30 PM • AGENDA FINALIZATION • STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Scott Wolf, Development Director Coachella Valley Rescue Mission (CVRM), was called to speak. He discussed the Cooling Center which served 175 un-duplicated individuals. Of those individuals, 125 were over the age of 50 and 18 of those individuals are now receiving long term assistance through the mission. He thanked the City for their support and the CDBG funding. He stated that CVRM accepts all support and greatly appreciates it. Robert Mueller, Rancho Mirage, resident, was called to speak. He spoke on the rapid demise of the Salton Sea. He urged the City Council to pass a Resolution to import sea water. Bob Terry, Salton Sea Coalition, was called to speak. He stated that they are all volunteers and they are doing what is right. The Sea is shrinking much faster than they believed. The only realistic solution to this climate crisis is to keep these chemicals covered by water. He urged the City Council to support sea water import. Chuck Parker, Salton Sea Coalition, was called to speak. He read a letter that they sent to Governor Newsom in August. He urged the City Council to support salt water import. Felicitas Nunez, Salton Sea Coalition, was called to speak. She stated that she is ,a retired nurse and explained the health issues that are brought on by the Salton Sea. There is a great need to do a human health study on how the dust is affecting everyone. She expressed her concern with local schools that are being affected. She urged the City Council to support salt water import. Mayor Carnevale requested that this request regarding the Salton Sea be placed on a future study session agenda. City Manager ,Charles McClendon stated that staff will bring a study session item on the Salton Sea back to the City Council on a future meeting for the City Council to consider. Bob Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concerns with the noise from the short-term vacation rental behind his property and other items related to short-term vacation rentals. Doug Evans, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He thanked staff for accommodating his public records requests. He discussed affordable housing verses workforce housing. He believes short-term vacation rentals are taking affordable housing away. Brad Anderson, Rancho Mirage resident, was called to speak. He spoke on the Mosquito and Vector Control District and submitted information for the record. He urged the City Council to be concerned with the public's safety. 2. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez congratulated and welcomed Councilmember Rita Lamb. He stated that the short-term vacation rental map is very helpful and thanked staff for providing it. Mayor Pro Tem John Aguilar reported that he attended the CVAG Conservation Commission meeting and the CVAG Energy and Environmental Commission meeting. He also reported that he attended the Desert Community Energy board meeting and announced there is an open seat on their advisory committee. He reported that the Lift to Rise program will be working in the community to increase Cathedra! City Page 2 Printed on 1010312019 3.A.b I STVR Task Force Public Meeting October 19, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Council Chambers Notes City Staff in attendance: Charlie McClendon, City Manager Tam! Scott, Administrative Services Director Ronda Guillaume, FD Administrative Assistant II Christina Harrison, Office Assistant Task Force Members in attendance: Ed Emond-Worline Teri Hargreaves Pattie Hagedorn Bob Ohda Conrad Corral Boris Stark City Manager Charlie McClendon welcomed everyone and introduced the STVR Task Force members and City Staff that were in attendance. He gave an overview of the three working groups of the Task Force: Regulation, Enforcement and Density, and explained the purpose and rules for the public meeting. Public Speakers Danny Lee, Landau Homes area resident, was called to speak. He gave a summary of what he heard at the last public meeting. He feels that residents put more money and maintain their homes better than short-term vacation rental owners do. He also feels that residents visit restaurants and businesses in the City more than the vacation renters do. David Stapleton, Panorama area resident, was called to speak. He stated that there are 4 short-term vacation rentals on his street, and they are the cause of parking and noise issues. He also stated that their cars block driveways and the music and bad language never stops. Julie Baumer, Panorama area resident, was called to speak. She suggested�lmiting short-term vacation rentals to resort areas like Desert Princess. She feels that there is a density issue with too many short- term vacation rentals close together. She also feels that the violation penalties are too light, and warnings do not work. She would like the City to look at density and penalties for solutions. She stated that the Police Department has better things to do with their time. Jim Mews, Cove area resident and short-term vacation rental owner, was called to speak. He stated that he gathered information from the City regarding noise complaints and provided statistics of his findings. He also stated that he rents his home out short-term and always makes sure his renters are well informed of the rules. He suggested that the City have two different licensing fees, one for I Packet Pg. 17 1 3.A.b I Bob Hargreaves, Panorama area resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with a short- term rental behind his home that is advertising for more occupants then permitted. He stated that the property is managed professionally, but it is still an issue. He feels that noise and the renters themselves are not the issue, and the real issue is allowing commercial properties in residential neighborhoods. Chuck Tasker, La Quinta resident, was called to speak. He stated that he is a contractor who works on short-term vacation rentals. He feels that the City needs to increase the fees for short-term vacation rentals to allow for better enforcement. He also feels that the remodeled short-term vacation rentals make the neighborhoods nicer. Anna Maradyers, Cathedral City resident and short-term vacation rental owner, was called to speak. She stated that she lives in her home and rents it out part-time. She feels that the illegally operating short- term vacation rentals are giving the legal short-term vacation rentals a bad name. She would like the City to focus on shutting down the illegal properties and give the legal short-term vacation rentals a chance to operate the right way. Michael Hagedorn, Panorama area resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with short- term vacation owners who are offsite and not doing their jobs. He stated that his construction company thrives on other projects not related to short-term vacation rentals. Cindy Lundquist, Rio Vista area resident, was called to speak. She stated that her home is between two short-term vacation rentals. She also stated that she has a disease and the noise from the rentals affects her adversely. She feels she cannot live in a peaceful neighborhood nor live a healthy life because of short-term vacation rentals. Kevin Jereiyan, short-term vacation rental owner, was called to speak. He stated that he operates a short-term vacation rental here in the City and he does not want partying happening at his property, so he has given his neighbors his contact information in order to stay on top of any issues. He understands the concerns of the residents and would like to find a resolution together as a community. I Packet Pg. 22 I Alt Cathedral City • CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Study Session Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:00 PM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by Mayor Mark Carnevale. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Mark Carnevale John Aguilar Raymond Gregory Ernesto Gutierrez Rita Lamb Title Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Status Arrived Present 3:00 PM Present 3:00 PM Present 3:00 PM Present 3:00 PM Absent A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Aguilar and seconded by Councilmdmber Gregory to excuse the absence of Councilmember Rita Lamb from the November 13, 2019, Study Session Meeting. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Aguilar, Mayor Pro Tern SECONDER: Raymond Gregory, Councilmember AYES: Mark Carnevale, John Aguilar, Raymond Gregory, Ernesto Gutierrez ABSENT: Rita Lamb 1. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT INTERVIEWS AT 3:00 PM A. Interview Applicants for the Historical Preservation Committee Recommendation: To interview the applicants that have submitted applications for possible appointment to fill five vacant seats on the Steven Vogelsang, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with the lack of animal control in the City. He stated that he has a problem with stray animals in his neighborhood. He questioned if all residents on Tortuga Road have connected to sewer and if not have they been fined as the City indicated they would be years ago. Bob Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with the short-term vacation rental behind his home. He provided pictures and the advertisement for the property which he feels is in violation of the current regulations. Doug Evans, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He thanked the City Council for the private security contract and for hiring a new Code Enforcement Manager, he has seen a difference already. It is his hope that the City Council will give clear direction to Staff and he encourages no warnings with more citations and fines. He feels it is time to get serious and their neighbors need help. 4. STUDY SESSION A. Greater Palm Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau Annual Update Recommendation: This is a presentation only. There is no formal action required. Scott White, President and CEO , Greater Palm springs Convention & Visitors Bureau, presented the CVB's annual update, marketing efforts and initiatives for Cathedral City. Mayor Mark Carnevale questioned the following: Can the cannabis industry be incorporated into their marketing? Has the CVB considered changing the name to Greater Coachella Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau? What it the most popular attraction in the valley? Scott White responded that they are limited to what they can do with regard to the cannabis industry, however, they do incorporate all that they can in their marketing. As far as the name of the CVB, they do testing annually on the name as well as each season. Greater Palm Springs still comes out ahead, for now. He stated that outdoor health and wellness is the most popular attraction in the valley as well as the events. Mayor Pro Tem Aguilar asked about training programs for hospitality. workers. Scott White responded that there are many collaborations in place with the local collages for training in the hospitality industry. Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez questioned if they will be working with the cities regarding short term vacation rentals. He also asked for a status update on the flights from Palm Springs to Sacramento. Scott White responded that CVB is exploring the possibility of a tax, which would Cathedral City Page 3 Printed on 12/19/2019 Cathedral City 411 CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Wednesday, February 12, 2020 6:30 PM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 6:38 PM by Mayor John Aguilar. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Tem Raymond Gregory led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION (MOMENT OF REFLECTION) Councilmember Ernesto Gutterrez offered the Invocation. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived John Aguilar Mayor Present 6:38 PM Raymond Gregory Mayor Pro Tern Present 6:38 PM Mark Carnevale Councilmember Present 6:38 PM Ernesto Gutierrez Councilmember Present 6:38 PM Rita Lamb Councilmember Present 6:38 PM AGENDA FINALIZATION Item 6F. Public Arts Commission recommendation to purchase "The Flash 2019" and install within the Cathedral City Community Amphitheater, was pulled from the agenda. Item 3C. CVRep Loan Modification, was pulled from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. 0 STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK Councilmember Mark Carnevale announced that acting Chief Yoakum is leaving Cathedral City. He thanked acting Chief Yoakum for his service and stated that he will be missed. Acting Chief Yoakum stated that it has been a pleasure to work for Cathedral City. He feels that the men and woman of the Police Department are amazing and he is proud to have led them. He encouraged the,City to select a new Chief that is caring and compassionate. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Joanne Kennon, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She thanked the Mayor, Fire Department, Police Department and City Staff for allowing her the opportunity to produce the North Pole Village at Snowfest. She also thanked the Public Arts Commission for their help with building the villages. She presented gifts of appreciation to Council, Fire Department and Police Department. Dr. Ifthika Nissar, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She expressed her concern about the overall safety and impact of short-term vacation rentals. Teri Hargreaves, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. She expressed her concern with short-term vacation rentals and urged the Council to read all the comments and results of the short-term vacation rental surveys. She discussed multiple shootings that have occurred at different Airbnb locations throughout the United States. Brad Anderson, Rancho Mirage resident, was called to speak. He expressed his concern with the limitation of the public's speaking rights at agency meetings. Alan Carvalho, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He indicated that he is representing the Public Arts Commission. He spoke on the loss of the "The Flash 2019" art piece. He expressed his concern with the process to purchase all pieces and feels it is problematic. Doug Evans, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He thanked staff for all their hard work. He expressed his concern with short-term vacation rentals. He thanked the Council and Staff for having City Hall at Your Corner and spoke about the location and the recent stabbing that took place at a short-term vacation rental. He discussed a resident selling their house due to the issues with short-term vacation rentals and feels the City Council has a chance to fix the problem. Ron Mendiola, Cathedral City resident, was called to speak. He thanked the Council for their service. He expressed his concern with the short-term vacation rental next to his house, which he feels is a party house. He is frustrated and feels that it is not fair that he always has to be on the defense. His quality of life and comfort of peace is not what it should be. He urged the Council to read the comments and results of the short-term vacation rental surveys and find a resolution. 2. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez reported that he met with Lt. Luna to work on a Cathedral City Page 2 Printed on 212012020 3.A.4 Alt Cathedral City • CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Wednesday, July 8, 2020 6:30 PM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM by Mayor John Aguilar. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Mark Carnevale led the Pledge of Allegiance. • INVOCATION (MOMENT OF REFLECTION) Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez offered the Invocation. �Zia] 4>K•7_111q Attendee Name Title Status Arrived John Aguilar Mayor Remote Raymond Gregory Mayor Pro Tern Remote Mark Carnevale Councilmember Present 6:30 PM Ernesto Gutierrez Councilmember Present 6:30 PM Rita Lamb Councilmember Remote Mayor John Aguilar, Mayor Pro Tem Raymond Gregory and Councilmember Rita Lamb participated via Zoom Videoconference. • AGENDA FINALIZATION • SPECIAL PRESENTATION FOR OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS City Manager Charles McClendon thanked the outgoing Commissioners for their service to the City and the community. He introduced each outgoing Commissioner and gave a brief background of their service. Councilmember Mark Carnevale and Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez presented each outgoing Commissioner with a certificate of recognition. Packet Pg. 20 3.A.4 STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The following individuals provided public comment via phone call. Jonathan Dearin, spoke on short-term vacation rentals, which he feels are a viable revenue source for the City. He urged the City Council not to implement a cap on the number of rentals per property per year and instead devote resources to better enforcement. Teri Hargreaves, Cathedral City, described a recent incident where a short-term vacation renter entered her backyard. She feels this is the problem with short-term vacation rentals, as they bring strangers into the neighborhoods and she never r knows who is coming next. She also feels that no amount of money for enforcement can solve this issue and urged the City Council to put themselves in her shoes when Q they make their final decision. C N Sandra Richter, thanked the City Council for their efforts during the current pandemic. She expressed her concern with short-term vacation rentals allowing people from other places to come in with this dangerous disease. She stated that a short-term vacation rental near her is not following State guidelines for time between a occupancy. She also described and incident with an owner of a short-term vacation M rental which resulted in the owner threatening her and the police coming to her door. She urged the City Council to eliminate short-term vacation rentals. o Brad Anderson, Rancho Mirage, spoke about the mosquitoes in the Coachella Valley and feels the Vector Control District has been poor managed for many years. He urged the public to voice their opinion's at the next board meeting. 2. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Rita Lamb stated that she had a busy week. She reported that she met with residents from Tierra Del Sol and with Public Arts Commissioner Sue Townsley. She stated that the recent City Hall at Your Corner via Zoom was a success. She also participated in Conferences with the League of California Cities via Zoom. She welcomed Quick Quack Car Wash to the community. She reported that she received a call from a concerned gentleman regarding the state of Varner Road. Councilmember Mark Carnevale hopes everyone had a happy 4th of July Holiday. He stated that he also participated in the City Hall at Your Corner Zoom meeting, which went well, and feels a lot was accomplished. He also received the update from Supervisor Perez. He reported that he, along with Greg Rodriguez, spoke to the Palm Springs Elks Lodge Board regarding having a possible cooling center. He feels they are more interested in what we can do for them instead of what they can do for us, but they haven't said no yet. He noted that last week a few employees were laid off due to reductions related to COV/D-19. It is his hope that we start to recover and can bring those employees back. Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez hopes everyone had a good 4th of July Holiday. Cathedra! City Page 2 Printed on 7/15d Packet Pg. 21 '11 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Cathedral City Special Meeting Wednesday, July 29, 2020 8:00 AM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 MAYOR John Aguilar CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Raymond Gregory Mark Carnevale Councilmember Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez Rita Lamb Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting may be conducted by teleconference or videoconference and there will be no in -person public access to the meeting location. Submit your public comment to the City Council electronically. For Special Meetings, comments are limited to items on the agenda only. Material may be emailed to citvclerk &cathedralcitv.aov. Transmittal by Tuesday. July 28. 2020 at 4:00 p.m. is reouired. Any correspondence received after the deadline will be distributed to the City Council and retained for the official record. You may provide telephonic comments by calling the City Clerk's Office at (760) 770-0322 no later than Tuesday. Julv 28, 2020 at 4:00 a.m. to be added to the public comment queue. At the appropriate time, a staff member will call you so that you may provide your public testimony to the City Council. Groups of individuals that have the same comments are encouraged to submit one comment that includes a list of individuals who agree. The comment and names will be read into the record. Please take note, all comments whether verbal or written will be limited to 3 minutes. Once the three minutes have expired the comments will end. View the City Council meeting live at the City's website at www.cathedralcitv.aov or channel 17. CALL TO ORDER • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • INVOCATION (MOMENT OF REFLECTION) 0 ROLL CALL AGENDA FINALIZATION At this time the City Council may announce any items being pulled from the agenda or continued to another date. STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS A. Short -Term Vacation Rental Task Force Report Recommendation: This item is presented for information, discussion and direction only. ADJOURN NOTES TO THE PUBLIC: The City of Cathedral City complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk's Office at (760) 770-0322 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If you desire to address the City Council during the meeting, please complete a Request to Speak Form available at the entrance and present it to the Deputy City Clerk. Speakers will be called upon by the Mayor at the appropriate time. Any documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office at City Hall located at 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero during normal business hours. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City's website at www.cathedralcitv.aov. Cathedra! City Page 2 2.A.g I A VISION FOR CATHEDRAL CITY "- -! . ize wo - •- .- . - "Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a Scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow - without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community." California Court of Appeal decision in Ewina vs. Citv of Carmel By The Sea Prepared By PROTECT OUR CATHEDRAL CITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS A Group of Concerned Residents of Cathedral City I Packet Pg. 110 I 2.A.g PROPOSAL #2 IS THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR CATHEDRAL CITY BACKGROUND At the March 11, 2020 Study Session, the Short Term Vacation Rental (STVR) Task Force Density Subcommittee presented two Proposals: Proposal 1- Rely on Stronger Regulations and Enforcement; and Proposal 2 - Phase Out STVRs in residential areas while allowing them to continue operating in HOAS with CC&Rs that allow them and in "home share" situations. City Council directed the Task Force to focus its work on Proposal 2 and draft recommendations to support that Proposal, including stronger regulations and enforcement. We applaud the City Council's direction and are grateful it is putting the interests of Cathedral City residents first and foremost. The existence of STVRs in Cathedral City has been a contentious issue. We understand that STVRs are a way for residents to supplement their income by renting rooms in their homes to visitors. We also understand the need for cities to bolster revenue during these difficult times. However, when STVRs started taking over neighborhoods and changing the character of those neighborhoods, removing houses from the housing stock (both for long-term rental or purchase), and ruining residents' quality of life, residents started voicing their anger. Cities everywhere started revisiting their ordinances. That is what has happened here in Cathedral City. While there is no one approach that cities are taking to address the issue, there is an undeniable trend that cities worldwide are choosing to put the needs of their residents first to protect residential neighborhoods, because once a neighborhood is lost, it's lost forever. Major issues raised and repeated during council meetings, public hearings, and written submittals include: • Quality of life in residential neighborhoods with STVRs (e.g. neighbors being woken up during the middle of the night, trash being left behind by uncaring visitors, already tight parking spaces being taken up by out of town transients) • Dependence of some homeowners on supplemental income from rentals • Loss of revenue sources to property owners and property managers • Loss of a portion of TOT to the City • Inadequate code enforcement provisions and resources The proposal to phase out most STVRs in residential neighborhoods is a reasonable proposal for the City Council of Cathedral City to adopt. It is a compromise, accommodating both residents living in areas planned for residential use and residents who want to earn extra income by renting out a room in their homes. It does not ban STVRs in Cathedral City; it simply allows them to operate in areas more suited for these commercial enterprises such as in HOAs that approve them and eliminates them in areas that are planned for residential use. I Packet Pg. 111 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE (Summarized) • Prohibit new STVRs in all residential zones, except in home sharing situations (i.e. renting out a room in a home) where the owner is on -site during the rental period or if the unit is in an HOA or other community association with CC&Rs that allow them. • The owner of a home sharing STVR must be a permanent resident of Cathedral City and must be present during the rental stay. • Existing permitted STVRs in the prohibited residential zones will be phased out during a transition period sunsetting on a date determined by City Council. After that date, all STVRs in those zones are prohibited (except for home sharing and in HOAs/CC&Rs which allow them). • All existing permitted STVRs during the transition period will be subject to new rules adopted by City Council regarding stricter regulations and enforcement penalties. Stricter fines.similar to Palm Desert should be adopted ($1,000, $3,000) and revocation on the third violation. Stricter fines for advertising an unpermitted STVR ($5,000). No warnings are to be given. Palm Desert found that stricter penalties yield positive results. • During the transition, existing permitted STVRs in the prohibited residential zones may continue operating unless title to the property has changed or the existing permit has been revoked. • Operational requirements should be improved, including: no music outside; a quiet time; in -person check -in; limits in occupancy; reduced time for the local contact to respond; limit on parking; requirement that renters sign a formal acknowledgment that he/she is legally responsible for compliance of all occupants with the rules. • New insurance requirements and hold harmless agreements are recommended to protect guests and the City. REASONS WHY THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN CATHEDRAL CITY • By their very nature, STVRs are noisy and invite problems affecting residents' quality of life. Transient strangers come here to vacation and have fun; residents are not on vacation - they are here to live and work. No amount of regulation or enforcement can change the inherent nature and constant turnover of strangers here to have fun in STVRs. • Relying solely on improved regulations and enforcement is a red herring. No matter what improvements are made to enforcement, the onus always is on the resident to be the first responder. By the time the resident contacts the Hotline, his or her quality of life already has been disrupted. • STVRs are a commercial business. They are an incompatible use in areas planned for residential use. • As a reminder, Cathedral City Municipal Code Sec. 9.14.010 states, in part: Purpose and intent. (R-1 Single Family Residential District): "To provide a living area within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of one -family dwellings and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life..." • STVRs remove housing units from the city stock and make housing less available or affordable for people who want to live here. Cathedral City is a young city. When young people move out on their own, they prefer to stay close to family. The lack of affordable housing for our native sons and daughters drives them away from family and friends. Packet Pg. 112 2.A.g I REASONS WHY THIS PROPOSAL CAN WORK IN CATHEDRAL CITY • The proposed ordinance offers something for everyone. • On -site homeowners who rent out a room or two in their homes will be able to operate STVRs on their property as they do today; on -site owners dependent on supplemental income from rentals keep that income source. • Fully one-third of STVRs will continue operating in HOAs as they do today, with administrative changes only; stiffer penalties will not affect them as long as they and their renters comply with "good neighbor" requirements. These properties will continue to pay permit fees, inspection fees and TOT. • R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods retain their desirable characteristics and quality of life. • Homeowners currently struggling to sell homes near STVRs can assure potential buyers that the disclosed STVRs will be gone by the sunset date. • The transition period allows time for investors, off -site owners, property managers and Realtors to respond to the change. Reintroduction of the properties into the local real estate market is spread over time, not all at once. • When the phase out in the residential areas is completed, the City's. administrative and enforcement costs will decrease along with the decrease in TOT. Home sharing owners and HOAs/CC&Rs which allow STVRs will be the first line of enforcement and reduce the City's involvement. ARGUMENTS BY STVR OWNERS/MANAGERS AND RESPONSES • STVRs are not a business because they operate in a residence, so they do not require a business license and do not violate residential zoning laws. Most cities like Cathedral City require STVRs to have a business license because they are a business. It is a commercial activity intended to generate a profit. Owners can deduct business expenses on their income taxes. The California legislature in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 equated short term occupancy of a residence as "the commercial use of land". The argument by owners and managers that STVRs are not a business is meritless. • STVRs improve run-down empty homes and clean up properties. This is a specious argument. Code Enforcement should be addressing these issues with all properties in the City. • Long-term rentals are the problem, not short-term rentals. Some response as above. • If banned, they will just go underground. This is like saying, since drivers violate speeding laws we should do away with speeding laws. Offenders will always try to circumvent the rules. The solution requires perseverance and a real desire and effort made by Code Enforcement to enforce the rules with help by reporting neighbors. • STVR owners have invested money in the City. STVR guests bring "millions" to the City. What about homeowners who have lived in the City and have invested money here for years? STVR guests are not spending the millions claimed; they bring their own party supplies and visit neighboring cities like Palm Springs. And since 75% of the owners do not live in Cathedral City, we know they are not spending their STVR profits here in our City but in their own cities of residence or are paying their mortgages on their STVR units. • STVR owners will sell off their properties and flood the real estate market making housing prices decline. The Palm Desert experience shows the opposite. in the most 4 Packet Pg. 113 I 2.A.g I recent June 2020 Desert Housing Report, Palm Desert detached homes showed a 13.7016 year over year gain, the highest in the desert. Home loan interest rates, stock market, job market and overall economy will dictate housing value. The other side of the argument is that high housing prices are not necessarily desirable when they make it difficult for working and middle class families to purchase a home in our City. • Property rights - people have a right to do what they want with their properties. Property owners'rights are subject to laws implemented for the public good and for the entire community. A property owner does not have an unfettered right to do whatever he/she wishes - that is the purpose of zoning and other municipal regulations. For a more detailed response, see the legal discussion below and Appendix B. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT NEW. IT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY MANY CITIES ALL OVER THE U. S. AND COURTS HAVE UPHELD THE RESTRICTIONS • This approach is not new. Many cities worldwide have chosen to ban STVRs altogether; others have adopted a similar approach to the one proposed. Attached as Appendix A is a list of just a few examples of California and other U. S. cities either totally banning STVRs or restricting them to some type of home sharing. • The challenges to city ordinances restricting STVRs have been based on various purported legal grounds. But most California courts have upheld such city ordinances against these challenges. Appendix B provides a more detailed explanation of the case law and the reasoning of the courts in deciding the cases against challenges. • Online platforms like Airbnb and STVR businesses and owners have tried to thwart cities' attempts to restrict the growth of STVRs and restore neighborhoods to the residents by suing the cities. Many California courts have decided in favor of the cities. Please see Appendix C for a short list of cases in which courts have supported the cities. CONCLUSION We respectfully request that the City Council adopt Proposal #2 - phasing out STVRs in residential neighborhoods except for home sharing and HOAs that allow them - along with those recommendations to improve regulations and strengthen enforcement made by the resident members on the STVR Task Force who do not own or manage STVRs. It is a compromise that best serves all the residents of Cathedral City and will enhance neighborhood quality of life. PLEASE PUT RESIDENTS FIRST Packet Pg. 114 2.A.g I Here are just a few of the responses returned in the October 2019 survey which was sent to houses adjacent to existing Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs): • Please make this nightmare end. (Survey #172) • No one moves in a neighborhood to live next to people that just want to party loud. They have no respect for people who are working and need to sleep or kids who have to go to school. I hate it! Makes me want to move. (Survey #010) • STVRs do not build communities. I cannot know my neighbors because they are never the same. (Survey #032) • Noise excessive noise and loud music past 10 p.m. well into 3 a.m. As a registered nurse, sleep is vital (Survey #026) • A for profit business should not be allowed in R-1 & R-2 zones. This is where we LIVE, and we do not want strangers, disruptions and cars coming through your neighborhood. We need neighbors for our quality of life. (Survey #027) • Loud music playing until 2 a.m. Renters jumping over into my backyard. Having live bands and D1s playing extremely loud music. Have around 80 people per rental. (Survey #066) • Lots of noise -loud radios. Still up and shouting at 3 a.m. (Survey #149) • Neighborhoods are for neighbors not vacationers. That is why we have hotels. (Survey #159) • STVRs create noise, congestion and put the burden on neighbors to monitor & report problems while STVR owners and managers remain oblivious. (Survey #174) • Inappropriate use of residential neighborhoods violates our zoning plan. Noise and disruption. Absentee owners. Reduce housing supply, competes with resorts. (Survey # 182) • Trespass by renters onto my property. Police response on multiple occasions. Drone at my front window, porch, front yard. Trespass by photographer on my front driveway. Intoxicated male renter on my porch late PM threatened me. (Survey #190) • It is a business for profit in residential areas. Ruins fabric of community. (Survey #191) • There is a party every weekend. I do not want to live next to a hotel. I have a family, small kids and want a family neighborhood. (Survey #352) • Loss of sleep. Many times have woken up at 3-4 a.m, to noise and music coming from vacation rental. (Survey #407) li Packet Pg. 115 I 2.A.g I APPENDIX A List Of Bans / Restrictions In Coachella Valley Cities Palm Desert Indian Wells (allowed during tennis tournament) Sample List Of Bans / Restrictions In California Cities Buena Park Danville (total ban) Glendale Healdsburg (total ban in Irvine (total ban in La Mirada (total ban) residential) residential) Manhattan Beach (total ban Napa County (total ban) Newport Beach (banned in in residential) some areas) Pacific Grove San Leandro San Luis Obispo Santa Monica Sausalito (total ban) Seal Beach (banned, with a limited exception) South Lake Tahoe Temecula (total ban) Tiburon (total ban) Sample List Of Bans / Restrictions In Other States LA - New Orleans NH - Portsmouth (total ban) NY - Jersey City NV - Las Vegas (bans new NY - New York (banned in Washington DC. permits that are not owner apts unless owner present) occupied) 7 0 a L0 U- Y N 10 w c m c 0 w l6 E L 0 to Ln N N Packet Pg. 116 1 2.A.g I APPENDIX B LEGAL ISSUES AND SELECTED CASE LAW SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL STVR Owners' due process rights are not denied. In the seminal case Ewing v. City of Carmel by the Sea, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579 6`h Dist. 1991, cited in most STVR opinions as well as in many preambles to municipal STVR ordinances, a STVR owner sued the city over its ordinance prohibiting STVRs. The California Sixth District Court of Appeal first held that the owner's due process rights Were not violated, stating: "We have already determined that the ordinance is rationally related to the stated goal. Carmel wishes to enhance and maintain the residential character of the R-1 District. Limiting transient commercial use of residential property for remuneration in the R-1 District addresses that goal. " [Emphasis added] In upholding the lower court's decision upholding the city's ordinance, the Court in Ewing stated the following: "It stands,to reason that the 'residential character' of a neighborhood is threatened when a significant number of homes...are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a weekend, a week, even 29 days. Whether or not transient rentals have the other 'unmitigatable, adverse impacts' cited by the Council, such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a Scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow —without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community." [Emphasis added]. South Lake Tahoe Prooerty Owners Group v. South Lake Tahoe (EI Dorado County, SC-20180243, Law and Motion Calendar Dept. 9, decided 6/12/2020), involved a challenge to the enactment of a citizen's initiative Measure T to eliminate STVRs in residential zones by the city by majority vote of the electorate at the 11/6/2018 election. Several features of Measure Tare similar to Proposal 2 (cancels existing permits in 2021; limits number of occupants; limits operation of STVRs to permanent residents.) The court ruled in favor of the city in substantial part, and found that Measure T did not violate the rights of current STVR owners. In its decision, the court said: "Use of a reasonable amortization scheme provides an equitable means of reconciliation of the conflicting interests in satisfaction of due process requirements." (P. 88) Municipalities' authority to regulate STVRs is within their zoning power. It is settled law in California that zoning regulations that restrict or prohibit short term rentals in residential areas are within the lawful scope of a city's zoning power where the restrictions are found to be substantially related to land use impacts in the area. (Ewing v. City of Carmel bv_ the Sea. 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579 6c4 Dist. 1991; Rathkops's The Law of Zoning and Planning Sec. 81:114`h Ed 2011.) Ordinances restricting STVRs do not amount to an unconstitutional "taking". In a case in Oregon in which a municipal ordinance prohibited short term rentals, the court decided that the ordinance did not deny the owners economically viable use of their properties: "We next consider whether Ordinance 92-1, by prohibiting transient occupancy, denies property owners economically viable use of their properties. We conclude it does not. On its face, Ordinance 92-1 permits rentals of dwellings for periods of 14 days or more. The ordinance also permits the owners themselves to reside in the dwellings. Although those uses may not be as profitable as are shorter -term rentals of the properties they are economically viable uses." (Cope v. City of Cannon Beach 855 P.2d. 1083 (Or. 1993), 1086-87.) Packet Pg. 117 I2.A.gI APPENDIX C SELECTED EXAMPLES OF CASES UPHOLDING MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES RESTRICTING STVRs Homeaway.com. Inc. v. City of Santa Monica 918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2019) — Upheld Santa Monica's ordinance restricting STVRs to home sharing. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the City of Santa Monica's home sharing ordinance. The Court agreed with the district court that the City's ordinance is a lawful housing and rental regulation with the "central and significant goal" of preserving the City's "housing stock and preserving the quality and nature of residential neighborhoods". Rosenblatt v. Santa Monica 940 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2019) — Upheld Santa Monica"s ordinance prohibiting STVRs except for hosted short term home shares during which the primary resident host lives in the unit with the guest. Affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; U. S. Supreme Court declined to review the judgement (5/18/2020). South Lake Tahoe Prooertv Owners Grout) v. South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado County, SC-20180243, Law and Motion Calendar Dept. 9, decided 6/12/2020) — Upheld in substantial part a citizen's measure eliminating STVRs in residential zones (with a 3 year phaseout). This was a summary judgment proceeding; decision rendered by the El Dorado county judge. 2 Pacific Grove Lawsuits — brought against Pacific Grove over a voter passed Measure phasing out STVRs in certain areas outside the Coastal zone using a lottery system but still allowing home sharing. The first case (STRONGDa v. City of Pacific Grove) was dismissed, and it was described as a fishing expedition to extract concessions from the City such as grandfathering in existing STVRs. The second case (Hobbs v. City of Pacific Grove) was funded by the Goldwater Institute and Airbnb. The trial date was set for 12/16/2019, but was dismissed by the plaintiffs themselves, who then filed an appeal, but the appeal is pending because plaintiffs failed to pay the filing fee. Wallace v. Town of Grand Island 194 CA 19-00925(6/12/2020) — The NY Supreme Court Appellate Div. 41 upheld the City's zoning regulations prohibiting STVRs except for owner -occupied (i.e. home sharing) with a one year amortization period which could be extended up to 3 times. The Wallace case is important because it is based on a U. S. Supreme Court case, Penn Central Transportation Co. v New York Citv 438 US 104 (1978), where the Court found that the plaintiff failed to provide financial evidence that "the subject premises was not capable of producing a reasonable return on his investment or that it was not adaptable to other suitable private use." At best, the plaintiff established a "mere diminution" in property value, which is not sufficient to establish a regulatory taking. The Court observed that the plaintiff was not precluded from selling the property at a profit, or from renting it on a long-term basis. Finally, the Court noted that, even if the plaintiff successfully established a regulatory taking, the proper relief for his claim would have been a hearing on just compensation, not invalidation of the law. 17 Packet Pg. 118 I 2.A.g I The following residents have indicated their support of this Vision For Cathedral City Alan Zimmerman Dan Foster Anthony Jacques Sr. Danny Lee 0 Arcelia Mendiola Dawn Bellett v d L Barbara Effler Deb White Y Bary A. Freet Denise Cross ~ Bill Bordonaro Diane Hines Bill Comnos Dottie Edwards 0 M Bob Hargreaves Doug Evans > L Bob Ohda Dyan Flyzik W r Brad Hogie Ed Emond-Worline 0 Brenda Riley Eric Price Ln v Bruce Swauger Frank Riela CU C. J. Jerada Gabriella Harvey a 0 Cara Van Dijk GeorgeAnn Purnel = a Carla Young Gerald Schetter 0 Carol Baselton Gloria Foreman LL Z 0 Caryl Olins Gloria Torres a Cheryl L. Freet Guillermina Perezchica CD E Chip Yarborough Heather Bray Cindy Lundquist (former resident)* Hector Salvatierra w a Cyndie Swauger Herb Lienau 10 Packet Pg. 119 1 2.A.g Dr. Ifthika "Shine" Nissar Mabel Manriquez Jack McClelland Marcus Bray James Price Maria Jadulang Jeff Bergen Mark K. Mosby Jennifer Glover Mary Anne Seaver 0 Jens Mueller Mary Jo Mosby CL Jerry Wiley Matt Riley 0 Jim Reynolds Mel Johnson John Mikenas Mel Webster a, Joseph Gullo Melanie Stein 0 Julie Baumer Michael Bress w > E Julie Hassel Michael Hagedorn Karen Evans Mike Gemmell Karen Willis Mike Ramos N N Kathleen DeRosa Mike Termini Kathleen Mueller Miriam Alario J a Kathleen Patterson Nancy Alvarez - w x Ken Wagovich Naomi Adam Kevin Andrews Neil Black o Kim Frazier Nida Jerada z o Laura Romo Patricia Centino a Lorena Ritchey Pattie Hagedorn w Loretta Fisker Paul Foreman a Luisa A. Jacques Paul Otto M. Casillas Paul Woods 11 Packet Pg. 120 1 2.A.g I Peter Emond-Worline Susan Cubine Petra Salvatierra Susan Lienau Philip Orosco Susie Mintie Randy Purnel Talissa Jerada Ray Jerada Tate Harvey Rita Simpson Ted Barnes 0 CL Rodger Jarabek Terence Willis 0 U. Ron Leikem Teri Hargreaves Ron Mendiola Terry Sanders a o: Ron Van Dijk Tim Parrot o Sandra Richter Tim Rogowsky w > E Sara R. Donaldson Toni Jadulang Scott Magged Toni Perezchica Sharon Down Toni Romo `O N N Sherrie Black Tristen Willis IT Steve McPherson Steve Michel Steve Ritchey Steve Willis Stuart Glover Ty Rogowsky William Carabas William Morrow Zinnoon Nissar * "The STVR next to us was a living nightmare. We have moved out and so glad we no longer have to deal with this. It has ruined our neighborhood." Fra I Packet Pg. 121 1 411 Cathedral City CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meeting Wednesday, July 29, 2020 8:00 AM City Council Chambers 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero Cathedral City, CA 92234 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 AM by Mayor John Aguilar. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Mark Carnevale led the Pledge of Allegiance. • INVOCATION (MOMENT OF REFLECTION) Councilmember Ernesto Gutierrez offered the Invocation. • ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived John Aguilar Mayor Present 8:00 AM Raymond Gregory Mayor Pro Tern Present 8:00 AM Mark Carnevale Councilmember Present 8:00 AM Ernesto Gutierrez Councilmember Present 8:00 AM Rita Lamb Councilmember Present 8:00 AM • AGENDA FINALIZATION 0 STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY CLERK Mayor John Aguilar thanked the members of the Short -Term Vacation Task Force for their leadership and research through this process. He also thanked the residents who contacted the City Council to express their concerns and give their comments. He thanked the City Manager and staff for all their hard work, and commended the Council for doing an incredible job. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The following individuals provided public comment via phone call: Sandra Richter expressed her concern with the disruption being caused by the short-term vacation rental near her. She described an incident she had with the owner of the rental which resulted in the police being called to her home. She urged the City Council to give residents back their neighborhoods. Boris Stark advocated for short-term vacation rentals in the City. He urged the City Council not to use a shot gun approach and should base their decision on facts. He indicated that the ILCC is here to help facilitate enforcement of short-term vacation rentals and does not support bad operators and will help to catch them. He stated that the IL CC respects the opposition, however, they will not tolerate false claims. Karen Evans supports the Vision for Cathedral City and expressed her concern with the issues surrounding short-term vacation rentals owned by owners who do not live full-time in the City. She has given up on enjoying her home. Michael Bess expressed his concern with short-term vacation rentals, He shared his experience with the disturbances and interactions with the owner of the short-term rental near him. He does not want to live next to a hotel and stated that he cannot enjoy his home. He urged the City council to shut them down. Dean O'Conner expressed his concern with issues surrounding short-term vacation rentals. He feels that the claims made by short-term vacation owners that their businesses generate additional TOT, they spend more on home improvements and engage more outside services cannot be verified. He also feels that all revenue from short-term vacation rentals are used to enforce them, which makes them of no benefit to the City. Teri Hargreaves indicated that she is speaking on behalf of herself and Patty Hagedorn. She urged the Council to consider the many comments made by residents asking for help. She discussed a former Cathedral City resident who was forced to move due to short-term vacation rentals. She stated that the City Council was provided with a list of those that support the Vision for Cathedral City and reminded the Council that these are their neighbors. She urged the City Council to adopt proposal number 2 with strong regulations. Karen Panico Willis stated that she is a longtime resident who has attended many short-term vacation 'rental meetings. She expressed her concern with false comments made about residents. Michael Hagedorn expressed his concern with the attacks on residents and the City Council on social media. He feels that comments made by short-term vacation rental owners about revenues generated by short-term vacation rentals are false: He feels owners do not care about our City and only have an interest in making money. He recommends restricting short-term vacation rentals in R9 and R2 zones, while allowing them in HOA areas, which he feels is a good compromise. Bob Ohda expressed his concern with the loss of enjoyment in homes of residents due to short-term vacation rentals. He gave an overview of the Task Force options 9 and 2 and advocated for option 2, phasing out short-term vacation rentals. He urged Cathedra! City Page 2 Printed on 811912020 the City Council to protect the residents of Cathedral City. Ed Emond-Worline stated that he served on the 2016 and 2019 short-term vacation rental Task Forces. He shared an experience he had with a problematic short-term vacation rental in 2016, which was a nightmare and required multiple calls to the police. He advocated for the frustrations of residents illustrated in the many comments received. He urged the City Council to adopt proposal number 2. Doug Evans supports the Vision of Cathedral City and the phase -out of short-term vacation rentals. He directed the City Council's attention to page 296 on the staff report and expressed his concern with the submission, which was submitted by 1 Love Cathedral City. He feels that enforcement does not work and urged the City Council to support the Vision for Cathedral City. Bob Hargreaves expressed his concern with the incompatibility of short-term vacation rentals and neighborhoods, which he feels is not working. The following individuals provided their public comment for the record. Their comments were read for three minutes and the full comment will be made a part of the record per our standard procedures: Nelli Arakelyan expressed her concern with false complaints made to the Short-term Vacation Rental Hotline. She described an incident on July 10, 2020, where she claimed to have had a false complaint made against her property. She asked that the City Council provide short-term vacation rental owners with support against false complaints. Peter Palladino feels that the City benefits from short-term vacation rentals. He stated that investors have made improvements in the lower Cove area and feels that banning short-term vacation rentals would cause abandoned homes for years to come. He also feels that the City needs the revenues from short-term vacation rentals at this time. Danny Lee supports proposal number 2 as the best option to protect the health, safety and security of full-time residents. He expressed his concerns with the issues caused by short-term vacation rentals and urged the City Council to support proposal number 2. Kevin Andrews feels the un-supervised residential neighborhood hotels need to go. He expressed his concerns with a long list of issues he has documented over the years and feels short-term vacation rentals should be banned in residential areas. He urged the City Council to listen to the real neighbor. Ronald Mendiola thanked the City Council and staff for their dedication to the City. He expressed his concern with short-term vacation rental owners not following State guidelines and safety issues. He requested that the City Council consider proposal number 2 and phase out short-term vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. Brad Hogie, supports the phasing out of short-term vacation rentals in R1 and R2 Zones as well as the resident compliant protocol, prohibition of amplified music, Cathedra! City Page 3 Printed on 811912020