Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-06 PC Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY — APRIL 6, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Limont called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Connor Limont, Chair Mari Schmidt, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Nancy DeLuna Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Page Garner, Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Schmidt led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent March 25, 2010, City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. JIM PEARCE, 75-715 Altamira, Indian Wells, California, asked if the Planning Commission would be considering the 30-day limitation on vacation rentals. Chairperson Limont said yes. Mr. Pearce said he would reserve his comments until then. He asked if it was on the agenda. Chairperson Limont said yes. MINUTES R4_ll i \\ ► �llll �l �'i_ 1 1 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action: Request for consideration of the March 16 and March 24, 2010 meeting minutes. Regarding the March 24, 2010 meeting minutes, Chairperson Limont stated that had she known they as a City were going to do layoffs and possibly build a pool that might be run by CVRPD, she would not have voted in favor of this pool. She thought it damaged their reputation and thought the City's Parks & Recreation Department was absolutely stellar. She said she just wanted to make that known. Commissioner Campbell wholeheartedly agreed. Chairperson Limont asked for approval of the March 16 and March 24, 2010, minutes. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the March 16 and March 24, 2010 meeting minutes. The motion carried 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 10-34 — MR. & MRS. BUTCH HOLMES and BIGHORN GOLF CLUB, Applicants Request for approval of a Parcel Map Waiver to allow a lot line adjustment at 330 Metate Place within Mountains at Bighorn Country Club. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 10-60 — LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a new dental hygiene training facility for Loma Linda i% University in a Service Industrial District. The property is located within the Pointe Monterey office project at 34-280 Gateway Drive. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit 10-60 by adoption of the findings and the Planning Commission Resolution, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. DR. BRIAN MARSHALL, 9991 South Briley Way, Villa Park, California, asked if the Commission had any questions for him. Commissioner Tanner asked for his background and history and what he would bring to the valley, and if it would be him bringing it to the valley, or if it would be someone else. Dr. Marshall said he works with Loma Linda in general on many of their projects. He went to Loma Linda and practiced for many years and now he just represents them on many of their projects. He said they are expanding into different communities throughout Southern California to provide services, health care and teaching facilities. The belief was that this valley is really short on teaching facilities in areas of dentistry. They talked to the College of the Desert for the last number years and they felt it would be very advantageous for the students who maybe didn't have the ability to travel to Riverside. He said it is an excellent program that would provide a fundamental education for many of the people who live out in this area and would help them with a professional career. Commissioner Schmidt noted that there is another building adjacent to this one that is available and asked if he planned for the program to expand in the future. Dr. Marshall said there had been talk of eventually the College of the Desert building more of a larger campus at one point in time. No one knew for sure if that would ever happen, but if it didn't, there was a possibility they may want to expand. The areas they may expand into was really an outreach to the community to help treat some disadvantaged people and disadvantaged children, even pediatric cases. They have a fairly significant program on the campus of Loma Linda to treat handicapped children with dentistry that need sedation. There had even been talk in the future about 3 doing something like that out here. There really isn't any facility like that currently here in the valley. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the lease they might engage in would be short-term or long-term. Dr. Marshall said that Loma Linda by history, once they settle in, they don't usually leave. So it would be a long-term program. Commissioner Campbell noted not necessarily in that building. Dr. Marshall explained that the investment to build out a clinic like that is significant. The project costs about $2 million to build out, so when they make an investment like that, they will typically stay there. It could be 30 years in that facility. If they decide to expand, they might keep that as an office or may convert it to a specific type of treatment. If the hygiene program expanded, they might move that out of that building and then use this one for clinical treatment of handicapped children. Chairperson Limont asked about the length of their lease on this building. Dr. Marshall said ten years, with options. There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Limont asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no response and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2526, approving Conditional Use Permit 10-60, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner DeLuna thought this was a wonderful idea to bring such a school to the desert. She knew that College of the Desert had limited resources to expand and that they are over -impacted in their nursing program. This was a way they could increase the viability of students wishing to enter a field in perhaps a different way, and it is part of Palm Desert's General Plan to encourage this kind of development and growth: 4 MINUTES '_ll medical, dental and technological development. She was thrilled they had chosen Palm Desert. B. Case No. TPM 36210 — AMIR ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a .41-acre parcel into four condominium air space units with a common area for sales purposes. The property is located at 73-765 Shadow Mountain Drive. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 36210 by adoption of the findings and the Planning Commission Resolution, subject to the conditions. Commissioner DeLuna asked for staff to explain airspace condominiums. Senior Engineer Page Garner explained it encompasses everything inside each unit, from the paint of the ceiling, the paint of the walls, to the floor. It was the air space. Commissioner DeLuna asked why it was distinguished from a regular condominium designation in general. Principal Planner Tony Bagato clarified that there are basically two types. There are lot space condominiums where they could still own part of the property outside the building, such as the landscaping and the yard. And then there were airspace condominiums where they only own the inside space. Usually associations maintain the building and landscaping, the areas identified as common areas. Commissioner DeLuna thanked him. Chairperson Limont asked what the vacancy rate right now was for rentals. Mr. Swartz wasn't sure, but said he could look into it. Commissioner Campbell asked if all the units were currently rented. Mr. Swartz said yes. Commissioner Campbell commented that it is a very nice development. Regarding airspace, Commissioner Schmidt asked if the common areas were owned by the future owners of the condominium airspace and if it was divided into four. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the four owners would be the association. Mr. Swartz said yes, and they would maintain the common area. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that the applicant wasn't able to make it. Chairperson Limont asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION1 1 There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Limont asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. For clarification purposes, Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that this is presently a rental property that is owned by one owner or a partnership and the proposal is to change it so they can condominiumize the project and sell each unit individually. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Chairperson Limont asked if we as a City have concerns with regard to an owners' association. From time to time associations come to the City because they are short on funds and can't keep up the grounds. This is a small project, but she asked if staff anticipated any difficulties along those lines. Ms. Aylaian said no, they were pretty typical throughout the city. Chairperson Limont called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2527, approving Tentative Parcel Map 36210, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 10-68 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 25.56 General Provisions, adding Section 25.56.530 Prohibition on Short -Term Rentals in Residential Zones, except for hotels, motels, and/or a bed and breakfast as allowed per the Zoning Ordinance, short- term rentals for less than 30-day periods shall be prohibited in all residential zones, unless the property is located in a gated community. Principal Planner Tony Bagato reviewed the staff report. He went through the map exhibits of gated and non -gated communities in different residential zones. Mr. Bagato indicated that letters, emails and phone calls had been received in opposition to the proposed revision and outlined their concerns. Staff thought there were some valid concerns raised. He looked at other local cities to see how the situation was handled. No one had an active ordinance and others were looking for ways to enforce it. He said he didn't check Palm Springs the first time. When he did, he found they had a pretty good ordinance that allows short-term rentals. They are all required to get permits through the business department, and they have restrictions in the ordinance that limit the number of people there at night, during the day, noise, and issues like that. With that ordinance, Palm Springs thought it was beneficial to the community from the resort side, and the restrictions benefit the community by keeping them more controlled in a manner compatible with single-family neighborhoods. A copy of that ordinance was included with the staff report. Mr. Bagato thought that short-term rentals could be appropriate for Palm Desert. Palm Desert is a resort destination and he believed that short-term rentals were vital to part of Palm Desert's success, along with the hotels and timeshares. In the first staff report he had indicated that approximately $2,800 was received in TOT (transient occupancy taxes). After further discussions with the Finance Department, it was determined that the City is currently collecting approximately $235,000 in TOT, both in gated and non -gated communities. Further research he distributed at the meeting included information from one website he found out about from public input. It was a vacation rental website. He counted 588 listings, noting this was for individual homeowners listing their homes, not rental agencies. Out of this scenario, from what he could identify, only 15% were outside of gated communities. They didn't give physical addresses and that was why it was difficult to enforce, but some indicated if they were in places like Desert Falls or The Lakes. The ones that said they were close to El Paseo, or a private home, he assumed were non -gated. Some said Sandpiper and Shadow Mountain Country Club, which he knew were not gated, as well as those in Palm Desert Country Club. In talking with resort management companies, Mr. Bagato said there are hundreds more listings with them that are not on this website. So they were looking at potentially 750 or more units used for vacation rentals. If they look at that scenario, 15% would be outside gated communities; 85% to 90% would be within gated communities. Since the year 2000, there had been six properties that generated complaints within the last ten years. Out of 800, that was less than 1 %. Palm Desert had ordinances in the past that were difficult to regulate because we didn't have good control, but a new ordinance was adopted about two years ago for noise and standards related to when Augusta's on El Paseo was having issues. The new noise ordinance deals with disturbing, excessive and offensive noises. The City has a lot more control over short-term rentals just from a noise aspect if they did allow them. And there was never a guarantee that a regular neighbor wouldn't be a problem. So staff believed that there's a 7 11 i \\ \ L 1LL __Mlli' i 1 1 potential to look at another solution than the ones proposed tonight and he would lay out several options. Mr. Bagato said the first was to do nothing and continue to allow short- term rentals in residential zones and stick with a conditional use permit that is discretionary approval reviewed on a case -by -case basis. One of staff's concerns with that initially is that the fee is $2,915, and if they are incompatible, he wasn't comfortable bringing property owners here to apply for that, pay that fee, and then potentially be denied, so staff was more in favor of a city-wide code that deals with them outright with restrictions. That would be to revise the ordinance and restrict them and permit short-term rentals pretty much everywhere. Or they could look at doing them only in the R-1 zone like they do with a CUP, or they could specify restrictions that apply to non -gated communities and the gated communities could continue on the way they have been. Or they could do something similar to Palm Springs. That ordinance was before them. They could just do a citywide approach and make everyone come into compliance, but try to put more enforcement in there through just penalties if people are doing them without proper permits. Or they could adopt the proposed zoning ordinance amendment tonight. The last request for a conditional use permit was denied by the Planning Commission 4-1. The Planning Commission said that these weren't compatible in R-1 single family zones. That denial decision was upheld by the City Council with a 3-0 vote and the City Council agreed that these weren't compatible. Mr. Bagato stated that the ordinance was before them tonight, but staff's recommendation was to continue it and ask staff to look into a new ordinance that would deal with either citywide or the non -gated communities and apply restrictions similar to Palm Springs. There were other cities like Solana Beach that have also dealt with short-term rentals. He stated that San Luis Obispo prohibits them. So there were different options before the Commission, although staff was requesting a continuance and direction. He asked for any questions. Commissioner DeLuna noted that Mr. Bagato referred to a particular website that deals with vacation rentals in Palm Desert. It overwhelmingly referred to private, gated communities. As they talked about vacation rentals, she asked if a vacation rental meant short-term rentals, or over 30-days, and how that was defined. Mr. Bagato said looking through most of them, they advertised for a week or a month, but some of them did have up to 30 days. Palm Desert defines short-term, which was the same as vacation in the Palm Springs ordinance, as 30 days or less. For anything over 31 days they couldn't charge TOT under state law. It became a permanent residence. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 2010 Commissioner Tanner said they talked about short-term rentals as they apply, but not for hotels, not for motels and/or bed and breakfasts. He asked how a bed and breakfast was defined. That was a pretty generic term, unless Mr. Bagato was saying that they were providing a bed and breakfast. Anyone could probably put their house on the rental market as a bed and breakfast in the city of Palm Desert, unless there was a clear definition for it. Mr. Bagato confirmed that in the R-3 zone a bed and breakfast was allowed with a CUP, but they didn't have a definition for it. They could make a definition as part of it, but typically it is usually accommodated with a kitchen and they were providing a service like a hotel, but that isn't a home. Commissioner Tanner asked if they adopted the draft ordinance amendment before them, what was to prohibit someone from advertising vacation rentals as a bed and breakfast. Mr. Bagato said currently bed and breakfasts are only allowed in the R-3 zone. There is a bed and breakfast at Tumbleweed and Shadow Mountain. No matter what, it would require a hearing. In the other zones it is not allowed. Because this would cover R-3 zones, staff wanted to make sure they aren't prohibited where they are currently allowed. That is why it excluded hotels/motels/bed and breakfasts per the ordinance, and they had to stay within their zone. If they are already allowed, they wouldn't be affected. Chairperson Limont asked if a bed and breakfast requires a business license. Mr. Bagato said yes. Commissioner Campbell asked if short-term rentals were allowed for just one or two nights. Mr. Bagato said anything less than 30 days, so it could be days as well. Commissioner Schmidt noted that Mr. Bagato was proposing that they look at the Palm Springs ordinance. She wanted to know if staff investigated how Palm Springs enforces their ordinance and asked about their track record. Mr. Bagato stated that he has a call into them, but hasn't received a return call. Our Finance Department has talked to them and they do have a two to three person staff that actively tries to enforce it. One of the responses from the public was from a gentleman who helped draft the ordinance. He heard it has been very positive for the people using it; he wasn't sure from the City side. Mr. Bagato said he was expecting a call back and was hoping to get into it more when they come back with another ordinance and review the pros and cons and maybe change it or modify it if they thought things weren't working. But he hasn't received comment. Commissioner Schmidt said it becomes a code enforcement problem if there is one, based on complaints. Mr. Bagato said it was already a code 9 DESERTMINUTES PALM \\ ► COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2010 enforcement problem. That's how the City deals with them today. Staff just tells them whether or not they need a CUP. Under the Palm Springs ordinance, they have active stings to try to enforce the TOT. If we were to try to do something like that, that was something that was more internal management and they would have to discuss that and it was a lot more staff time than we dedicate toward enforcing the TOT. But staff would anticipate the enforcement as being the same as today. If a complaint was received by Code Enforcement, they would be sent out to see if there was an active business license and permit to do the vacation rental. If they didn't have a permit, they could apply and restrictions would be put on it. If they violate the restrictions, the permit would be revoked. It would be the same as what we have to do today. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that enforcement would be complaint driven, regardless if we go on the way we are or have a new ordinance. Mr. Bagato said it depends. He would have to talk to Finance, the City Manager, and Executive Management on how to deal with it, because there are cost benefits in spending more staff time to try to get the TOT, and then whether it becomes cost revenue neutral, positive or negative. But staff would have that addressed when coming back with a new ordinance. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Bagato's recommendation was to continue this and see what the Palm Springs ordinance is or other cities. Mr. Bagato clarified that the direction request was to continue it to allow staff to either adopt one citywide similar to Palm Springs and staff would come back with a custom fitted one for Palm Desert. Or they could apply it just to non -gated communities and leave the gated communities like they are today. Or they could apply it just to R-1 like the CUP is because that is where the six instances have been, in R-1 communities, not the other zones. There were three different ways to handle it: whether they want a citywide approach, a little broader, or a little narrower. One of those three options and then continue it to address one of those. Commissioner Schmidt asked what the prognosis was for doing nothing and leaving it the way it is. Mr. Bagato said he would be for that with the conditional use permit; his concern was that if they make the finding that there are no complaints and they have been compatible with the neighborhood and they apply proper restrictions, staff would still support it. His concern was that a CUP is a discretionary approval and when they notify people, even if they haven't had complaints, sometimes people come out just as a matter of fact and it's a hearing and they get scared and they could deny someone over one complaint and they spent a good amount of money to go through the process. 10 MINUTES LM PA DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL • Commissioner Schmidt asked if adjacent property owners were notified for a CUP application. Mr. Bagato said yes, 300 feet. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was the original application. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it ceased with a change of title. Mr. Bagato said it doesn't cease with a change of ownership. It would cease if a use hadn't been done for more than a year, so if a new owner came in, they could continue on under the same conditions. If they decided to live there permanently and a year lapses, the CUP would become invalid. Commissioner DeLuna pointed out that the ordinance says 30 days or less was considered one way, more than 30 days another. By inference that meant a month at a time. What did they do with the month of February that is only 28 days? Anyone who wants to rent for the month of February, did that become a short-term rental? Mr. Bagato said technically by law, yes, it would be a short-term rental. Commissioner Schmidt thought it depended on how the ordinance was worded. Monthly would include February. On that particular issue, in the past, Commissioner Schmidt said she has had a number of rentals, not locally, and they might start on the 10th of the month, or the 15th, or the 20th and go that way. She assumed if it was January 15, the month would be to February 14 or such to make the accommodation for the 28 days. Commissioner Tanner noted that it was 30 days, so if they rent the month of February, they get a couple of days in March. It is 30 days. Mr. Bagato indicated that it's based on TOT law whether or not we can charge the tax. We could always apply restrictions on our own terms, but they would still want the TOT if it is less than a 30- day rental. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing for testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. MS. BARBARA deBOOM, President of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, stated that she has received a few calls at the office the past eight to ten days on this issue. From a business perspective, what it would mean to their members, be it the restaurants and/or the retails. She said what was nice about the one -week type turnover, it's new money coming into town; new sales tax dollars to these businesses. She found it a little confusing that we as a City are building timeshares at Desert Willow with week at a time rentals, and yet potentially may not allow this to happen. She requested a continuance and a study group be put together to look at it further. 11 1, IL 111,j] .. till, __ 'H MR. KIRK ELLIOTT, 30-600 Desert Moon Drive in Thousand Palms, California, said he has been a resident here for about 28 years as a builder. He has done quite a few of these rental properties for a lot of people out here and if they are bringing in $235,000, maybe put someone on staff to go through all the websites and find out who is running these places and lock down on them a little bit and bring in a little revenue and work it a little bit instead of cutting everyone out of the limelight. They are bringing in and generating a lot of revenue in here and he didn't think it was fair for some of these people who are not full-time residents, they can make a few extra dollars and bring money into the city and everybody is happy. It seemed like a win -win situation to him. MS. DEBBIE HOUSTON, 21 Umachan, in Scotland. She said she flew over specifically for this meeting tonight. She said they bought property which they remodeled and they have been using it as a vacation rental. They advertise and pay the TOT and thought that was all they had to do. They weren't aware they had to have this conditional use permit. Even after having the TOT license, nobody notified them they had to do that. They felt they built a nice property. They brought something to the area. There are neighbors on either side and their properties are quite run down. They have made a feature of theirs. The people that are coming into their properties, these consumers, would suffer if they didn't have the option to come for a week. Not everyone has 30 days of vacation. She has been coming here for 15 years and she rented homes for the 15 years she has come here. She can't come for 30 days; she can come for a week at a time or two weeks. She certainly wouldn't go to a hotel because she would rather be in a home, not a hotel. If they adopt this, she felt that the City was really going to cut themselves out of the $235,000 in revenue. The cleaners, the pool people, and gardeners, they won't be employed to upkeep the property they have, so then they are forcing people out of work. They would probably put their house on the market, not that they want to do that in this kind of climate, but they would force people into doing that. So the market suffers; everybody suffers. She asked that they give it a serious think before adopting this ordinance. MS. JANE BARON, 73-500 Grapevine Street, stated that her husband Alan couldn't be here, they are from Sonoma County. They bought their home on Grapevine, very excited to retire here in 2007. They all knew what had happened since then. Their house isn't as valuable monetarily right now, but they still love this home and plan to retire there. However, their retirement plans have 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAl-1 •llIl • G i _1 1 changed and they are still working. Based on that, they had a home they love and didn't want to sell and buy again so many years down the road. They want to keep this home and retire there. One of the ways they can do that, and the City encouraged them when they purchased, was to get this license for the TOT through VRBO, which is a great website. They put up a very beautiful advertisement and have had wonderful response from people from Minnesota, Canada, and people who have cold winters. They have had no problems with the short-term. These are families and less than a month is a vacation, truly, for families. They come in at Christmas time, Thanksgiving. The longer snowbird type months, February and March, could be long term, but earlier on, and even now, they had a family from England staying for two weeks. She had been writing to her for six months and they were so excited and were doing fine. The importance here is that these are families and these families are going down to California Pizza Kitchen on El Paseo. She sends packets to everyone and it's all about Palm Desert. She doesn't send any information about La Quinta for these families. They go the park, they are golfing at Desert Willow; all of her energy for people when they are going to stay at her place and ask what to do now. She leaves tickets for the families to The Living Desert. This is really important, the less than one -month group. They can't be there a month. They have jobs, vacations, and this is what she wanted to emphasize. The one month they had those, they had a couple come for two months. They are Minnesota retired couples. That's what would put them in this market. It's a different market. It wasn't quite as much fun; it wasn't as lively as the woman who spoke first talked about. These families come and spend money. They also pay their 9% and she thought it was good for everybody. She also wanted to say that if they leave it vacant because they don't get those one -month locks, they had last summer, when it was 110 degrees, someone broke into their home —went through the French doors and broke the glass. That was really tragic. The alarms went off and the neighbors probably didn't like that. The police were all over, there were police dogs, and she was upset. Her brother and sister-in-law are managers and were right there. The point being that a vacant house isn't good for the neighborhood. In fact, it was frightening for the property owners as well because they have a lot invested in this. They also tried in the beginning a long-term rental two-year lease. The person stopped making the payments, brought three cats in, and the house was not left in good condition. They had found with short-term that they can get in, take care of their home, clean it, and it was a perfect 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONAPRAPRIL 6, 2011 situation for them. So they were of course very upset that the City was considering this other idea. She did fly down here; this was very important to them. MS. KAREN MACAULAY, 45-800 Deep Canyon Road, said that she agreed with Ms. Baron wholeheartedly that they are business people. They've made an investment in the city of Palm Desert. They make long-term business decisions based on the fact that they have a license with the City and they pay the tax. They purchase furniture, buy linens, they can't let something go unrepaired, they employ plumbers, electricians, gardeners and tree trimmers, and it would be a definite financial hardship if they were deprived of this income. MS. SHERRILL WILLIAMS, 72-610 Pitahaya, Palm Desert, said she was in the throws of finishing her home, applying for the correct licenses for a rental and this was dropped on her. She gave the Planning Commission photos (on file in the Department of Community Development). She stated that they are all long-term rentals in her neighborhood. She was so disappointed in Palm Desert again. Here she promotes this city, it is a resort, and has spent all these hours and money getting this home prepared and getting great response from the site. She hasn't rented yet because she isn't totally ready with everything. Why would Palm Desert turn down money from individuals such as herself in this environment and time when they have houses looking like this (referring to the pictures she submitted)? She needed to know what started this thinking and taking this privilege as a homeowner away. What was the cause? When you own a home, and to show her that she is permanent and it's due tomorrow, and she pays $5,000 a year in property taxes to support all these wonderful things in this great city, and now they have provisions that a gated community can have rentals. When something happens there, they still depend on the Palm Desert Police Department. Their security legally is not allowed to physically touch anyone or remove anyone. So it was still the same tax dollars if there was some issue. And she had done a lot of research on this when she was notified that there were questions. Why is Palm Desert so concerned? She also owns properties in Lincoln City, Oregon, and this would be a great opportunity for them to research and see what happened when they did this. She thanked them. MS. JUDY NAGLER, the property owner of 73-425 Buckboard Trail, said her permanent residence is in Los Angeles. She bought this house specifically with the intent of doing short-term rentals; 14 MINUTES PALM-D-ESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL2010 sometimes it is six weeks, sometimes two months, sometimes it was two weeks, to help her to pay for the mortgage which she took out a 15-year mortgage with a plan that when she could afford and pay for it, she and her husband could retire here. Her property has decreased in value over 30% since she purchased it. She maintains it beautifully. She pays her taxes, she has a permit, and she uses a rental agency that requires if there is a slight scratch on anything that she repaints immediately. She has only had wonderful tenants. The other homes on her street, some are abandoned; some which have long-term rentals have hoards of teenagers throwing parties all night. They don't keep up the property at all. She had to put in a fence between her neighbor's house and hers completely at her expense because they tore it down. She believed that if they enact this, they would be bringing Palm Desert down so fast it would break many of their hearts. If she knew this, she would have purchased elsewhere. Or if she knew she needed to purchase in a gated community, she would have purchased in a gated community. She has a very expensive home. She thought it was very discriminatory, it's taking away her property rights, and it was really hurting the city. She certainly would fight it as best she could. She has already retained counsel to that effect. MR. PETER BROOKS, with Palm Springs Rental Agency in Palm Springs, California, said that his company started renting vacation rentals in Palm Desert in 1972. Various cities around the country have sought to regulate vacation rentals with great success in partnership with industry, as well as property owners. The City of Palm Springs recently enacted a city ordinance in partnership with industry. They worked with them for over two years to get that ordinance done. It has been successful and protects the property rights of all citizens, and dramatically increased TOT revenues in Palm Springs. In 2008 their company paid approximately $25,000 in TOT to the City of Palm Desert. And they also estimate getting a formula from the CDA that their short-term Palm Desert customers spend approximately $370,000 in the local economy. So, they thought that was quite a bit. He respectfully requested that they continue this to allow them an opportunity to speak with City staff. He thanked them. MR. JIM PEARCE, 75-715 Altamira in Indian Wells, California, stated that he also owns property in Palm Desert. They have the vacation rental management building Fairway Vacation Rentals and Desert Sage Real Estate just outside the entrance to Palm Valley Country Club on Country Club Drive. He has been a desert resident for over 30 years. He has been in vacation management, in and out 15 of the business for 25 years. Their company manages over 200 units valley wide; 120 of those units are in Palm Desert in such communities as Palm Valley Country Club, The Lakes, Desert Falls, Palm Desert Resort Country Club, Monterey, etc. All the units they manage are in gated golf communities, so the legislations as proposed didn't really effect him directly and frankly, if it was passed it wouldn't bother him in the least. However, he did feel this could be the first step in a slippery slope of additional regulation. And frankly, he had an opportunity to look quickly at the Palm Springs ordinance and he thought it was a terrible idea. He thought really when they step back from this whole thing that this is government trying to legislate where a problem doesn't exist or where their energies would be better focused elsewhere. Just a few problems Mr. Pearce saw with a quick look at the Palm Springs ordinance, is it requires $1 million of general liability insurance for any owner who wants to participate. It requires that the owner of that property insure that the vacation rental unit complies with all applicable codes. The daytime occupancy is limited to the maximum number of residents plus 50%, so if they have a condominium that accommodates four people, they could have two other people over during the day, not more. And who is going to enforce that? The managers have to sign a formal acknowledgement that they are responsible for the compliance for all provisions within the ordinance. Again, this is exactly the wrong approach. What they are doing is making it more and more difficult to rent their home on a vacation basis. What are they going to do? They are going to go to VRBO. VRBO has a place in the overall scheme of this industry and a lot of people use it successfully. More power to them. That's just fine. However, they have 588 properties on VRBO in Palm Desert right now; he has been on the site many times and most of those properties advertise and offer rentals for less than 30 days. Mr. Pearce said that based on personal experience and observation, not more than 5% of those people who are renting for less than 30 days are paying transient occupancy tax. He made that point to the Finance Department of this City on several occasions before trying to get them to focus on that, and enforcement there, and making more money for Palm Desert. There has never been any follow through. Well, it's difficult, how can we prove it, how can we catch them. He had a hundred ideas in that respect and there are a lot of rental agencies with motivation to help them out in that process. He respectfully requested that the current proposal be abandoned, or adopted; it wouldn't hurt him, MINUTES PALM D MINMING COMMISSION APBIL 6. 201Q but would be unfortunate for these other people. However, he encouraged the Planning Commission to look where problems exist and that is noncompliance and put the City's energies and resources in that direction. MR. JOE CHURCHILL, 130 Pueblo Lane in Los Angeles, California, stated that he and his wife have been vacationing in the Coachella Valley since 2000 and they actually started vacationing through the PSRR program as well. That's what kind of got them into this market. In 2005 they had their first child, and they are from Toronto, Canada, and their house in L.A. isn't big enough. Having been out to the desert many times to vacation here, they decided to purchase a home because they had the means to do so, that was bigger than their place in Los Angeles that could accommodate their parents and grandparents. So they had been operating a vacation rental home for three and a half years; they have contributed $10,000 in TOT over that timeframe and probably double that in property taxes. Mr. Churchill said he was specifically of the opinion that a properly mandated and monitored rental program is the best way to address both the concerns of the City and the owners. They agree that the existing ordinance for the past three and a half years demonstrates that the conditional use permit process provides adequate safeguards for the City and its residents and felt strongly that it is possible to allow short-term rentals that serve both the needs of the City and the resort vacationer while preserving the high -quality of life found in a livable, sustainable and balanced community. He thought some of the ideas brought up by the rest of the people speaking tonight deserved to be looked at; perhaps the current process was not quite sound enough to meet everyone's needs and needed to be looked at. They respectfully hoped the City would decide to stick with leaving homeowners the option to do short-term rentals. He thanked them. MR. JUSTIN STEUBS, 78-140 Calle Tampico in La Quinta, California, said he is the owner of a small vacation rental leasing and management company. If this new rule is adopted, he said it will basically fly in opposition for the direction of the hospitality industry. Consumer demand for homes to rent as an alternative to hotels is growing rapidly. The company that owns VRBO Home Away just spent $3 million to do an ad during Super Bowl with Chevy Chase to promote the vacation rental industry. Large families have told them that renting hotels becomes a safety issue as much as an economic one. Most hotels are not geared for large 17 families. If a mom and dad have four children or more, they have to rent two or three rooms and get them all adjoining, which isn't always possible. They potentially have young children sleeping down the hall from parents which isn't good, but it happens all the time. For the same money as three hotel rooms, a family can rent a nice home with a private pool and adequate bedrooms for all to sleep safely in one home. More and more people see this as a better alternative. If this new rule is adopted by Palm Desert, it will cause guests looking for a home to go to other cities and outside of Palm Desert. This rule would not change consumer demand; consumers will still rent vacation homes, they will just rent outside Palm Desert. He thanked them. Chairperson Limont asked if there was any other testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. There was no response. Chairperson Limont closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tanner thought when they originally reviewed this and asked staff to come back with their recommendations to give Planning Commission a little insight into what we have out there in the city of Palm Desert that could potentially bring us taxes, he didn't have any idea about the kind of money that is produced by this transient occupancy tax. He said he is a proponent of the small business person without a doubt and he thought it would be in Palm Desert's best interest to continue this and ask staff to come back with recommendations, working with a couple of the agencies that do the vacation rentals in Palm Desert, to come up with a solution on how to best handle them. He said they had to understand that the Planning Commission was also looking to protect the next door neighbor of the homes that have the weekend rentals that rent to people maybe they shouldn't be renting to. He thought originally that was their intent —to make sure a family neighborhood was kept as a family neighborhood and again, he is a proponent of that business person and he would be in favor of a continuance to come up with a solution that would help not just the owners of property in Palm Desert, but also neighbors that do own their homes next door. Commissioner DeLuna said she listened to everything that had been said. It is a highly complex issue and she had several things to address based on what she heard said. Addressing the $235,000 in TOT that comes in, she thought previously it was established that most of that comes in through the short-term rentals from PUD's and from gated country clubs. The people that live in those country clubs pay large homeowner's dues. The associations have hired attorneys and they have formulated CC&R's and bylaws and that's not the case for R-1. R-1 zoning doesn't require 19 MINUTES G_Il these restrictions. When they start trying to compare R-1 short-term rentals with short-term rentals in the gated country clubs, they are talking about apples and oranges. She didn't think they could be lumped together and as a blanket amount and say the specific amount they would be threatened to lose if they do not approve vacation short-term rentals. Secondly, this issue is not new. Requests for short-term rentals have come before the City several times, and in each case have been turned down. In the past when the item was noticed, the preponderance of sentiment was against having short-term rentals. The short-term rentals were considered to be a detriment to the wellbeing of the family neighborhood because there were noise issues and parking issues. If a residence can sleep 6-8 people, they are liable to have any number of cars parked there. People who come for weekends, particularly now the demographics of the short-term renters are changing, they have rock concerts, Stagecoach, Coachella Fest, and a lot of people come to town and want weekend rentals. A lot of those people have parties, they make noise late at night, there are lots of people in the houses, and they get reports on an ongoing basis on that type of rental situation. It disrupts the family neighborhood in which these individual short-term rentals exist. We can't turn residential neighborhoods into party houses. There are hotels, motels, timeshares, and bed and breakfasts available for short-term rentals. They also produce the TOT. Arguably it could be said that many residents who would not stay in a short-term rental could avail themselves of a bed and breakfast if they wanted a more residential feel, or there were hotels and motels that generate the same TOT that the neighborhood R-1 residential short-term rentals do. A lot of these places were zoned as residential neighborhoods just for that purpose. She said they don't modify an entire ordinance that has been carefully thought out, carefully planned, carefully considered. A lot of these options, which come up time and time again, have been addressed. Most neighborhoods don't want to turn into places that have short-term rentals with party fests, and she wasn't speaking individually to any of the people here, nor did she question their motives, or intent, or the customers that they have that rent from them, but in addressing the city as a whole, that wasn't the reason Palm Desert was formed, regardless of the fact that it is a destination resort. These neighborhoods are for families and they are intended to be so. Chairperson Limont was highly sensitive to the times and the economy. They were all affected by it, but it wasn't up to the City to change its standards to help citizens who have second residences they are trying to keep and they are in a financial bind about it. The City must consider what is in the best interest of the city and what the founding fathers intended the city to become, and modifying the ordinance that has been so carefully adopted might not be in the city's best interest. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT \\ \ COMMISSION •1 APRIL 6, 2011 Commissioner Schmidt stated that she preferred to look at this entire issue on a non -emotional basis. That was difficult to do when so many here have such a vested interest. She understood it, because she had been there. The reality is that everyone who is represented here, as well as those who are in the same category represent an extreme minority in the city if they look at the overall residency. And she didn't really want this to get legs. She thought they have been limping along trying to monitor and police the abuses of short-term rentals. She said she wasn't at all sure they needed an ordinance, and if they do, it should be better than what Palm Springs is doing and those which she has looked at, because they are ineffective unless they are going to really devote the police presence and code enforcement required to collect, which is the only reason they would have to encourage what's going on. Perhaps most of them who have spoken have no issues and they really police their short- term renters, but it does not address the people who live next door and around within that 300 feet who bought their property to enjoy it peacefully. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she has lived in areas that had short- term rentals. She didn't like it. As well-meaning as the owners of the short- term rental properties were, they weren't present to know what was going on. Not everything is reported; not everything is investigated. To her it was mindboggling to think of the enforcement that they would have to increase to police an ordinance such as the Palm Springs ordinance. If Mr. Bagato really did get to them, she thought he would find it was a barrel of worms for them as well. She didn't know that for a fact, but did know of many short-term rentals in Palm Springs. All of them have their problems. She liked the idea that Barbara DaBoom had in looking at a study group. Commissioner Schmidt suggested putting together the Chamber of Commerce, some of the rental agencies if they are willing, a member or two of the Planning Commission, some staff and a few of the short-term rental owners, and try to drum up something that works. Her feeling at the moment is that there are many many residents in this city who do not abide by the ordinance of the City and register their homes and pay the taxes. That's one issue. That was not the most important issue to her. The most important issue is that person or persons living around these properties live in peace and quiet and enjoyment; period. She thought they should study it and look at it; they didn't have to move quickly on an ordinance unless someone gave her a really good reason. She thought that was a prudent way to move forward. And she would make that motion. Commissioner Tanner seconded. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 1 Chairperson Limont asked if they could hear from Commissioner Campbell first. Commissioner Campbell stated when the original ordinance was adopted on a 4-1 vote; she was the one in favor of short-term rentals. As a business owner, she feels for everyone and thought they needed to go ahead and facilitate everything for the people because of our economic times and said we need all the business we can get in the desert. She wasn't ready to vote on this ordinance. If it came to a vote today, she would vote against it. So she was also in favor of the study session for the time being. Chairperson Limont asked if Commissioner Schmidt would restate her motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt that staff would be instructed to set about the formation of a committee of interested parties, businesses, two Planning Commission members be appointed, Council, and a broad enough base that would allow the committee to really study the pros and cons. She added one thing that she thought was very pertinent, and that was when they hear about the short-term rentals, which obviously bring in more revenue than a long-term rental, because they are turning and turning and she did it for years. The assumption is that it is 100% occupancy and that is simply not true. If they have a year or six months lease on a property, they don't make as much money, but they know that it is leased and there's a commitment. She doubted seriously that vacation rentals are as sought after during July, August and September here. So they needed to keep proper focus and perspective when they are dealing with this. Commissioner Tanner asked if the motion was to continue with staff's study session. Commissioner Schmidt concurred. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tanner. Before voting, Chairperson Limont said she had a few comments. One, she is a homeowner and lives full time here. She also realized, and she thanked the person who brought in the pictures, that they obviously have an ordinance problem and they need to talk to Code and have some yards cleaned up. That was completely unacceptable. Palm Desert does take a great deal of pride in keeping up their neighborhoods. She also thought it was very important that they do keep up our neighborhoods. She thought they have a really well -written ordinance and it says, "The R-1 District is to encourage the preservation of residential neighborhoods characterized by single-family buildings on medium-sized lots." Palm Desert is middle 21 MINUTES PALM-DESERTG\\ \_ COMMISSION APRIL 6.20IG America. We are homes and neighborhoods and kids; rentals are important, but our residents, at least in her mind, are first and foremost. They were not trying to discourage rentals; they were trying to discourage losing our neighborhoods. What they were discussing this evening were short-term rentals, under 30 days. And with a CUP, they give their neighbors the opportunity to say, you know what? We don't want an animal house next door. She had a pretty good reminder over Easter. Her neighbor has a big family and everybody left Monday morning at 4:00 a.m. and just the slamming of the car doors got her up. That's what they were trying to protect here. As they move forward, she appreciated all the comments, because they were concerned for our town, but she also didn't want to move quickly. Her understanding was that they had a motion to continue and move forward with a study group made up of Council, Commission, some of the homeowners, but in the meantime, they would stick with the current ordinance because that was what was on the books. Chairperson Limont called for a vote. The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner DeLuna voted no). Chairperson Limont thanked everyone for attending. D. Case No. PP 10-74 — PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design to allow construction of a Desert Willow Golf Resort terrace, canopy, kitchen/building, and overflow parking lot expansion located at 38-995 Desert Willow Drive. Assistant Planning Missy Grisa reviewed the staff report, provided a power point presentation, and recommended adopting the findings and resolution approving Precise Plan 10-74, subject to conditions. Commissioner Tanner asked how much this would cost. Ms. Grisa referred the question to Redevelopment Agency staff (RDA). MR. MARTIN ALVAREZ, Redevelopment Manager, stated that they allocated approximately $5.5 million for the entire project, which includes the building expansion, the terrace, and the overflow parking lot. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was Redevelopment funds. 22 MINUTES ' _ LL l ► • ILII • ' i 1 1 Mr. Alvarez answered yes. He said they were very excited to be here to present this project. The City Council, City Manager and the Redevelopment Agency were excited to see this project move forward. He said there is an opportunity here to meet not only their current needs, but also their future needs. Desert Willow has been very successful and they wanted to keep up with the quality that it provides to its residents and to its visitors. This was an opportunity to enhance the business mix and bring in different types and different flexibilities to serve not only our residents, but other patrons of the golf course industry, dining opportunities, banquet opportunities, and weddings, and in that same token enhance the revenues for the City. He said Ms. Grisa did a great job in giving an overview of the project and he was also there to answer any questions. He read the staff report and the conditions of approval. They all seemed acceptable and he thanked them for their consideration. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the timeframe from approval. Mr. Alvarez stated that the Lake View Terrace would be the first phase of the project. It was scheduled to begin mid June and should be completed by the end of summer or mid September at the latest. The kitchen is in a different category or track. They were anticipating beginning construction of the kitchen and building expansion August 1 and would carry forward through the remainder of the calendar year. They hoped to have that completed by the end of 2010. The overflow parking lot would also have a summer construction period starting in July and completed by September. Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was an expected disruption to the club operations during the kitchen expansion. Mr. Alvarez stated that there would be a small portion of disruption that would occur to the kitchen. They were anticipating completely shutting down the kitchen from August through about October in hopes to have a portion of the kitchen reopen, pending Health Department approval, so that they could serve and have the opportunity to utilize the terrace and the existing ballrooms. Commissioner Campbell asked how many new jobs would be created with the expansion of Desert Willow. Mr. Alvarez deferred the question to Mr. Rich Mogensen, the General Manager of Desert Willow. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL • 201 1 Commissioner Campbell asked if this was competing with other hotels and restaurants and taking away business from them. The City is providing all of this for the consumer, yes, but then the City is actually working against others. Mr. Alvarez said he would have Mr. Mogensen answer the first question and then he would come back, or perhaps Mr. Mogensen could also elaborate on that. MR. RICHARD MOGENSEN, General Manager at Desert Willow, said that in terms of permanent jobs, that was a difficult question to answer. They certainly would be able to add numerous seasonal jobs, obviously, because most of their business happens within approximately six months out of the entire calendar year, so he would envision at least half a dozen additional positions that probably they would have during the seasonal portion of the year. The balance of the year they reduce services because of the weather. To address the second question, Mr. Alvarez explained that Desert Willow was a unique product. It really catered to the resident. They do have some opportunities to bring in patrons that are visiting and such. Desert Willow does not serve dinner per se, so they weren't competing with the dinner market. There was a limited amount of space that they have for banquets and for larger groups, so they weren't really competing with other major hotels or other conference rooms or opportunities that are out there. Regarding the wrought iron and the glass, Chairperson Limont noted that the staff report said that more glass could become a high maintenance product to keep clean and is a more fragile material in general. She asked if this was an issue at all with this project. It looked like they primarily have wrought iron and then glass on the end and didn't look like an overwhelming amount. Mr. Alvarez confirmed that is what they tried to achieve; a balance using wrought iron so they could still preserve some views and it's a more durable product. They wanted to highlight the areas where the fire pit and fireplaces are with a clear glass. It would also be tempered glass so safety wasn't a major concern. And that was a manageable amount of maintenance that they could incur on those areas and still provide a kind of a highlight and a unique view into the mountains, into the Lake View Terrace, and the two greens in that vicinity. f�Ol MINUTES PAL On the perforated canopies, painted metal to match existing, Commissioner Schmidt asked if anything was ever investigated about adding some solar capabilities to this addition. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the perforated metal is for the outdoor canopies. In terms of solar in the future, they are required and would provide conduits and opportunities for future solar on the rooftop of the new addition. That was something they wanted to plan for; however, it was not included as a direct solar installation as part of this project. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that rough -in was in the budget. Mr. Alvarez said yes. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed development. There was no response and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Limont asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2528, approving Precise Plan 10-74, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner DeLuna commended staff for the outstanding job they've done. She thought Desert Willow was a gem in our city and what they proposed in terms of the remodeling could only enhance that and staff had done a wonderful job and ought to be commended. The Commission concurred. IX. MISCELLANEOUS City Attorney Dave Erwin asked that two members of the Planning Commission be designated to act with the study group on the short-term rentals. He suggested one in favor and one opposed. Vice Chair Schmidt and Commissioner Tanner were appointed. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT►\ ► O1111 O► APR . 1 1 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported on the AIPP committee's recent activities. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Chairperson Limont reviewed the Committee's recent project approvals and discussion items. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner noted that the last meeting was postponed. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt indicated there was nothing current to report. XI. COMMENTS Ms. Aylaian informed that there were no public hearing items scheduled for April 20, so that meeting would be canceled. The next meeting would be May 4, 2010. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, adjourning the meeting. adjourned at 7:45 mm. _ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATT ST: M. CONNOR LIMONT, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was