The URL can be used to link to this page

2021 02 25 Council Special Mtg re: STVRsCITY COUNCIL 1 FEBRUARY 25, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL AND TO THE CITY CLERK: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the La Quinta City Council is hereby called to be held virtually via Zoom on Thursday, February 25, 2021, beginning at 4:00 p.m. Pursuant to Executive Orders N-25-20, N- 29-20, N-33-20, N-35-20, and N-60-20 executed by the Governor of California, in response to the state of emergency relating to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.), members of the City Council, the City Manager, City Attorney, City Staff, and City Consultants may participate in this regular meeting by teleconference. Additionally, pursuant to the above-referenced executive orders, members of the public temporarily are not permitted to physically attend at City Hall the meeting to which this agenda applies, but any member of the public may listen or participate in the open session of this meeting as specified below. Members of the public wanting to listen to this special meeting may do so by tuning-in live via http://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/live. Members of the public wanting to address the City Council during the meeting, for public comment are requested to send an email notification to the La Quinta City Clerk’s Office at CityClerkMail@LaQuintaCA.gov, no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, and specify the following information: 1) Full Name 4) Public Comment 2) City of Residence 5) Subject 3) Phone Number 6) Written or Verbal Telephonic Comments The email “subject line” must clearly state “Written Comments” or “Verbal Telephonic Comments.” The special meeting is called for the following purpose: CITY COUNCIL 2 FEBRUARY 25, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM BUSINESS SESSION 1. INTRODUCE FOR FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.25 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS; AND DISCUSS SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM AD-HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS [ORDINANCE NO. 589] PUBLIC HEARING 1. ADOPT RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY’S SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM PERMIT FEES [RESOLUTION NO. 2021-003] Dated: February 23, 2021 /s/Linda Evans LINDA EVANS, Mayor Attest: MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Monika Radeva, City Clerk, do hereby declare that the foregoing notice for the City Council special meeting of February 25, 2021 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78495 Calle Tampico and on the bulletin boards at 51321 Avenida Bermudas and 78630 Highway 111 on February 23, 2021. MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 FEBRUARY 25, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2021 AT 4:00 P.M. ****************************** SPECIAL NOTICE Teleconferencing and Telephonic Accessibility In Effect Pursuant to Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20, N-33-20, N-35-20, and N-60- 20 executed by the Governor of California, in response to the state of emergency relating to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.), members of the City Council, the City Manager, City Attorney, City Staff, and City Consultants may participate in this regular meeting by teleconference. Additionally, pursuant to the above-referenced executive orders, members of the public temporarily are not permitted to physically attend at City Hall the meeting to which this agenda applies, but any member of the public may listen or participate in the open session of this meeting as specified below. Members of the public wanting to listen to the open session of the meeting may do so by tuning-in live via http://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/live. Members of the public wanting to address the City Council during the open session, either for public comment or for a specific agenda item, or both, are requested to send an email notification to the La Quinta City Clerk’s Office at CityClerkMail@LaQuintaCA.gov, and specify the following information: 1) Full Name 4) Public Comment or Agenda Item Number 2) City of Residence 5) Subject 3) Phone Number 6) Written or Telephonic Verbal Comments City Council agendas and staff reports are available on the City’s web page: www.LaQuintaCA.gov CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 FEBRUARY 25, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM The email “subject line” must clearly state “Written Comments” or “Telephonic Verbal Comments.” Telephonic verbal public comments – requests to speak must be emailed to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting; the City will facilitate the ability for a member of the public to be audible to the City Council and general public for the item(s) by contacting him/her via phone and queuing him/her to speak. Only one person at a time may speak by telephone and only after being recognized by the Mayor. Written public comments must be received by the City Clerk’s Office no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, and will be distributed to the City Council, incorporated into the agenda packet and public record of the meeting, and will not be read during the meeting unless, upon the request of the Mayor, a brief summary of any public comment is asked to be read, to the extent the City Clerk’s Office can accommodate such request. It would be appreciated that any email communications for public comments related to the items on the agenda, or for general public comment, are provided to the City Clerk’s Office at the email address listed above prior to the commencement of the meeting. If that is not possible, and to accommodate public comments on items that may be added to the agenda after its initial posting or items that are on the agenda, every effort will be made to attempt to review emails received by the City Clerk’s Office during the course of the meeting. The Mayor will endeavor to take a brief pause before action is taken on any agenda item to allow the City Clerk to review emails and share any public comments received during the meeting. All emails received by the City Clerk, at the email address above, until the adjournment of the meeting, will be included within the public record relating to the meeting. ****************************** CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Fitzpatrick, Peña, Radi, Sanchez, Mayor Evans PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 3 FEBRUARY 25,2021 SPECIAL MEETING SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda by emailing written public comments or requests to provide verbal telephonic public comments as indicated above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes (or approximately 350 words). The City Council values your comments; however, in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by Government Code § 54954.2(b). BUSINESS SESSION PAGE 1. INTRODUCE FOR FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.25 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS; AND DISCUSS SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM AD-HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS [ORDINANCE NO. 589] 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS – 4:00 p.m. or after For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed “Request to Speak” form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to consideration of that item. A person may submit written comments to City Council before a public hearing or speak via teleconference in support or opposition to the approval of a project(s). If you challenge a project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. PAGE 1. ADOPT RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY’S SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM PERMIT FEES [RESOLUTION NO. 2021-003] 31 MAYOR’S AND COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ********************************* The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on March 2, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 FEBRUARY 25, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Monika Radeva, City Clerk, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting was posted on the City’s website, near the entrance to the Council Chambers at 78495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51321 Avenida Bermudas, on February 23, 2021. DATED: February 23, 2021 MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Public Notices  The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk’s office at (760) 777-7092, twenty- four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.  If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the City Council, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (760) 777- 7092. A one (1) week notice is required.  If background material is to be presented to the Councilmembers during a City Council meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the City Clerk for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting.  Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Community Development counter at City Hall located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. City of La Quinta SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 25, 2021 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: INTRODUCE FOR FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.25 OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS; AND DISCUSS SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM AD-HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION A. Move to take up Ordinance No. ___ by title and number only and waive further reading. B. Move to introduce at first reading, Ordinance No. ____to amend chapter 3.25 of the Municipal Code relating to Short-Term Vacation Rentals. C. Discuss and provide direction on Short-Term Vacation Rental Program Ad- hoc Committee recommendations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 27, 2021, Council reviewed the Short-Term Vacation Rental Program (STVR) Ad-Hoc Committee (Committee) recommendations, and a comparison of other recommendations and regulations from Neighbors for Neighborhoods (N4N) and Palm Springs. Council expressed general support for several changes to the STVR permitting and operational standards including adding a Homeshare permit, adding a permit for STVRs with 5 bedrooms or more, and conducting a noise monitoring devices pilot program. A redline draft ordinance has been prepared reflecting these changes. Other items were tabled for further discussion, including establishing a limit to the number of bookings per year, limit on the number of STVR permits per owner, adding a Primary Residence STVR permit, and contract between owner and renter acknowledging the rules and regulations and securing a deposit from the renter. BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 5 FISCAL IMPACT A cost of service analysis has been prepared to update and establish fees for the different types of STVR permits, which will be presented to Council for review and consideration under the Public Hearing portion of this meeting. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS At the January 27, 2021 special meeting, Council reviewed the STVR Committee recommendations, a comparison of regulations from N4N and Palm Springs (Attachment 1), discussed several changes to STVR permits and operational standards, and tabled other items for further discussion. A draft ordinance has been prepared with proposed code amendments shown as redline changes. The items that were tabled for further discussion are not included as proposed code amendments; and are identified as discussion items in this report . The items below provide a general summary of the proposed code amendments to Chapter 3.25, including a recap of other items discussed at the January 27 special meeting:  Homeshare STVR Permit Homeshare permit is defined and added as a type of STVR permit whereby the owner hosts visitors in the owner’s home, for compensation, while the owner lives on-site and in the home, throughout the visitor’s stay. Homeshare permits do not have any limits on the number of bookings per year.  Estate Home STVR Permit – STVRs with five bedrooms or more An Estate Home permit is a type of STVR permit for homes with five or more bedrooms, subject to meeting evaluation criteria regarding adequate on-site parking and available street parking, potential noise impacts, and sufficient physical distance from adjacent properties, i.e., outdoor gathering spaces, pools, and other living spaces, to ensure that the STVR will not create conditions detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. Inspection of the property to evaluate the above criteria and to verify the number of bedrooms is required, and installation of noise monitoring devices will be required as a condition of approval of the permit. There are 73 STVRs with five bedrooms or more, out of which 32 are in PGA West. The 73 STVRs with five or more bedrooms represent 6% of all STVRs. Prior to their annual renewal dates, a new STVR permit would be required and subject to meeting the evaluation and inspection criteria. Existing STVRs with five bedrooms or more will not be grandfathered. 6  Adequate onsite parking Clarification language is added to Section 3.25.050(F) regarding adequate onsite parking. Clarification is added that adequate onsite parking is based on the number of overnight occupants allowed, not based on the number of daytime occupants allowed which permits a higher number of occupants. Adequate onsite parking is calculated at a ratio of 4:1 - for every four occupants, one onsite parking space is required, and two street parking spaces may count towards the “adequate onsite parking” standard.  Noise Devices Pilot Program Council reached a consensus and directed staff to conduct a Noise Monitoring Device Pilot Program, which is scheduled to commence on March 1, 2021.  Daytime/Overnight Occupancy Limits No change; maintain existing limits with ranges to allow for flexibility and for the discretion of Code Compliance. The items below are for further discussion and direction:  Limit on the number of bookings per year Council discussed imposing a limit of no more than 32 bookings (+ 4 in the summer months July/Aug/Sept) per calendar year for vacation rental use of a property, thereby reducing the frequency (incentivizing longer stays) and also reducing the density of STVR activity, although the number of bookings/year (32) was not yet decided. This limit is used in Palm Springs. Staff checked with Palm Springs and the rationale for the 32+4 (total 36) limit is because it represents about two-thirds of the weekends in a calendar year (there are 52 weekends in a year). Palm Springs staff commented that the 4 “bonus” bookings in the summer months have been difficult for staff to track and that the summer months are no longer a problem for rental activity as more and more people are visiting the Valley year-round. Council may wish to consider a fixed number limit rather than adding bonus numbers for the summer months. STVRs in Tourist Commercial (CT) zones, Village Commercial (VC) zones (Embassy Suites), and STVRs that are issued Homeshare permits would be exempt and would have no limit on the number of bookings per calendar year. 7 64% of STVRs have 32 bookings or less per year, with an average of 26 bookings per year. The number of bookings range from 2 to 32 in a year. 36% of STVRs have more than 32 bookings per year, with an average of 47 bookings per year. The number of bookings range from 33-96 per year.  Limit on Number of STVR permits per Owner. Limiting the number of STVR permits per Owner would eliminate owners and business entities from operating multiple STVRs and would therefore control the number and density of STVRs in La Quinta. Currently, 96% of STVRs are single- unit STVR owners, and 4% are multi-unit STVR owners. A total of 34 STVR owners, comprised of both private individuals and business entities, own 2 properties; and a total of 9 STVR owners own more than 2 properties. 64% 36% DATA ON NUMBER OF STVR BOOKINGS PER YEAR 32 bookings or less More than 32 bookings Avg. 26 bookings/yr. Avg. 47 bookings/yr. 8 Palm Springs established their limit of one STVR per owner in 2017 as part of a Code (ordinance) update, and grandfathered owners with more than one STVR that had pre-existing permits as of the effective date of the 2017 Code update, as long as they were in compliance with the Code.  Primary Residence STVR Permit A primary residence permit is a type of STVR permit whereby the dwelling is the owner’s primary residence. Primary residence can mean a dwelling where an owner spends the majority of the calendar year on the property used as a STVR, and the property is identified in the Riverside County Assessor’s record as the owner’s primary residence. Council discussed that this type of permit could be limited to a lower number of bookings per year or to tie the limit to the number of the events that occur in a calendar year (i.e., Coachella Music festival, Amex Golf, Tennis, etc.).  Contract between owner and renter acknowledging regulations The STVR Committee recommendations included recommendations for host training and best practices to improve hosting and guest management and to reduce complaints and achieve compliance. Staff is working with Marketing to update the good neighbor brochure that will be especially informative to the owner and renter when the orders are lifted and when updated regulations are in effect. Additionally, staff is preparing video training content on the rules and regulations for both hosts and renters. A requirement can be added that an owner/renter agreement must be executed at the time of booking, and that the signed agreement be made available to Code Compliance upon demand. Palm Springs provides a “Vacation Rental Statement of Rules and Regulations” (Attachment 2) that is to be signed by the renters acknowledging that they have read and will comply with all the rules and regulations. Staff can prepare a similar document.  Owner requiring a security deposit from renter The City cannot require that the owner to obtain a security deposit from the renter, to be used in case a fine is imposed for a violation. It has been La Quinta’s practice that fines for violations are imposed on the owner, not on the renter. However, it has been discussed that the renter (occupant) should be fined, for example, for noise violations because it is the occupant that is causing the violation. The City’s ordinance states that an occupant may be issued an administrative citation. Section 3.25.090.E (Violation) states that “The city may issue an administrative citation to any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, or owner’s authorized agent or representative.” Occupant means any person(s) occupying the dwelling at any time. For example, the occupant violating 9 a noise regulation would receive a fine of $1,000, and a strike would go against the owner. Three strikes within one year will result in an immediate suspension of the permit. Staff researched Pacific Grove and their ordinance does not include any provisions that require an owner/host to obtain a security deposit from their renter. Staff has learned that there are some owners/hosts that opt to require their renters to provide a security deposit to be used in case a fine is imposed for a violation, and other owners/hosts do not impose this requirement on their renters. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect to adopt some of the changes; instruct Staff to make additional/different amendments; and/or amend certain sections of these chapters of the Code. Prepared by: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager Attachments: 1. Comparison of Regulations 2. Statement of Rules and Regulations (Palm Springs) 10 ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.25 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS WHEREAS, Chapter 3.25 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) relates to short-term vacation rentals; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority to regulate businesses operating within the City; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3.25 of the LQMC addresses permitted uses, short- term vacation rental process and permitting procedures; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are necessary to clarify regulations, process, and standards for short-term vacation rentals under the City’s short-term vacation rental program, as more particularly set forth in this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 3.25 shall be amended as written in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby grant the City Clerk the ability to make minor amendments to "Exhibit A" to ensure consistency of all approved text amendments prior to the publication in the La Quinta Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Posting: The City Clerk shall, within 15 days after passage of this Ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council, shall certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City of La Quinta. SECTION 4. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 5. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 11 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 2 of 17 remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held this ____ day of ____________, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: _______________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 12 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 3 of 17 Chapter 3.25 SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS Chapter 3.25 SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS 3.25.010 Title. This chapter shall be referred to as the “Short-Term Vacation Rental Regulations.” (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.020 Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations for the use of privately owned residential dwellings as short-term vacation rentals that ensure the collection and payment of transient occupancy taxes (TOT) as provided in Chapter 3.24 of this code, and minimize the negative secondary effects of such use on surrounding residential neighborhoods. B. This chapter is not intended to provide any owner of residential property with the right or privilege to violate any private conditions, covenants and restrictions applicable to the owner’s property that may prohibit the use of such owner’s residential property for short-term vacation rental purposes as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) C. The requirements of this chapter shall be presumed to apply to any residential dwelling that has received a short-term vacation rental permit. A rebuttable presumption arises that, whenever there is an occupant(s), paying rent or not, of a residential dwelling that has received a short-term vacation rental permit, the requirements of this chapter shall apply, including but not limited to any suspension or other modifications imposed on a short-term vacation rental permit as set forth in this chapter. The city manager or authorized designee shall have the authority to implement any necessary or appropriate policies and procedures to implement the rebuttable presumption set forth in this section. 3.25.030 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning respectively ascribed to them by this section: “Advertise,” “advertisement,” “advertising,” “publish,” and “publication” mean any and all means, whether verbal or written, through any media whatsoever whether in use prior to, at the time of, or after the enactment of the ordinance amending this chapter, used for conveying to any member or members of the public the ability or availability to rent a short-term vacation rental unit as defined in this section, or used for conveying to any member or members of the public a notice of an intention to rent a short-term vacation rental unit as defined in this section. For purposes of this definition, the following media are listed as examples, which are not and shall not be construed as exhaustive: Verbal or written announcements by proclamation or outcry, newspaper advertisement, magazine advertisement, handbill, written or printed notice, printed or poster display, billboard display, e-mail or other electronic/digital messaging platform, electronic commerce/commercial Internet websites, and any and all other electronic media, television, radio, satellite-based, or Internet website. “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 vacation rental. EXHIBIT A 13 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 4 of 17 “Applicant” means the owner of the short-term vacation rental unit. “Authorized agent or representative” means a designated agent or representative who is appointed by the owner and also is responsible for compliance with this chapter with respect to the short-term vacation rental unit. “Booking transaction” means any reservation or payment service provided by a person or entity who facilitates a home-sharing or vacation rental (including short-term vacation rental) transaction between a prospective occupant and an owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative. “City manager” means that person acting in the capacity of the city manager of the city of La Quinta or authorized designee. “Declaration of non-use” means the declaration described in Section 3.25.050. “Dwelling” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 9.280.030 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code; “dwelling” does not include any impermanent, transitory, or mobile means of temporary lodging, including but not limited to mobile homes, recreational vehicles (RVs), car trailers, and camping tents. “Estate home” means a single-family detached residence with five or more bedrooms. “Estate home permit” is a type of short-term vacation rental permit that is issued to a short-term vacation rental unit with five or more bedrooms, subject to evaluation criteria and inspection of the property pursuant to Section 3.25.060.D. “Good neighbor brochure” means a document prepared by the city that summarizes the general rules of conduct, consideration, and respect, including, without limitation, provisions of this code and other applicable laws, rules or regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of short-term vacation rental units. “Homeshare permit” is a type of short-term vacation rental permit whereby the Owner hosts visitors in the Owner’s home, for compensation, for periods of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, while the Owner lives on-site and in the home, throughout the visitor’s stay. “Hosting platform” means a person or entity who participates in the home-sharing or vacation rental (including short-term vacation rental) business by collecting or receiving a fee, directly or indirectly through an agent or intermediary, for conducting a booking transaction using any medium of facilitation, including but not limited to the Internet. “Local contact person” means the person designated by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative who shall be available twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week with the ability to respond to the location within forty-five minutes for the purpose of: (1) taking remedial action to resolve any such complaints; and (2) responding to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit. A designated local contact person must obtain a business license otherwise required by Sections 3.24.060 and 3.28.020 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. “Notice of permit modification, suspension or revocation” means the notice the city may issue to an applicant, authorized agent or representative, local contact person, occupant, owner, responsible person, or any other person or entity authorized to be issued such notice under this code for a short- term vacation rental unit, upon a determination by the city of a violation of this chapter or other provisions of this code relating to authorized uses of property subject to this chapter. 14 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 5 of 17 “Occupant” means any person(s) occupying the dwelling at any time. “Owner” means the person(s) or entity(ies) that hold(s) legal and/or equitable title to the subject short- term vacation rental. “Primary residence” means a dwelling where an Owner spends the majority of the calendar year on the property used as a short-term vacation rental unit, and the property is identified in the Riverside County Assessor’s record as the Owner’s primary residence. “Primary residence permit” is a type of short-term vacation rental permit whereby the short-term vacation rental unit is the Owner’s primary residence, as defined herein in this Section. “Property” means a residential legal lot of record on which a short-term vacation rental unit is located. “Rent” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 3.24.020 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. “Rental agreement” means a written or verbal agreement for use and occupancy of a privately-owned residential dwelling that has been issued a short-term vacation rental permit, including a dwelling that may have a permit which has been or is under suspension. “Responsible person” means the signatory of an agreement for the rental, use and occupancy of a short-term vacation rental unit, and/or any person(s) occupying the short-term vacation rental unit without a rental agreement, including the owner(s), owner’s authorized agent(s) or representative(s), local contact(s), and their guests, who shall be an occupant of that short-term vacation rental unit, who is at least twenty-one years of age, and who is legally responsible for ensuring that all occupants of the short-term vacation 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 vacation rental unit. “Short-term vacation rental permit” means a permit that permits the use of a privately owned residential dwelling as a short-term vacation rental unit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, and which incorporates by consolidation a transient occupancy permit and a business license otherwise required by Sections 3.24.060 and 3.28.020 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. Short-term vacation rental permit includes the following subtypes: Homeshare permit, Primary Residence permit, and Estate Home permit, as defined herein in this Section. “Short-term vacation rental unit” means a privately owned residential dwelling, such as, but not limited to, a single-family detached or multiple-family attached unit, apartment house, condominium, cooperative apartment, duplex, or any portion of such dwellings and/or property and/or yard features appurtenant thereto, rented for occupancy and/or occupied for dwelling, lodging, or any transient use, including but not limited to sleeping overnight purposes for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days, by any person(s) with or without a rental agreement. “STVR” may be used by city officials as an abbreviation for “short-term vacation rental.” “Suspension” means that short-term vacation rental permit that is suspended pursuant to Section 3.25.090. “Tenant” or “transient,” for purposes of this chapter, means any person who seeks to rent or who does rent, or who occupies or seeks to occupy, for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, a short- term vacation rental unit. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 15 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 6 of 17 3.25.040 Authorized agent or representative. A. Except for the completion of an application for a short-term vacation rental permit and business license, the owner may designate an authorized agent or representative to ensure compliance with the requirements of this chapter with respect to the short-term vacation rental unit on his, her or their behalf. Nevertheless, the owner shall not be relieved from any personal responsibility and personal liability for noncompliance with any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term vacation rental unit, regardless of whether such noncompliance was committed by the owner’s authorized agent or representative or the occupants of the owner’s short-term vacation rental unit or their guests. B. The owner must be the applicant for and holder of a short-term vacation rental permit and business license and shall not authorize an agent or a representative to apply for or hold a short-term vacation rental permit and business license on the owner’s behalf. The owner’s signature is required on all short-term vacation rental application forms, and the city may prescribe reasonable requirements to verify that an applicant or purported owner is the owner in fact. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.050 Short-term vacation rental permit—Required. A. The owner is required to obtain a short-term vacation rental permit and a business license from the city before the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative may rent or advertise a short-term vacation rental unit. No short-term vacation rental use may occur in the city except in compliance with this chapter. No property in the city may be issued a short-term vacation rental permit or used as a short-term vacation rental unit unless the property is a residential dwelling that complies with the requirements of this chapter. B. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall be valid for one (1) year and renewed on an annual basis in order to remain valid. 1. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license renewal application shall be submitted no earlier than sixty (60) calendar days but no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the permit’s expiration date. Failure to renew a short-term vacation rental permit as prescribed in this section may result in the short-term vacation rental permit being terminated. 2. A new owner of a property (or a new person and/or new entity that owns or controls a business or organization or other entity of any kind, such as a limited liability company, which is the owner of a property) previously operated as a short-term vacation rental unit by the former owner (or by a former person or entity that owned or controlled the business or organization or other entity of any kind that continues to be the owner of the property) may not renew the previous owner’s short-term vacation rental permit and shall apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit, pursuant to this chapter, if the new owner (or new person and/or new entity that owns or controls a business or organization or other entity of any kind that continues to be the owner of a property) wants to continue to use the residential dwelling as a short-term vacation rental unit. 3. If an owner or an owner’s authorized agent or representative, pursuant to all applicable laws, constructs additional bedrooms to an existing residential dwelling or converts non-bedroom spaces and areas in an existing residential dwelling into additional bedrooms, the owner or 16 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 7 of 17 owner’s authorized agent or representative shall notify the city and update the short-term vacation rental unit’s online registration profile upon city approval of the addition or conversion so that the city may confirm that such conversion is consistent with this chapter and the code, including all applicable provisions in Title 8 of the code, and reissue the short- term vacation rental permit so that it accurately identifies the number of approved bedrooms, if the owner wants to continue to use the dwelling as a short-term vacation rental unit. The city may conduct an onsite inspection of the property to verify compliance with this chapter and the code. Code compliance inspections may be billed for full cost recovery at one hour for initial inspection and in thirty-minute increments for each follow-up inspection pursuant to subsection D. For purposes of this chapter, “reissue” or “reissuance” of a short-term vacation rental permit means a permit that is reissued by the city, with corrected information, as applicable, to be valid for the balance of the existing one (1)-year permit and license period. C. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall be valid only for the number of bedrooms in a residential dwelling equal to the number of bedrooms the city establishes as eligible for listing as a short-term vacation rental unit and shall not exceed the number of bedrooms allowable for the number of occupants as set forth in Section 3.25.070. The allowable number of bedrooms shall meet all applicable requirements under federal, state and city codes, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 9.50.100 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) governing “additional bedrooms” and all applicable building and construction codes in Title 8 of this code. A short-term vacation rental permit shall not issue for, or otherwise authorize the use of, additional bedrooms converted from non-bedroom spaces or areas in an existing residential dwelling except upon express city approval for the additional bedrooms in compliance with this code, including Section 9.50.100 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time), and upon approval of an application for a new or renewed short-term vacation rental permit as provided in subsection B. D. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed, and may be suspended or permanently revoked, if the property, or any building, structure, or use or land use on the property is in violation of this code. The city may conduct an inspection of the property prior to the issuance or renewal of a short-term vacation rental permit and/or business license. Code compliance inspections may be billed for full cost recovery at one hour for initial inspection and in thirty-minute increments for each follow-up inspection. For purposes of this subsection, a code violation exists if, at the time of the submittal of an application for a new or renewed short-term vacation rental permit or business license, the city has commenced administrative proceedings by issuing written communication and/or official notice to the owner or owner’s responsible agent or representative of one or more code violations. For purposes of this chapter, “building,” “structure,” and “use or land use” have the same meanings as set forth in Section 9.280.030 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. E. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed, and may be suspended or permanently revoked, if any portion of transient occupancy tax has not been reported and/or remitted to the city for the previous calendar year by the applicable deadline for the reporting and/or remittance of the transient occupancy tax. F. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed, and may be suspended or permanently revoked, if the residential dwelling to be used as a short-term rental unit lacks adequate onsite parking. For purposes of this subsection, “adequate onsite parking” shall be 17 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 8 of 17 determined by dividing the total number of overnight occupants commensurate with the approved number of bedrooms as provided in the table under Section 3.25.070 by four, such that the ratio of the total number of overnight occupants to onsite parking spots does not exceed four to one (4:1). For example, a residential dwelling with five bedrooms may permissibly host a total number of ten overnight occupants and therefore requires three on-site parking spots. Onsite parking shall be on an approved driveway, garage, and/or carport areas only in accordance with Section 3.25.070(R), and no more than two street parking spots may count towards the number of on-site parking spots necessary to meet the “adequate onsite parking” requirement under this subsection. G. An owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative who claims not to be operating a short- term vacation rental unit or who has obtained a valid short-term vacation rental permit and business license pursuant to this chapter, may voluntarily opt-out of the requirements of this chapter, prior to the issuance or expiration of a short-term vacation rental permit and business license that are applicable to the short-term vacation rental unit, only upon the owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person executing, under penalty of perjury, a declaration of non-use as a short-term vacation rental unit, in a form prescribed by the city (for purposes of this chapter, a “declaration of non-use”). Upon the receipt and filing by the city of a fully executed declaration of non-use, the owner or owner’s authorized agent representative shall be released from complying with this chapter as long as the property is not used as a short-term vacation rental unit. Use of the property as a short-term vacation unit after the city’s receipt and filing of a declaration of non-use, is a violation of this chapter. If, after a declaration of non-use has been received and filed by the city, the owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative wants to use that property as a short-term vacation rental unit, the owner shall apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit and business license and fully comply with the requirements of this chapter and the code; provided, however, that if a short-term vacation rental permit is or will be suspended on the date an owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative submits to the city a declaration of non-use for the short-term vacation rental unit under suspension, then the owner may apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit and business license only after twelve (12) consecutive months have elapsed from the date of the declaration of non-use, and the owner and owner’s authorized agent or representative otherwise shall fully comply with the requirements of this chapter and the code. (Ord. 577 § 1, 2019; Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.060 Short-term vacation rental permit—Application requirements. A. The owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative must submit the information required on the city’s short-term vacation rental permit application form provided by the city, which may include any or all of the following: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the subject short-term vacation rental unit; 2. The name, address, and telephone number of the owner’s authorized agent or representative, if any; 3. The name, address, and twenty-four-hour telephone number of the local contact person; 4. The address of the proposed short-term vacation rental unit, Internet listing site and listing number; 18 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 9 of 17 5. The number of bedrooms shall not exceed the number of bedrooms allowable for the number of occupants as set forth in Section 3.25.070. The allowable number of bedrooms shall meet all applicable building and construction requirements under federal, state and city codes, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 9.50.100 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) governing “additional bedrooms” and all applicable building and construction codes in Title 8 of this code; 6. Acknowledgement of receipt of all electronically distributed short-term vacation rental information from the city, including any good neighbor brochure; 7. The owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative who has applied for a short-term vacation rental permit shall provide the city with written authorization that issuance of a short- term vacation rental permit pursuant to this chapter is not inconsistent with any recorded or unrecorded restrictive covenant, document, or other policy of a homeowner association (HOA) or other person or entity which has governing authority over the property on which a short-term vacation rental unit will be operated; in furtherance of this requirement, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that an owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative does not have written authorization for the issuance of a short-term vacation rental permit if a HOA or other person or entity which has governing authority over the property has submitted to the city a duly-authorized official writing, which informs the city that short-term vacation rentals of thirty (30) consecutive days or less are not permitted on the property applying for a short-term vacation rental permit; and 8. Such other information as the city manager or authorized designee deems reasonably necessary to administer this chapter. B. The short-term vacation rental permit application shall be accompanied by an application fee as set by resolution of the city council. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed while any check or other payment method cannot be processed for insufficient funds. C. The city may determine the maximum number of bedrooms in a residential dwelling with multiple bedrooms eligible for use as a short-term vacation rental unit upon issuance of a short-term vacation rental permit. When determining the maximum number of bedrooms eligible for use as short-term vacation rentals, the city shall consider the public health, safety, and welfare, shall comply with building and residential codes, and may rely on public records relating to planned and approved living space within the residential dwellings, including, but not limited to, title insurance reports, official county records, and tax assessor records. Owners of residential dwellings that exceed five thousand square feet of developed space on a lot may apply for additional bedrooms. An owner and/or owner’s authorized agent or representative may not advertise availability for occupancy of a short-term vacation rental unit for more than the approved number of bedrooms listed in the short-term vacation rental permit issued by the city pursuant to this chapter. In addition to any other rights and remedies available to the city under this chapter, the first violation for failing to advertise the approved number of bedrooms may be subject to a fine by an administrative citation, and a second or subsequent violation for failing to advertise the approved number of bedrooms may result in a revocation (which may include permanent revocation) of the short-term vacation rental permit and/or any affiliated licenses or permits pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3.25.100. D. Short-term vacation rental permit applications shall comply with the following: 19 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 10 of 17 1. A short-term vacation rental permit application for an Estate home shall be subject to evaluation and inspection of the property to ensure that the short-term vacation rental unit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties in the vicinity. Evaluation and inspection shall include, but not be limited to: verification of the number of bedrooms, adequate on-site parking spaces, availability of nearby street parking, physical distance of the Estate home from adjacent properties, such as location and distance of outdoor gathering spaces, pools, and other living spaces from neighboring properties. The city manager, or designee, shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on the use of the Estate home as a short-term vacation rental unit to ensure that any potential secondary effects unique to the subject short-term vacation rental unit are avoided or adequately mitigated. 2.. A short-term vacation rental permit application may be denied if the applicant has failed to comply with application requirements in this chapter, or has had a prior short-term vacation rental permit for the same unit revoked within the past twelve (12) calendar months. In addition, upon adoption of a resolution pursuant to subsection H, the city may limit the number of short-term vacation rental units in a given geographic area based on a high concentration of short-term vacation rental units. The city shall maintain a waiting list of short-term vacation rental permit applications for such geographic areas where the city determines, based on substantial evidence after a noticed public hearing and public hearing, there is a higher than average concentration of short-term vacation rental units that either affects the public health, safety, and welfare or significantly negatively impacts the character and standard of living in a neighborhood within that geographic area, or both. E. Short-term vacation rental permit applications may take up to, and the city shall have, thirty (30) calendar days to process. An application for a renewal of a short-term vacation rental permit and business license should be submitted at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the existing permit’s expiration to allow sufficient time for the city to process the renewal application. Nothing in this subsection or chapter shall be construed as requiring the city to issue or deny a short-term vacation rental permit in less than thirty (30) calendar days, as no permit shall be issued until such time as application review is complete. No short-term vacation rental use may occur in the city without a valid short-term vacation rental permit is issued in accordance with this chapter. F. Upon a change of ownership of a property (or upon a new person and/or new entity owning or controlling a business or organization or other entity of any kind, such as a limited liability company, which is the owner of a property) licensed to operate as a short-term vacation rental unit, the owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall notify the city of such change immediately. The existing short-term vacation rental permit shall be terminated and the property must cease operating as a short-term vacation rental immediately. Failure to comply may result in a fine of $1,000 per day for a continuing violation of this subsection F. G. Immediately upon a change of an owner’s authorized agent or representative, local contact, or any other change pertaining to the information contained in the short-term vacation rental application, the owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall update the short-term vacation rental unit’s online registration profile used by the city for the implementation of the short-term vacation rental regulations. Failure to update immediately this information may result in a violation of this chapter, including but not limited to a suspension or revocation of a short-term vacation rental permit, until all information is updated. 20 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 11 of 17 H. The city manager or authorized designee shall prepare, for adoption by resolution by the city council, a review procedure and criteria to evaluate the limitation for issuance of STVR permits and/or STVR applications for geographic areas within the city as set forth in subsection D. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.070 Operational requirements and standard conditions. A. A. The owner and/or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the short-term vacation rental unit is used in a manner that complies with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term vacation rental unit. 1. 1. No more than thirty-two (32) booking transactions for vacation rental use of a short-term vacation rental unit shall be allowed or provided in any calendar year. A booking transaction includes any occupancy of a property subject to the provision of this chapter by persons other than the Owner when the Owner is not present during such occupancy, regardless of whether compensation is paid for such occupancy or whether occupancy is evidenced in an agreement or document. For the first year a short-term vacation rental permit is in effect, the thirty-two (32) booking transactions shall be prorated based on the number of months that elapse prior to the subsequent calendar year. Short-term vacation rental units with valid short-term vacation rental permits and business licenses in the Tourist Commercial (CT) and Village Commercial (VC) zones, or with a valid Homeshare permit, are exempt from this subparagraph. 22. An Estate home may be established for short-term vacation rental use subject to evaluation and inspection of the property pursuant to Section 3.25.060.D. 3. An Estate Home established for short-term vacation rental use is required to be equipped with a noise monitoring device(s) that is operable at all times. B. The responsible person(s) shall be an occupant(s) of the short-term vacation rental unit for which he, she or they signed a rental agreement for such rental, use and occupancy, and/or any person(s) occupying the short-term vacation rental unit without a rental agreement, including the owner, owner’s authorized agent or representative, local contact(s) and their guests. No non-permanent improvements to the property, such as tents, trailers, or other mobile units, may be used as short-term vacation rentals. The total number of occupants, including the responsible person(s), allowed to occupy any given short-term vacation rental unit may be within the ranges set forth in the table below. By the issuance of a short-term vacation rental permit, the city or its authorized designees, including police, shall have the right to conduct a count of all persons occupying the short-term vacation rental unit in response to a complaint or any other legal grounds to conduct an inspection resulting from the use of the short-term vacation rental unit, and the failure to allow the city or its authorized designees the ability to conduct such a count may constitute a violation of this chapter. The city council may by resolution further restrict occupancy levels provided those restrictions are within the occupancy ranges set forth below. Number of Bedrooms Total of Overnight* Occupants Total Daytime** Occupants (Including Number of Overnight Occupants) 0 – Studio 2 2—8 21 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 12 of 17 1 2—4 2—8 2 4—6 4—8 3 6—8 6—12 4 8—10 8—16 5 10—12 10—18 6 12—14 12—20 7 14 14—20 8 16 16—22 9 18 18—24 * Overnight (10:01 p.m. – 6:59 a.m.) ** Daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) C. The person(s) listed as the local contact person in the short-term vacation rental unit’s online registration profile shall be available twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, with the ability to respond to the location within thirty (30) minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit or their guests. The person(s) listed as a local contact person shall be able to respond personally to the location, or to contact the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative to respond personally to the location, within thirty (30) minutes of notification or attempted notification by the city or its authorized short-term vacation rental designated hotline service provider. No provision in this section shall obligate the city or its authorized short-term vacation rental designated hotline service provider to attempt to contact any person or entity other than the person(s) listed as the local contact person. D. The owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the occupants and/or guests of the short-term vacation rental unit do not create unreasonable or unlawful noise 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 vacation rental unit. E. Occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit shall comply with the standards and regulations for allowable noise at the property in accordance with Section 9.100.210 and 11.08.040 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. 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 the outside of any short-term vacation rental unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. Observations of noise related violations shall be made by the city or its authorized designee from any location at which a city official or authorized designee may lawfully be, including but not limited to any public right-of-way, any city-owned public property, and any private property to which the city or its authorized designee has been granted access. F. Prior to occupancy of a short-term vacation rental unit, the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall: 1. Obtain the contact information of the responsible person; 22 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 13 of 17 2. Provide copies of all electronically distributed short-term vacation rental information from the city, including any good neighbor brochure to the responsible person and post in a conspicuous location within the short-term vacation rental unit, in a manner that allows for the information to be viewed in its entirety; and require such responsible person to execute a formal acknowledgement that he or she is legally responsible for compliance by all occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit and their guests with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term vacation rental unit. This information shall be maintained by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative 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 this code or any other applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term vacation rental unit. G. The owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person shall, upon notification or attempted notification that the responsible person and/or any occupant and/or guest of the short-term vacation rental unit has created unreasonable or unlawful 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 vacation rental unit, promptly respond within thirty (30) minutes to immediately halt and prevent a recurrence of such conduct by the responsible person and/or any occupants and/or guests. Failure of the owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person to respond to calls or complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants and/or guests of the short-term vacation rental unit within thirty (30) minutes, shall be subject to all administrative, legal and equitable remedies available to the city. H. [reserved] I. 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 on scheduled trash collection days. The owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Chapter 6.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. J. Signs may be posted on the premises to advertise the availability of the short-term vacation rental unit as provided for in Chapter 9.160 (Signs) (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. K. The owner, authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person shall post a copy of the short-term vacation rental permit and a copy of the good neighbor brochure in a conspicuous place within the short-term vacation rental unit, and a copy of the good neighbor brochure shall be provided to each occupant of the subject short-term vacation rental unit. L. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the owner and/or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 3.24 concerning transient occupancy taxes, including, but not limited to, submission of a monthly return in accordance with Section 3.24.080 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code, which shall be filed monthly even if the short-term vacation rental unit was not rented during each such month. M. Guesthouses, detached from the primary residential dwelling on the property, or the primary residential dwelling on the property, may be rented pursuant to this chapter as long as the guesthouse and the primary residential dwelling are rented to one party. 23 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 14 of 17 N. The owner and/or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall post the number of authorized bedrooms and the current short-term vacation rental permit number at the beginning or top of any advertisement that promotes the availability or existence of a short-term vacation rental unit. In the instance of audio-only advertising of the same, the short-term vacation rental permit number shall be read as part of the advertisement. O. The owner and/or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall operate a short-term vacation rental unit in compliance with any other permits or licenses that apply to the property, including, but not limited to, any permit or license needed to operate a special event pursuant to Section 9.60.170 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. The city may limit the number of special event permits issued per year on residential dwellings pursuant to Section 9.60.170 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time). P. The city manager, or designee, shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on the use of any given short-term vacation rental unit to ensure that any potential secondary effects unique to the subject short-term vacation rental unit are avoided or adequately mitigated, including, but not limited to, a mitigating condition that would require the installation of a noise monitoring device to keep time-stamped noise level data from the property that will be made available to the city upon city’s reasonable request. Q. The standard conditions set forth herein may be modified by the city manager, or designee, upon request of the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative based on site-specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a short-term vacation rental. All requests must be in writing and shall identify how the strict application of the standard conditions creates an unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a short-term vacation rental would not be allowed. Any hardships identified must relate to physical constraints to the subject site and shall not be self-induced or economic. Any modifications of the standard conditions shall not further exacerbate an already existing problem. R. On-site parking shall be on an approved driveway, garage, and/or carport areas only; this section does not impose restrictions on public street parking regulations. Recreational vehicles may be parked in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 9.60.130 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. (Ord. 577 § 1, 2019; Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.080 Recordkeeping and hosting platform duties. A. The owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall maintain for a period of three years, records in such form as the tax administrator (as defined in Chapter 3.24) may require to determine the amount of transient occupancy tax owed to the city. The tax administrator shall have the right to inspect such records at all reasonable times, which may be subject to the subpoena by the tax administrator pursuant to Section 3.24.140 (Records) (Transient Occupancy Tax) (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. B. Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential dwelling or other property purporting to be a short-term vacation rental unit in the city unless the dwelling or property has a current and valid short-term vacation rental permit issued pursuant to this chapter, which is not under suspension, for the dates and times proposed as part of the booking transaction. 24 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 15 of 17 1. The city shall maintain an online registry of active and suspended short-term vacation rental permits, which hosting platforms may reference and rely upon for purposes of complying with subsection B. If a residential dwelling or other property purporting to be a short-term vacation rental unit matches with an address, permit number, and/or current and valid permit dates (not under suspension) set forth in the city’s online registry, the hosting platforms may presume that the dwelling or other property has a current and valid short-term vacation rental permit. 2. The provisions of this subsection B shall be interpreted in accordance with otherwise applicable state and federal law(s) and will not apply if determined by the city to be in violation of, or preempted by, any such law(s). (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.090 Violations. A. Additional Conditions. A violation of any provision of this chapter or this code by any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, or owner’s authorized agent or representative, shall authorize the city manager, or designee, to impose additional conditions on the use of any given short-term vacation 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, this code, California Vehicle Code, or any other applicable federal, state, or local laws or codes, including, but not limited to, applicable fire codes and the building and construction codes as set forth in Title 8 of this code, by any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, or owner’s authorized agent or representative, shall constitute grounds for modification, suspension and/or revocation (which may include permanent revocation) of the short-term vacation rental permit and/or any affiliated licenses or permits pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3.25.100. C. Notice of Violation. The city may issue a notice of violation to any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, owner’s authorized agent or representative, or hosting platform, pursuant to Section 1.01.300 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code, if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. D. Three Strikes Policy. Three violations of any provision of this chapter or this code within one (1) year by any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, or owner’s authorized agent or representative, with respect to any one residential dwelling will result in an immediate suspension of the short-term vacation rental permit with subsequent ability to have a hearing before the city, pursuant to this chapter, to request a lifting of the suspension. E. Administrative and Misdemeanor Citations. The city may issue an administrative citation to any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, owner’s authorized agent or representative, or hosting platform, pursuant to Chapter 1.09 (Administrative Citations) (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code, if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from also issuing an infraction citation upon the occurrence of the same offense on a separate day. An administrative citation may impose a fine for one or more violations of this chapter in the maximum amount allowed by state law or this code in which the latter amount shall be as follows: 25 Ordinance No. XXX Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: Month & Date, 2021 Page 16 of 17 1. General STVR Violations (Occupancy/Noise/Parking). a. First violation: one thousand dollars; b. Second violation: two thousand dollars; c.Third violation: three thousand dollars. 2.Operating a STVR Without a Valid Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit. a. First violation: three thousand dollars; b.Second or more violations: five thousand dollars; c.In addition to the fine set forth above, the first violation of operating a STVR without a valid short-term vacation rental permit shall be cause for an owner (or person and/or entity that owns or controls a business or organization or other entity of any kind, such as a limited liability company, which is the owner of a property) to be prohibited for all time from being eligible to be issued a short-term vacation rental permit and/or business license for use of a property as a short-term vacation rental unit. 3. Hosting a Special Event at a STVR Without a Special Event Permit as Required by Section 9.60.170 (or Successor Provision, as May Be Amended From Time to Time) of This Code. a. First violation: five thousand dollars; b. Second violation: five thousand dollars. F. Public Nuisance. In addition to any and all rights and remedies available to the city, it shall be a public nuisance for any person or entity to commit, cause or maintain a violation of this chapter, which shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1.01.250 (Violations public nuisances) (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. (Ord. 578 § 1, 2019; Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.100 Appeals. A. Any person aggrieved by any decision of a city officer made pursuant to this chapter may request a hearing before the city manager in accordance with Chapter 2.08 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. B. Notwithstanding any provisions in Section 2.08.230 or otherwise in the code, the decision by the city manager of an appeal brought under this chapter shall be the final decision by the city for any violation of a short-term vacation rental permit issued under this order, except for any administrative citation imposing a fine, which shall be processed and subject to an administrative appeal pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of the code. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017) 26 Comparison of Regulations Regulation Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation N4N Recommendation Palm Springs La Quinta ‐ Code update or for Consideration Density/Overconcentration (Measured Standard) 300’ radius distance for single family residence; 2 STVR within 300’ radius for condo complex. Agrees with Ad Hoc Committee recommendation for 300’ radius distance; None, 1 STVR per owner None; other considerations to minimize density and frequency or rentals provided in staff report: limit percentage by zone or area, limit number of days/yr, limit number of STVR per owner, different permit types. Permit Types Two types of permits: 1) Homeshare, 2) STVR Permit Three types of permits: 1) Homeshare 2) STVR Commercial (TC Zone) 3) STVR ‐ Residential Three types of permits: 1)Homeshare, 2) Vacation Rental 3) Estate Home Application (5‐6 bedrooms) Different permit types for consideration: 1) Homeshare, 2) Primary Residence Permit Limited, 3) STVR Permit Limited, 4) STVR Permit No Limit (TC zones) 5) Special Permit for 5 bedrooms or more Limited rental times Minimum 2 nights stay; Does not apply to Homeshare or STVR located in TC zones Minimum 3 nights stay; phasing in longer min. nightly stay to min 10 nights 18 months after new ordinance adopted; consider min 28 days 36 months after new ordinance adopted. No min. night stay; Limited rental 32 times/calendar year + 4 rentals times allowed July/Aug/Sept. Prorated rental times for first year. Consideration: limited rental 90 or 120 days/year 5 bedroom or more None. None Requires Estate Home Application Addendum (5‐6 bedrooms); 7 or more bedrooms not allowed. Consideration: Special Permit for STVR with 5 bedrooms or more ATTACHMENT 127 Standard Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation N4N REcommendation Palm Springs La Quinta – Code Update or for Consideration Limit on Number of STVR permits per Owner No recommendation. None. One STVR per Owner No limit. Cap number of STVR permits None. Cap the maximum number of STVR permits for Homeshares, TC (to be set by Council); STVRs in residential zones not to exceed 3% of homes in zone (freeze issuance of new permits until 3% is achieved). None None Local contact person available Local contact person available at property within 30 minutes None Local contact person available at property within 30 minutes Code updated: Local contact person to be available at property within 30 minutes 3 Strikes Rule 2 strikes None 3 strikes: City Manager has discretion to suspend permit forever. Third strike can be appealed and if appeal is in favor, strike is pardoned. Exec Order 9: 2 strikes, min 30 day suspension Current Code: 3 strikes, immediate suspension and can request appeal hearing. Operating without permit ineligible for permit forever. Amplified noise Quiet hours shall be between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. No amplified noise from 8pm to 8am. None. No outside amplified music allowed while being rented. Indoor amplified music shall not be heard at the property line. Exec Order 9 – no outside sound amplification at any time. Current Ordinance: no noise amplification from 10pm‐7am. 90 day Noise monitoring pilot program to be implemented 28 City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 vacation.rentals@palmspringsca.gov • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov Department of Vacation Rental Compliance ŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐsĂĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞŶƚĂů^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨZƵůĞƐĂŶĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ sZWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdŽƚĂůηŽĨKĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͗ͺͺͺͺ ŐĞŶƚŽƌKǁŶĞƌEĂŵĞ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdŽƚĂůηŽĨsĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͗ͺͺͺͺ ŽŶƚĂĐƚWŚŽŶĞη͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ;ŽŶĂϮϰͲŚŽƵƌďĂƐŝƐͿ͘ ZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞWĂƌƚǇ;WĞƌƐŽŶŽŶƚŚĞZĞŶƚĂůŽŶƚƌĂĐƚͿ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ƌƌŝǀĂůĂƚĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĞƉĂƌƚƵƌĞĂƚĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ tĞǁĞůĐŽŵĞǇŽƵĂŶĚǁĞǁĂŶƚǇŽƵƚŽĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂůůƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐŚĂƐƚŽŽĨĨĞƌ͘sZŚŽŵĞƐĂƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚŵĂŶǇďĞĂƵƚŝĨƵůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐŝŶŽƵƌŝƚǇ͘tŚĞŶǇŽƵƐƚĂǇĂƚĂsZŚŽŵĞ͕ǇŽƵĂŶĚǇŽƵƌŐƵĞƐƚƐďĞĐŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŽĨ ƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĚƵƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨǇŽƵƌƐƚĂǇ͘tĞĂƐŬǇŽƵƚŽƉůĞĂƐĞďĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůĂŶĚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚĞŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘ ƐĂŐƵĞƐƚŝŶĂsZƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĨĂŵŝůŝĂƌŝǌĞǇŽƵƌƐĞůĨǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ'ŽŽĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌƌŽĐŚƵƌĞ͘Ŷ ŽǁŶĞƌŽƌŐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞsĂĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞŶƚĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŐƵĞƐƚƐŽŶƚŚĞZƵůĞƐĂŶĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƐƚĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ'ŽŽĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌƌŽĐŚƵƌĞ͘ ǇƐŝŐŶŝŶŐďĞůŽǁ͕ǇŽƵĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ ϭ͘ /ŚĂǀĞƌĞĂĚĂŶĚ/ǁŝůůĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚĂůůƚŚĞZƵůĞƐĂŶĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƐƚĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ'ŽŽĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌƌŽĐŚƵƌĞ͘ Ϯ͘ /ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚ/ŵĂǇďĞŝƐƐƵĞĚĂŶĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞŝƚĂƚŝŽŶďǇƚŚĞsĂĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞŶƚĂůŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞKĨĨŝĐĞƌ͕WĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ WŽůŝĐĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽƌƚŚĞŝƌĂŐĞŶƚƐĨŽƌŶŽƚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐsĂĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞŶƚĂůZƵůĞƐĂŶĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ ϯ͘ /ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐŵĂǇƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞǀŝĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĂůůƚŚĞŐƵĞƐƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďǇƚŚĞĂŐĞŶƚĂŶĚͬŽƌ ŽǁŶĞƌƐŚŽƵůĚĂŶǇŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŶƚĂůƉĂƌƚǇĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽǀŝŽůĂƚĞZƵůĞƐĂŶĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ ϰ͘ /ĂŐƌĞĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞWĞƌƐŽŶŝƐƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůŽŶƚŚĞZĞŶƚĂůŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͘ZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞWĞƌƐŽŶŝƐƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůǁŚŽ ŝƐŚĞůĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĂĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĂůůŐƵĞƐƚƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌƌĞŶƚĂůƉĂƌƚǇ͘ ϱ͘ ŶŐĞŶƚŽƌKǁŶĞƌŽƌƚŚĞŝƌƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŚĂƐĞǆƉůĂŝŶĞĚƚŚĞZƵůĞƐĂŶĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶƉƌŝŽƌƚŽŽƌǁŝƚŚŝŶϮϰ ŚŽƵƌƐŽĨŵǇsĂĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞŶƚĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇ͘ ZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞWĂƌƚǇEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚƵůƚ'ƵĞƐƚηϭEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚƵůƚ'ƵĞƐƚηϮEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚƵůƚ'ƵĞƐƚηϯEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚƵůƚ'ƵĞƐƚηϰEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚƵůƚ'ƵĞƐƚηϱEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚƵůƚ'ƵĞƐƚηϲEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚƵůƚ'ƵĞƐƚηϳEĂŵĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ;&ŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŐƵĞƐƚƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐǇŽƵŵĂǇƵƐĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚŝƐĨŽƌŵͿ WůĞĂƐĞŬĞĞƉĂĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚŝƐ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨZƵůĞƐĂŶĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞsĂĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞŶƚĂůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞŐƵĞƐƚƐƚĂǇ͘ sͲϱͲϵͲϭϴ ATTACHMENT 2 29 30 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 25, 2021 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY’S SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM PERMIT FEES RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution to amend the City’s Short-Term Vacation Rental Program Permit Fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  On a recurring basis, staff reviews existing user fees and rates as a basis for recovering allowable costs of certain City services.  Due to recent revisions to the Short-Term Vacation Rental (STVR) Program rules and permit types, the City has updated the cost of permitting and regulation of STVRs and developed an updated fee schedule for City Council consideration.  If Council adopts the proposed changes, the updated fees will be effective 60 days after adoption (April 26, 2021). FISCAL IMPACT Based on historical revenues and permit volume, the adjusted fees may generate an additional $975,000 in annual revenue. Actual revenues will vary based on permit applications received. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Staff conducts on-going reviews of user and regulatory fees. Periodically, fee adjustments are considered to improve the correlation between the City’s cost of providing services and the fees imposed to recover those costs. The current fee analysis is limited to short-term vacation rental permit fees. The current annual fee for permit issuance is $200 per year. The City has historically collected less than the City’s full cost of service for permit issuance. The proposed fees will be based on permit type and number of bedrooms. The fee scale corresponds with the varying levels of effort required to permit and regulate the different types of STVRs permitted by the City. Under the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 31 proposed fee structure, the City will continue to collect less than the City’s full cost of permitting and regulation, however cost recovery will be significantly improved. The cost of service analysis to identify proposed cost recovery levels, is included as an attachment to this report. The proposed fees are in-line with fees collected by other agencies for similar permits: Agency Permit Fee Indian Wells $159 (Current) ‐ La Quinta $200 Desert Hot Springs $230 Palm Springs ‐ Homeshare $236 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Homeshare STVR Permit (Less than 5 Bedrooms)$250 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Homeshare STVR Permit (5 Bedrooms or More)$500 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms) $750 Palm Springs $944 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Limited Rental ; Non‐Primary Residence ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms) $1,000 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Unlimited Rental ; Tourist Commercial ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms) $1,000 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More) $1,250 Rancho Mirage $1,700 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Limited Rental ; Non‐Primary Residence ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More) $1,750 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Unlimited Rental ; Tourist Commercial ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More) $1,750 Cathedral City $1,950 AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Notice regarding the proposed fee changes was provided in accordance with Government Code Section 6062(a). Public Hearing notices were published in The Desert Sun on February 12 and 19, 2021. ALTERNATIVES Do not approve the recommended permit fees and direct staff accordingly. Prepared by: Monika Radeva, City Clerk Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager Attachment: 1. STVR Program Cost of Service Analysis 32 RESOLUTION NO. 2021 – XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY’S SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM PERMIT FEES WHEREAS, this action is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, Section 15273(a) Rates Tolls Fares and Charges; and WHEREAS, this public hearing to set fees was duly noticed pursuant to Government Code Section 6062(a) – Manner of Publication for new fees and increases in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 12 and 19, 2021; and WHEREAS, user and regulatory fees are established by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City recently completed a study to identify the cost of providing various user and regulatory fee-related services; and WHEREAS, the study examined fee-related services provided by the City, the costs reasonably borne by the City in providing those services, the beneficiaries of those services, and the revenues produced by those paying fees and charges for special services; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that providing these services is of special benefit to applicants both separate and apart from the general benefit to the public; and therefore, in the interests of fairness to the general public, the City desires to better recover the costs of providing these services from applicants who have sought or require the City's services by revising its schedule of fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the study provides adequate evidence to conclude that the revised Short-Term Vacation Rental Program Permit fees do not exceed the cost to provide the services for which the fees are charged; and WHEREAS, the adopted fees shall be incorporated into the City’s existing Master Fee Schedule. The existing Master Fee Schedule was adopted on July 21, 2020, via Resolution No. 2020-027. Incorporating these fees into the Master Fee Schedule will allow for the fees to be considered 33 Resolution No. 2021 – XXX Update of User and Regulatory Fees – Short-Term Vacation Rental Program Permit Fees Adopted: February 25, 2021 Page 2 of 3 with future comprehensive user and regulatory fee updates. Resolution No. 2020-27 is amended as expressly provided by this resolution, but shall otherwise remain in effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts each recital set forth above as a specific finding. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Short-Term Vacation Rental Program permit fees and charges as set forth in attached Exhibit "A," incorporated herewith by this reference. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall become effective on February 25, 2021. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall go into effect 60 days after its adoption on April 26, 2021. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 25th day of February, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 34 Resolution No. 2021 – XXX Update of User and Regulatory Fees – Short-Term Vacation Rental Program Permit Fees Adopted: February 25, 2021 Page 3 of 3 ATTEST: ________________________ MONIKA REDEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 35 "Exhibit A" City of La Quinta MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - SHORT-TERM RENTAL FEE Fee Charge Basis Note Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit Fee 1 Annual Permit Fee $200 per year 2 Code Compliance Inspection Fee (if applicable)$325 per unit 1 Homeshare Homeshare - Less than 5 Bedrooms $250 per year Homeshare - 5 Bedrooms or More $500 per year 2 Primary Residence Permit (Limited Rental) Primary Residence Permit (Limited Rental) - Less than 5 Bedrooms $750 per year Primary Residence Permit (Limited Rental) - 5 Bedrooms or More $1,000 per year 3 Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental) STVR (Limited Rental) - Less than 5 Bedrooms $1,000 per year STVR (Limited Rental) - 5 Bedrooms or More $1,500 per year 4 Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit STVR - Less than 5 Bedrooms $1,000 per year STVR - 5 Bedrooms or More $1,500 per year 5 Technology Enhancement Fee $5 per year Activity Description 36 User and Regulatory Fees Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis Short-Term Rental Permit Fees ATTACHMENT 1 37 City of La QuintaUser and Regulatory Fee StudyCalculation of Estimated Cost of Service: Short‐term Rental Permit FeeCode ComplianceAllocation of Divisional Labor to STVR ProgramDescription FTE Est. Annual Effort Associated Adjusted FTE Associated with STVR D&D ‐ Permit Tech1.00100%1.00D&D ‐ Permit Tech1.0050%0.50D&D ‐ Manager1.0060%0.60D&D ‐ Director1.0020%0.20D&D ‐ Office Asst1.0010%0.10D&D ‐ Admin Assistant 1.0025%0.25Finance ‐ Director1.005%0.05Finance ‐ Analyst1.0010%0.10Finance ‐ Accountant1.0025%0.25Finance ‐ Account Tech1.0025%0.25Code ‐ Director1.0020%0.20Code ‐ Manager1.0050%0.50Code ‐ Supervisor1.0075%0.75Code ‐ Officer II1.0095%0.95Code ‐ Officer II1.0050%0.50Code ‐ Officer II1.0050%0.50Code ‐ Officer I 1.0095%0.95Code ‐ Officer I1.0060%0.60Code ‐ Admin Tech1.0080%0.80Code ‐ Admin Asst1.0060%0.60Clerk ‐ City Clerk1.0010%0.10Clerk ‐ Mgmnt Asst1.0010%0.10Clerk ‐ Deputy City Clerk1.0010%0.10CM ‐ City Manager1.0010%0.10Marketing ‐ Manager1.005%0.05Total25.0010.10Divisional Share40%38 City of La QuintaUser and Regulatory Fee StudyCalculation of Estimated Cost of Service: Short‐term Rental Permit FeeLabor Expenditures Allocated to STVR ProgramDescriptionEst. Annual Salary and Benefits Est. Annual Effort Associated Est. Labor Costs Associated D&D ‐ Permit Tech$80,668100% $80,668D&D ‐ Permit Tech$80,66850% $40,334D&D ‐ Manager$146,34160% $87,805D&D ‐ Director$200,61320% $40,123D&D ‐ Office Asst$95,02410% $9,502D&D ‐ Admin Assistant $65,20025% $16,300Finance ‐ Director$200,5365% $10,027Finance ‐ Analyst$125,83310% $12,583Finance ‐ Accountant$116,74125% $29,185Finance ‐ Account Tech$86,05125% $21,513Code ‐ Director$200,13320% $40,027Code ‐ Manager$150,62450% $75,312Code ‐ Supervisor$118,86475% $89,148Code ‐ Officer II$105,69095% $100,406Code ‐ Officer II$97,56050% $48,780Code ‐ Officer II$127,11150% $63,556Code ‐ Officer I $81,26795% $77,203Code ‐ Officer I$81,26760% $48,760Code ‐ Admin Tech$83,28280% $66,626Code ‐ Admin Asst$65,15960% $39,096Clerk ‐ City Clerk$148,79810% $14,880Clerk ‐ Mgmnt Asst$78,59710% $7,860Clerk ‐ Deputy City Clerk$90,22810% $9,023CM ‐ City Manager$255,26910% $25,527Marketing ‐ Manager$132,3415% $6,617Total$3,013,865$1,060,85939 City of La QuintaUser and Regulatory Fee StudyCalculation of Estimated Cost of Service: Short‐term Rental Permit FeeServices and SuppliesDescription Total Adjustment Subtotal Share to STVR Share to STVR Contract Services101‐6004‐60103 Professional Services$45,000 $0$45,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60108 Technical$2,000 $0$2,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60111 Administrative Citation Service$25,000 $0$25,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60119 Vehicle Abatement$1,000 $0$1,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60120 Lot Cleaning/Gravel Program$20,000 $0$20,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60125 Temporary Agency Services$10,000 $0$10,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60194 Veterinary Service$15,000 $0$15,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60197 Animal Shelter Contract Services$190,000 $0$190,000 0% $0Maintenance and Operations101‐6004‐60121 Low‐Income Housing Grants$5,000 $0$5,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60130 Resident Assistance Program$2,000 $0$2,000 0% $0101‐6004‐60320 Travel & Training$3,000 $0$3,000 64% $1,905101‐6004‐60351 Membership Dues$600 $0$600 64% $381101‐6004‐60400 Office Supplies$2,200 $0$2,200 64% $1,397101‐6004‐60410 Printing$10,000 $0$10,000 64% $6,350101‐6004‐60425 Supplies ‐ Field$2,000 $0$2,000 64% $1,270101‐6004‐60690 Uniforms$4,000 $0$4,000 64% $2,540Internal Service Charges101‐6004‐98110 Information Tech Charges$96,400 $0$96,400 64% $61,214101‐6004‐98140$88,400 $0$88,400 64% $56,134Hotline$15,000 $0$15,000 100% $15,000Compliance Vendor (MuniRevs)$49,400 $0$49,400 100% $49,400Security$42,000 $0$42,000 100% $42,000Legal (30% of retainer and estimate of appeals)$0 $40,000$40,000 100% $40,000Marketing$0 $15,000$15,000 100% $15,000New Vendor $0 $70,000$70,000 100% $70,000Training Vendor$0 $10,000$10,000 100% $10,000Total$628,000 $135,000 $763,000$372,591Total Estimated Program Costs$1,433,450Cost OverviewDescription Total Design & Development and Finance Permitting and Accounting$348,040Code Enforcement Program Regulation (Labor / Svcs & Supplies)$1,021,504Central Service Support (e.g. City Manager, City Clerk, Marketing)$63,906Total$1,433,45040 City of La QuintaUser and Regulatory Fee StudyCalculation of Estimated Cost of Service: Short‐term Rental Permit FeeEstimated Count by Permit TypeDescription Total Homeshare10Primary Residence Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental)192Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental; Non‐Primary Residence)848Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Unlimited Rental; Tourist Commercial)250Total1,300Estimated Count by Permit Type ‐ With Break‐Out by Bedroom CountDescription % Allocation Count Homeshare STVR PermitHomeshare STVR Permit ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms100%10Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More0%0Primary Residence Short‐Term Vacation Permit (Limited Rental)Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms94%180Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More6.0%12Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental; Non‐Primary Residence)STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms92.8%787STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More7.2%61Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Unlimited Rental; Tourist Commercial)STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms100%250STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More0%01,30041 City of La QuintaUser and Regulatory Fee StudyCalculation of Estimated Cost of Service: Short‐term Rental Permit FeeCost Weighting for Core Services (1.0 is Base Weighting)Weighting Unit EquivalentDescriptionDesign & Development Code Enforcement Central Service Design & Development Code Enforcement Central Service Total Homeshare STVR PermitHomeshare STVR Permit ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms1.00 0.25 0.25 10.00 2.50 2.50 15.00 Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More2.00 0.50 0.25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Primary Residence Short‐Term Vacation Permit (Limited Rental)Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms1.00 1.00 1.00 180.48 180.48 180.48 541.44 Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More2.00 1.50 1.00 23.04 17.28 11.52 51.84 Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental; Non‐Primary Residence)STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms1.00 1.50 1.00 786.94 1,180.42 786.94 2,754.30 STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More2.00 2.50 1.00 122.11 152.64 61.06 335.81 Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Unlimited Rental)STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms1.00 1.50 1.00 250.00 375.00 250.00 875.00 STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More2.00 2.50 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,372.58 1,908.32 1,292.50 4,573.39 Cost OverviewDescription Total Total Unit Equivalent Cost Per Unit Equivalent Design & Development and Finance Permitting and Accounting$348,040 1,372.58 $254Code Enforcement Program Regulation (Labor / Services & Supplies)$1,021,504 1,908.32 $535Central Service Support (e.g. City Manager, City Clerk, Marketing)$63,906 1,292.50 $49Total$1,433,450Cost Weighting for Core Services (1.0 is Base Weighting)DescriptionDesign & Development Code Enforcement Central Service Total Homeshare STVR PermitHomeshare STVR Permit ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$254 $134 $12 $400Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$507 $268 $12 $787Primary Residence Short‐Term Vacation Permit (Limited Rental)Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$254 $535 $49 $838Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$507 $803 $49 $1,360Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental; Non‐Primary Residence)STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$254$803$49$1,106STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$507 $1,338$49$1,895Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Unlimited Rental)STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$254$803$49$1,106STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$507 $1,338$49$1,89542 City of La QuintaUser and Regulatory Fee StudyCalculation of Estimated Cost of Service: Short‐term Rental Permit FeeCost of Service and Cost RecoveryDescriptionCost of Service (Per Unit) Current Fee Current Cost Recovery Proposed Fee Proposed Cost Recovery Current Revenue Proposed Revenue Year‐to‐Year Change Over (Under) Recovery Homeshare STVR PermitHomeshare STVR Permit ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$400 $200 50%$25063%$2,000 $2,500 $500 ($1,498)Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$787 $200 25%$50064%$0 $0 $0 $0Primary Residence Short‐Term Vacation Permit (Limited Rental)Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$838 $200 24%$75089%$36,096 $135,360 $99,264 ($15,937)Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$1,360 $200 15%$1,25092%$2,304 $14,400 $12,096 ($1,262)Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental; Non‐Primary Residence)STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$1,106 $20018%$1,00090%$157,389 $786,944 $629,555 ($83,374)STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$1,895 $20011%$1,75092%$12,211 $106,848 $94,637 ($8,841)Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Unlimited Rental)STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms$1,106 $20018%$1,00090%$50,000 $250,000 $200,000 ($26,487)STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More$1,895 $20011%$1,75092%$0$0$0$0$260,000 $1,296,052 $1,036,052 ($137,398)Notes: ‐ Forecasted salary and benefit information based on FY 19/20 forecast expenditures. ‐ Labor allocation and time estimates provided based on anticipated program support ‐ Estimated STVR unit count received from City Finance staff, as of January 2021. ‐ Weighting factors intended to represent reasonable proportionality of effort required to serve various rental types43 City of La Quinta WORKING DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT FEE Current Fee Maximum Fee (2020 Fee Study)Proposed Fee Note 1 Homeshare Homeshare - Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $404 $250 Homeshare - 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $787 $500 2 Primary Residence Permit (Limited Rental) Primary Residence Permit (Limited Rental) - Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $838 $750 Primary Residence Permit (Limited Rental) - 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $1,360 $1,250 3 Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental) STVR (Limited Rental) - Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $1,106 $1,000 STVR (Limited Rental) - 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $1,895 $1,750 4 Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit STVR - Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $1,106 $1,000 STVR - 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $1,895 $1750 Activity Description 44 45 POWER POINTS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 02/25/2021 1 City Council February 25, 2021 Pledge of Allegiance 1 2 02/25/2021 2 City Council Special Meeting February 25, 2021 B1 –INTRODUCE FOR FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.25 OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SHORT- TERM VACATION RENTALS; AND DISCUSS STVR REGULATIONS Background January 27 meeting •Reviewed the STVR Ad Hoc Committee recommendations, and a comparison of other regulations from N4N and Palm Springs. •Expressed general support for several changes to STVR permitting and operational standards. •Other items were tabled for further discussion 3 4 02/25/2021 3 Homeshare permit •Owner hosts visitors in the Owner’s home while the Owner lives on-site and is in the home, throughout the visitor’s stay. •No limits on the number of bookings per year. STVRs with 5 or more bedrooms – Estate Home permit •73 STVRs, out of which 32 in PGA West; 6% of all STVRs. –Evaluation criteria: adequate on-site parking, available street parking, potential noise impacts, and sufficient physical distance from adjacent properties. –Will not create conditions detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. –Inspection required to verify bedroom count. –Noise monitoring devices required. –New STVR permit required –Existing STVRs with 5 bedrooms or more will not be grandfathered. 5 6 02/25/2021 4 Adequate on-site parking •Clarification language added to Section 3.25.050.F •Based on the number of overnight occupants allowed, not based on the number of daytime occupants Noise Devices Pilot Program •Scheduled to commence on March 1st. Daytime/Overnight Occupancy Limits •No change; maintain existing limits with ranges to allow for flexibility and for the discretion of Code Compliance. Further Discussion and Direction Limit on number of bookings per year •Reduces frequency (incentive for longer stays) and density of STVR activity. •Palm Springs – limit 32 (+4 July/Aug/Sept) •Fixed number limit vs. added bonus for summer months •Tourist Commercial (CT) zones, Village Commercial (VC) zones (Embassy Suites), and Homesharepermits exempt from limit. 7 8 02/25/2021 5 Further Discussion and Direction Limit on number of STVR permits per Owner •Eliminates owners and business entities from operating multiple STVRs •Controls the number and density of STVRs •96% single‐unit STVR owners; 4% are multi‐unit STVR owners •34 STVR owners, comprised of both private individuals and business entities, own 2 properties •9 STVR owners own more than 2 properties. Further Discussion and Direction Primary Residence Permit •Owner’s primary residence •Owner spends the majority of the year on the property used as a STVR •Identified in the Riverside County Assessor’s record as the owner’s primary residence. •Could be limited to a lower number of bookings per year or tie limit to the number of the events that occur in a calendar year (i.e., Coachella Music festival, Amex Golf, Tennis, etc.). 9 10 02/25/2021 6 Further Discussion and Direction Contract between owner and renter acknowledging regulations •Host training and best practices •Update good neighbor brochure •Video training on the rules and regulations for both hosts and renters. •Owner/renter agreement. •Palm Springs “Vacation Rental Statement of Rules and Regulations” •Signed by the renters acknowledging that they have read and will comply with all rules and regulations. Further Discussion and Direction Owner requiring a security deposit from renter •City cannot require Owner to obtain a security deposit from renter. •Occupant (renter) can be fined for violation (Section 3.25.090.E) •$1,000 fine to renter; strike against the owner. •Signed agreement from renter acknowledging that they can be issued a fine for a violation. •Pacific Grove no requirement. 11 12 02/25/2021 7 Summary of Permit Types Permit Type Description % of Current STVR (Estimate) No. of Bookings per year Zones/Areas Allowed Homeshare Owner’s primary residence; lives on‐site and is in the home, throughout the visitor’s stay 1% No Limit All zones/areas: Residential, HOAs, Tourist Commercial, Village Commercial Primary Residence Owner’s primary residence; County Assessor’s record identifies as owner’s primary residence. 14% Limited* All zones/areas Second Residence/ Investment Property (includes TC and VC zones) Not Owner’s primary residence; used primarily as STVR for investment 85% Limited* All zones/areas * No limit on # of bookings per year if STVR is located in the Tourist Commercial and Village Commercial zones. Estate Home (5+ bedrooms) Single‐family detached home; can be homeshare, primary or second home 6% Limited* All zones/areas STVRs in Tourist Commercial and Village Commercial zones Can be any of the above: Homeshare, Primary, Second, Estate Home 19% No Limit Tourist Commercial; Village Commercial Number and % of STVRs within Areas Areas # of Units # of Permitted STVR % of Permitted STVR within Area STVR Second/ Investment Homes % STVR Second/ Investment Homes to # of Permitted STVR Density STVR Second/Investment Homes Citywide 25,665 1,284*5.0% 1,109 86.4% 4.3% Tourist Commercial (CT) Zones and Village Commercial (Embassy Suites condos) 442 215 48.6% 212 98.6% 48% The Cove 4,994 282 5.6% 212 75.2% 4.2% North La Quinta 2,578 136 5.3% 97 71.3% 3.8% PGA West 3,332 422 12.7% 382 90.5% 11.5% *The number of permitted STVRs as of February 19, 2021. This number may increase or decrease from month to month due to: 1) expired permits, 2) pending renewals, 3) those who decide not to renew their permit, and 4) new permits issued within specific areas that are exempt from the moratorium. 13 14 02/25/2021 8 Overview Code Update: •Homeshare permit •Estate Home permit (5+ bedrooms or more) •Adequate on-site parking •Noise Devices Pilot Program underway •Daytime/Overnight Occupancy limits remain the same Further Discussion and Direction: •Limit on number of bookings per year •Limit on number of STVR permits per Owner •Primary Residence Permit •Contract between owner and renter acknowledging regulations •Owner requiring a security deposit from renter 15 16 02/25/2021 9 Comparison of Regulations Regulation Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation N4N Recommendation Palm Springs La Quinta ‐Code update or for Consideration Density/ Overconcentration (Measured Standard) 300’ radius distance for single family residence; 2 STVR within 300’ radius for condo complex. Agrees with Ad Hoc Committee recommendation for 300’ radius distance; None, 1 STVR per owner None; other considerations to minimize density and frequency or rentals provided in staff report: limit percentage by zone or area, limit number of days/yr, limit number of STVR per owner, different permit types. Permit Types Two types of permits: 1) Homeshare 2) STVR Permit Three types of permits: 1) Homeshare 2) STVR Commercial (TC Zone) 3) 3) STVR – Residential Three types of permits: 1)Homeshare 2) Vacation Rental 3) Estate Home Addendum Application (5‐6 bedrooms) Different permit types for consideration: 1) Homeshare, 2) Primary Residence Permit Limited, 3) STVR Permit Limited, 4) STVR Permit No Limit (TC zones) 5) Special Permit for 5 bedrooms or more Limited rental times Minimum 2 nights stay; Does not apply to Homeshare or STVR located in TC zones Minimum 3 nights stay; phasing in longer min. nightly stay to min 10 nights 18 months after new ordinance adopted; consider min 28 days 36 months after new ordinance adopted. No min. night stay; Limited rental 32 times/calendar year + 4 rentals times allowed July/Aug/Sept. Prorated rental times for first year. Consideration: limited rental 90 or 120 days/year 5 bedroom or more None. None Requires Estate Home Application Addendum (5‐6 bedrooms); 7 or more bedrooms not allowed. Consideration: Special Permit for STVR with 5 bedrooms or more Comparison of Regulations Regulation Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation N4N Recommendation Palm Springs La Quinta ‐Code update or for Consideration Density/ Overconcentration (Measured Standard) 300’ radius distance for single family residence; 2 STVR within 300’ radius for condo complex. Agrees with Ad Hoc Committee recommendation for 300’ radius distance; None, 1 STVR per owner None; other considerations to minimize density and frequency or rentals provided in staff report: limit percentage by zone or area, limit number of days/yr, limit number of STVR per owner, different permit types. Permit Types Two types of permits: 1) Homeshare, 2) STVR Permit Three types of permits: 1) Homeshare 2) STVR Commercial (TC Zone) 3) STVR ‐ Residential Three types of permits: 1)Homeshare, 2) Vacation Rental 3) Estate Home Application (5‐6 bedrooms) Different permit types for consideration: 1) Homeshare, 2) Primary Residence Permit Limited, 3) STVR Permit Limited, 4) STVR Permit No Limit (TC zones) 5) Special Permit for 5 bedrooms or more Limited rental times Minimum 2 nights stay; Does not apply to Homeshare or STVR located in TC zones Minimum 3 nights stay; phasing in longer min. nightly stay to min 10 nights 18 months after new ordinance adopted; consider min 28 days 36 months after new ordinance adopted. No min. night stay; Limited rental 32 times/calendar year + 4 rentals times allowed July/Aug/Sept. Prorated rental times for first year. Consideration: limited rental 90 or 120 days/year 5 bedroom or more None. None Requires Estate Home Application Addendum (5‐6 bedrooms); 7 or more bedrooms not allowed. Consideration: Special Permit for STVR with 5 bedrooms or more Standard Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation N4N Recommendation Palm Springs La Quinta –Code Update or for Consideration Limit on Number of STVR permits by Owner No recommendation. None. One STVR per Owner No limit. Cap number of STVR permits None. Cap the maximum number of STVR permits for Homeshares, TC (to be set by Council); STVRs in residential zones not to exceed 3% of homes in zone (freeze issuance of new permits until 3% is achieved). None None Local contact person available Local contact person available at property within 30 minutes None Local contact person available at property within 30 minutes Code updated: Local contact person to be available at property within 30 minutes 3 Strikes Rule 2 strikes None 3 strikes: City Manager has discretion to suspend permit forever. Third strike can be appealed and if appeal is in favor, strike is pardoned. Exec Order 9: 2 strikes, min 30 day suspension Current Code: 3 strikes, immediate suspension and can request appeal hearing. Operating without permit ineligible for permit forever. Amplified noise Quiet hours shall be between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. No amplified noise from 8pm to 8am. None. No outside amplified music allowed while being rented. Indoor amplified music shall not be heard at the property line. Exec Order 9 –no outside sound amplification at any time. Current Ordinance: no noise amplification from 10pm‐7am. 90 day Noise monitoring pilot program to be implemented 17 18 02/25/2021 10 City Council Meeting February 25, 2021 PH1 – Fee Update User and Regulatory Fees 20 Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit Fees 19 20 02/25/2021 11 •On recurring basis, staff reviews existing user fees and rates as a basis for recovering allowable costs of certain City services •Due to recent revisions to STVR Program rules and permit types, the City has updated cost of permitting and regulation of STVRs and updated fee schedule for Council consideration Background New Fees Proposed Proposed Fee Charge Basis 1 Homeshare STVR Permit Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $250 per year Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $500 per year 2 Primary Residence Short‐Term Vacation Permit (Limited Rental) Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $750 per year Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $1,250 per year 3 Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental; Non‐Primary Residence) STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $1,000 per year STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $1,750 per year 4 Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Unlimited Rental) STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $1,000 per year STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $1,750 per year Activity Description 21 22 02/25/2021 12 Fees Before and After Current Fee Maximum Fee (2020 Fee Study)Proposed Fee 1 Homeshare STVR Permit Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $400 $250 Homeshare STVR Permit ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $787 $500 2 Primary Residence Short‐Term Vacation Permit (Limited Rental) Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $838 $750 Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $1,360 $1,250 3 Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Limited Rental; Non‐Primary Residence) STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $1,106 $1,000 STVR Permit (Limited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $1,895 $1,750 4 Short‐Term Vacation Rental Permit (Unlimited Rental) STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $200 $1,106 $1,000 STVR Permit (Unlimited Rental) ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $200 $1,895 $1,750 Activity Description Fee Comparison Agency Permit Fee Indian Wells $159 (Current) ‐ La Quinta $200 Desert Hot Springs $230 Palm Springs ‐ Homeshare $236 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Homeshare STVR Permit (Less than 5 Bedrooms) $250 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Homeshare STVR Permit (5 Bedrooms or More) $500 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental ‐ Less than 5 Bedroom $750 Palm Springs $944 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Limited Rental ; Non‐Primary Residence ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms $1,000 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Unlimited Rental ; Tourist Commercial ‐ Less than 5 Bedrooms) $1,000 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ Primary Residence STVR Permit (Limited Rental ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More $1,250 Rancho Mirage $1,700 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Limited Rental ; Non‐Primary Residence ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More) $1,750 (Proposed) La Quinta ‐ STVR (Unlimited Rental ; Tourist Commercial ‐ 5 Bedrooms or More) $1,750 Cathedral City $1,950 23 24 02/25/2021 13 Effective Date If adopted, updated fees will go into effect April 26, 2021 25 26 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 1 From:Adrian Aldous Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:17 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Adrian Aldous Phone Number: City: La Quinta Comments: I strongly request the City of La Quinta reject the proposed cap of 32 rentals per year per STVR. This is not in any way going to prevent bad owners from mismanaging short term rental listings in the city but instead just harm the many good and law abiding ones as well as significantly reduce the amount of work that local residents are hired to do - such as cleaners, handy/maintenance persons, property managers etc. I have been a STVR owner in the desert since 2013 and have an exemplary record with the city. It is thoroughly misguided to penalize all STVR owners with a blanket policy rather than simply removing the bad owners who do not look after their listing or ensure they and their guests adhere to city guidelines and bylaws. Please rethink this policy. The current 2 strikes and you're removed seems perfectly appropriate to remove the unwanted rentals. Adrian Aldous CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ADRIAN ALDOUS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Michelle Aleman Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:58 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STVR Regular meeting 2/25/21 4pm comments Attachments:STVR notes 22521.pdf EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MICHELLE ALEMAN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 2/24/2021 Casa Aleman supports STVR •We understand the businesses hurt by pandemic, and hope that opening up to outdoor dining will help, but beBer enforcement is noted on the weekends. o STVR stays help with this dining experience – by eaHng out instead of cooking in •Does nothing to eliminate the bad host – or the bad guest behaviors Understanding the goal of the City of La Quinta to beBer regulate the STVR business is a hard issue to handle. Some ideas that were talked about during the 7- hour meeHng recently, Yes, we stayed tuned in for the meeHng. •LimiHng to only 32 rentals per year is a good start (perhaps limit those who have infracHons) •High fines for disturbances should be enforced (host and guest) •Code enforcement for problems with guest o Fines for guest o BeBer monitoring for those host who have repeat occurrence’s (you have hired a company to find the non-permiBed and operators without licenses, is there more they can do?) We do noHce that the TOT if paid to the city by all the 2000+ STVR is a very good income for city, to help fund the code enforcement and monitoring of STVR, that if you limit everyone to 32 rentals, that could cut into those cost. Personally, we are only part Hme STVR host, we live in our home for the winter and rent in the spring and summer through Airbnb. Not all host are this way, some use investment property to make money and a living, we also understand this, but when the rules change and property during COVID is used for vacaHoner’s not essenHal workers, it brings bad behavior to the neighborhood and city. We were witness to this during the height of the pandemic, and it bothered us, our neighborhood and our town. And, the host made money, hopefully paying the fair share of TOT? •Is the TOT on an honor system? If so, that should change!! Feel free to contact us John and Lisa Aleman CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MICHELLE ALEMAN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:allyonmaui Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:24 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:str EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. I would like go see str of minimum of one week. Sent from my Galaxy Tab A CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY ALLEY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – REQUESTING 1-WEEK MIN. STAY FOR STVRS 1 From:Mary Conlon Almassy Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:01 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:In support of structural changes to the STRV policies EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Our neighborhoods are zoned as residential NOT business. City of LaQuinta is collecting Transient Occupancy Taxes from STRV which implies these are a business and since our neighborhoods are not zoned for business, STRV should not be allowed in residential neighborhoods. This situation has been left unchecked and now must be reined in. I support the following: 1.Current moratorium is extended until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would included but not be limited to; 2.Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% 3.A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. Mary Mary Conlon Almassy La Quinta, CA 92253 (cell) Sent from my iPad CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARY ALMASSY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS cityclerkmail@laquintaca.gov 24 FEB 2021 To whom it may concern, Regarding STVRs in La Quinta: I have been informed that the City of La Quinta “just announced a proposed ordinance that limits all homeowners to only 32 rentals per year.” I have owned and successfully operated a vacation rental home in La Quinta Cove for the past four years. We have had extreme hardships during the pandemic, as a result I have had to invest into the home as we have not earned enough income to cover our taxes and associated costs. Riverside County has no issue with this, as they have raised our taxes regardless of how the pandemic has affected my family. Now I see the City of La Quinta is proposing to limit vacation rental home-owners a total of 32 rentals per year. This would not likely affect us, as we normally rent out longer-term over the winter. I am writing because I care about La Quinta and this proposal is short-sighted and bad for the local economy. 1) Housekeepers will lose income. These hard-workers have already been hurt enough by the slowdown. 2) Homeowners pay the same taxes, whether they rent once or all year. The proposal will harm their income, which could reduce investment back into the community. 3) Rents would increase to compensate home-owners for loss of 20 weeks per year of no rentals (assuming 32/52 weeks are rented). 4) Those who rent usually 2-5 days could see a dramatic reduction income, where owners would need to change minimum prices or rental time periods much higher/longer. This would shift shorter term travel to other cities and La Quinta would lose revenue. 5) This is a negative to homeowners with great history of providing rest and leisure for travelers, that stimulate the economy and support local jobs. 6) This hurts students who work in hospitality, as restaurants that are just getting back on their feet would lose income. Honestly, what is La Quinta doing here? Does the City have anyone with an economics background? This proposal is baseless, does nothing to solve STVR issues and only hurts the local economy. I advise the city to relax here. Stop giving into the whim of anti-STVR residents who have personal issues with a neighboring property and seek to destroy the entire industry for their personal benefit. A local home-owner who loves La Quinta! CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY ANONYMOUS RESIDENT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From: Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:53 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Good morning. As a resident of La Quinta, I wanted to share my thoughts about the short term vacation rentals. As a new homeowner in La Quinta, we count on rental income to allow us to own and keep our property. We will not be able to afford our place if short term rentals are not allowed. We are from Seattle and in speaking with our friends who also own properties down there, they too are nervous and not sure what the future holds if they are not able to rent their places on a short term basis. Being new to the city, I don’t fully understand all of the rules, but hope that the City Council will consider keeping short term rentals which benefit not only the homeowners but the market prices and revenue to the city as well. If the decision is made to eliminate short term rentals, I hope that you will consider instead just adjusting the minimum days, maybe to no less than five or seven days. That will lessen the short term rental traffic but still enable all of us who need the income to keep our homes there. Thank you. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY ANONYMOUS RESIDENT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Edward Armendarez Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:58 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Letter to Council for tonight Attachments:Voice I left Palm Springs due to short-term vacation rentals. I'd rather have 'neighbors'.pdf; Valley Voice Palm Springs should ban vacation rentals Hank Plante 102720.pdf EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Please include this in tonight’s packet. Edward Armendarez La Quinta February 25, 2021 Dear Madam Mayor, Esteemed Council and Manager McMillan, It is beyond disappointing that you have decided to move right past the pleas from residents and towards the Palm Springs model. It’s no coincidence that there’s a “Palm Springs (STVR) Model Works” TV ad airing right now. Outsiders have persuaded you more than the neighbors who reside here. Instead of giving any thought whatsoever to the idea of eliminating STVRs from the residential communities that your constituents have been begging you to consider, now you’re saddling us with transient strangers in mini‐motels for most of the year by suggesting “just” 32 or 36 rental periods. Noise meters? How hard is it to bring acoustical foam and some painters tape along, or put a sock on it, or… All of this additional enforcement is just more onus on us. Why do we have to pay for this? We don’t want it, never anticipated it and shouldn’t have to bear the burden of it. One thing the Palm Springs model doesn’t have is cap on the number of STVRs. There is no consideration of density whatsoever. The ordinance you’re considering now hopes that density will be addressed but there is no guarantee. They have 2,075 units operating as of yesterday, 2/24/21. The Vista Las Palmas neighborhood is now 25% STVRs. I can put you in contact with people that have moved from there because it was intolerable. Palm Springs has larger lots than we do here in the Cove. We are one of the most densely populated communities in the valley. That’s why tourist homes, (STVRs, transient tourist motels), are expressly prohibited in the zoning here in the Cove. But you haven’t acknowledged that. There shouldn’t be any STVRs here, but the least you could do is ensure there will be less of them. Enforcement. This graph is from the Palm Springs Vacation Compliance page: CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 2 In 2020 the total number of citations went up. The citations increased. Why are you supporting the Palm Springs model? CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 3 Maybe the Palm Springs Model HAS to work because they can’t manage a budget. They need that TOT. La Quinta is not that. We are financially sound. We can eliminate STVRs in residential zones and not lose a cent by increasing the fees for those that remain, both in permitting and citations, and build more. More are coming with Silver Rock. Maybe Palm Springs is dependent on TOT because they are not as well run and managed a city as La Quinta is. We have the ability to sustain happy and healthy neighborhoods, protect the investments of those who’ve invested their lives in this community and want to stay here, and not have STVRs where they were never meant to be. Please acknowledge that we are also investors. There is a natural correction taking place in cities far and wide with regard to STVRs. We have told you why and provided expert data and studies that support that correction. You are aware of court rulings that support the sanctity of a neighborhood. It is not a failure to make a correction. Council has said repeatedly, La Quinta is not like the other Vally Cities. But now Council is saying we want to be like Palm Springs. That prompts from all of us another “Why?” As always, I very much appreciate all your efforts navigating through this troubling issue. Sincerely, Edward Armendarez Please see the Desert Sun Valley Voice columns below, “I left Palm Springs due to short‐term vacation rentals. I’d rather have neighbors,” and Hank Plante, Peabody Award‐winning journalist; “Palm Springs, it’s time to ban vacation rentals.” Valley Voice: Palm Springs should ban vacation rentals What’s good news for other desert cities has become bad news for Palm Springs. Palm Springs is seeing three to five new applications per day for vacation rental permits, even as Palm Desert, La Quinta, Cathedral City and now Rancho Mirage are moving to ban or restrict short‐term rentals (STRs). Palm Springs should join those cities in banning these mini‐ motels, which have disrupted our peaceful neighborhoods for too long. Complaints to the Vacation Rental Hotline went from 16 last December to 199 in June, and they stayed high all summer. About 25% resulted in fines. Mayor Geoff Kors told me: “The biggest beefs I’m hearing are outdoor noise complaints and the second is some vacation rentals are having gatherings that neighbors believe are more than just the people staying there.” While noise decibels are regulated and amplified music is banned, it’s legal (and common) to have backyards filled with screaming children, shouting dads and moms, drunken millennials, barking dogs and pot smoke wafting over the walls. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 4 Full‐time neighbors tend to be quieter and more respectful, some residents say. What’s more, STRs don’t usually follow the same COVID‐19 standards as hotels like electrostatic spraying, ozone cleaning and the use of hospital‐grade air filters. Asked about the rise in complaints, Kors told The Desert Sun for a recent story that the city made changes to the way it operates its complaint hotline. But beyond administrative adjustments for existing enforcement policies, Kors said there are no proposed changes at this time to the existing short‐term rental ordinance, or steps to ban them as other cities have taken. Palm Springs has 2,019 active vacation rental homes. Two years ago that number was 1,787. Some people are urging the city to do more. Former City Councilman J.R. Roberts, who co‐authored the current Vacation Rental Ordinance with Kors, told me that he been “volunteering" his time with the city to help draft new rules. “I see a proliferation of permits,” Roberts told me. “My biggest concern is over‐saturation, an imbalance in certain neighborhoods. One of the things we’re working on to send to City Council is creating a percentage cap for each neighborhood, which would ultimately create a cap for total permits.” Roberts added: “We’ve already sent David Ready two recommendations: a moratorium (on new permits) and a change in enforcement, bringing them back under the Vacation Rental Office.” Code enforcement is currently handled by the Police Department. Ready told me he would recommend the council add two code enforcement officers and refocus the educational campaign with individual applicants and agencies. STR owners often don’t live here, so full‐time residents are the ones listening to their noise and subsidizing their small businesses by giving up peace and serenity. The city spends $1.6 million dollars per year to operate the vacation rental program, which is funded by fees STR permit holders pay. STRs generate $7.4 million dollars a year in transient occupancy tax for Palm Springs, according to Veronica Goedhart of the city’s vacation rental office. The net loss to the city’s $113 million General Fund would be worth it to many residents. Kors wants better enforcement of the city’s ordinance. But no ordinance would end the noisy tourists next door who are operating within the law. That’s what other desert cities have realized. Would Palm Springs join those cities in an STR ban? The voters rejected such a ban previously, but its organizers ran an ineffective campaign and city officials asked us to give their new ordinance a chance to work. We did and it isn’t. Hank Plante is an Emmy and Peabody Award‐winning reporter who spent three decades at the CBS TV stations in San Francisco and Los Angeles. He has been a Palm Springs homeowner for 18 years. His email is . Desert SunVoice: I left Palm Springs due to short‐term vacation rentals. I'd rather have 'neighbors' 2/14/21 The subject of short‐term vacation rentals (STVRs) in the Coachella Valley brings to mind infamous words from the 1976 film "All the President’s Men": "Follow the money" may well represent what the issue is really all about. In 2020, from July to September alone, the City of Palm Springs received $2.6 million from taxes on vacation rentals, compared to $2.2 million from hotel‐related occupancy taxes. And that’s “low” season — and COVID to boot. No wonder CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 5 Palm Springs has been notably silent about the discussions going on across the valley to limit, if not eliminate, STVRs. My spouse and I recently moved from Palm Springs to Rancho Mirage. Several factors motivated the move, not the least of which was Palm Springs’ STVRs in residential‐zoned neighborhoods. Two years ago, a city council member told me to give the new ordinance a chance. We now had a “program” with rules and enforcement and penalties for non‐ compliance. We even had an Office of Vacation Rental Compliance with dedicated staff. Much to our dismay, however, we learned quickly that STVRs aren’t a problem ... until they are. And once they are, life is never the same again, and the financial impact of correcting that seems too great to endure. I see the “I Love Cathedral City” group is active and significantly outspending its opposition, as did the “I Love Palm Springs” group two years ago, both advocating for STVRs in their respective cities. Believe me, I love Palm Springs, too. I’ve loved it longer than the 22 years we lived there, and I expected to be there till the proverbial cows came home. What I no longer love is the changing nature of the city as more and more STVRs have popped up and the city’s focus and priorities overall appear to have shifted more and more towards tourists and tourism and away from residents and neighborhoods. Yes, I love Palm Springs, and it breaks my heart to see what STVRs in residential neighborhoods are doing to my now‐former city. I’ve come to understand what these active “I Love ...” groups love at least as much as their city (many of whom do not even live there) is the money they can make from STVRs there. I remember the days when a neighbor would watch over our home or bring in the mail when we were out of town. They may even have had a key to our house to deal with an emergency. And we would reciprocate. This doesn’t happen when we have “neighbors” for a week or a weekend. We’ve come to understand, in no uncertain terms, that an area of town can only be a neighborhood when there are neighbors who live there. Yes, we are sympathetic towards those individuals and investors who purchased property to use as STVRs in good faith that the rug would not be pulled out from under them. I would like to see a similar sympathy towards those of us who have had the rug pulled out from under our peaceful enjoyment of our homes in residential‐zoned neighborhoods. This is not like buying a home next to an airport and then complaining about the noise. Cathedral City, La Quinta and others struggling over STVRs, I urge you to be very careful what you ask for because, either way, chances are very good that you’ll get it. Sly Zelnya at CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS desertsun.com Voice: I left Palm Springs due to short-term vacation rentals. I'd rather have 'neighbors' 3-4 minutes The subject of short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) in the Coachella Valley brings to mind infamous words from the 1976 ﬁlm "All the President’s Men": "Follow the money" may well represent what the issue is really all about. In 2020, from July to September alone, the City of Palm Springs received $2.6 million from taxes on vacation rentals, compared to $2.2 million from hotel-related occupancy taxes. And that’s “low” season — and COVID to boot. No wonder Voice: I left Palm Springs due to short-term vacation rentals. I'd rat...about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/2021/0... 1 of 4 2/15/21, 7:57 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS Palm Springs has been notably silent about the discussions going on across the valley to limit, if not eliminate, STVRs. My spouse and I recently moved from Palm Springs to Rancho Mirage. Several factors motivated the move, not the least of which was Palm Springs’ STVRs in residential-zoned neighborhoods. Two years ago, a city council member told me to give the new ordinance a chance. We now had a “program” with rules and enforcement and penalties for non-compliance. We even had an Ofﬁce of Vacation Rental Compliance with dedicated staff. Much to our dismay, however, we learned quickly that STVRs aren’t a problem ... until they are. And once they are, life is never the same again, and the ﬁnancial impact of correcting that seems too great to endure. I see the “I Love Cathedral City” group is active and signiﬁcantly outspending its opposition, as did the “I Love Palm Springs” group two years ago, both advocating for STVRs in their respective cities. Believe me, I love Palm Springs, too. I’ve loved it longer than the 22 years we lived there, and I expected to be there till the proverbial cows came home. What I no longer love is the changing nature of the city as more and more STVRs have popped up and the city’s focus and priorities overall appear to have shifted more and more towards tourists and tourism and away from residents and neighborhoods. Yes, I love Palm Springs, and it breaks my heart to see what STVRs in residential neighborhoods are doing to my now-former city. I’ve come to understand what these active “I Love ...” groups love at least as much as their city (many of whom do not even live there) is the money they Voice: I left Palm Springs due to short-term vacation rentals. I'd rat...about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/2021/0... 2 of 4 2/15/21, 7:57 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS can make from STVRs there. I remember the days when a neighbor would watch over our home or bring in the mail when we were out of town. They may even have had a key to our house to deal with an emergency. And we would reciprocate. This doesn’t happen when we have “neighbors” for a week or a weekend. We’ve come to understand, in no uncertain terms, that an area of town can only be a neighborhood when there are neighbors who live there. Yes, we are sympathetic towards those individuals and investors who purchased property to use as STVRs in good faith that the rug would not be pulled out from under them. I would like to see a similar sympathy towards those of us who have had the rug pulled out from under our peaceful enjoyment of our homes in residential-zoned neighborhoods. This is not like buying a home next to an airport and then complaining about the noise. Cathedral City, La Quinta and others struggling over STVRs, I urge you to be very careful what you ask for because, either way, chances are very good that you’ll get it. Voice: I left Palm Springs due to short-term vacation rentals. I'd rat... about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/2021/0... 3 of 4 2/15/21, 7:57 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS Email Sly Zelnys at Voice: I left Palm Springs due to short-term vacation rentals. I'd rat... about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/2021/0... 4 of 4 2/15/21, 7:57 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS desertsun.com Valley Voice: Palm Springs should ban vacation rentals 4-5 minutes What’s good news for other desert cities has become bad news for Palm Springs. Palm Springs is seeing three to ﬁve new applications per day for vacation rental permits, even as Palm Desert, La Quinta, Cathedral City and now Rancho Mirage are moving to ban or restrict short-term rentals (STRs). Palm Springs should join those cities in banning these mini- motels, which have disrupted our peaceful neighborhoods for too long. Complaints to the Vacation Rental Hotline went from 16 last December to 199 in June, and they stayed high all summer. About 25% resulted in ﬁnes. Mayor Geoff Kors told me: “The biggest beefs I’m hearing are outdoor noise complaints and the second is some vacation rentals are having gatherings that neighbors believe are more than just the people staying there.” While noise decibels are regulated and ampliﬁed music is banned, it’s legal (and common) to have backyards ﬁlled with Valley Voice: Palm Springs should ban vacation rentals about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contrib... 1 of 4 2/7/21, 8:09 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS screaming children, shouting dads and moms, drunken millennials, barking dogs and pot smoke wafting over the walls. Full-time neighbors tend to be quieter and more respectful, some residents say. What’s more, STRs don’t usually follow the same COVID-19 standards as hotels like electrostatic spraying, ozone cleaning and the use of hospital-grade air ﬁlters. Asked about the rise in complaints, Kors told The Desert Sun for a recent story that the city made changes to the way it operates its complaint hotline. But beyond administrative adjustments for existing enforcement policies, Kors said there are no proposed changes at this time to the existing short-term rental ordinance, or steps to ban them as other cities have taken. Palm Springs has 2,019 active vacation rental homes. Two years ago that number was 1,787. Some people are urging the city to do more. Former City Councilman J.R. Roberts, who co-authored the current Vacation Rental Ordinance with Kors, told me that he been “volunteering" his time with the city to help draft new rules. Valley Voice: Palm Springs should ban vacation rentals about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contrib... 2 of 4 2/7/21, 8:09 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS “I see a proliferation of permits,” Roberts told me. “My biggest concern is over-saturation, an imbalance in certain neighborhoods. One of the things we’re working on to send to City Council is creating a percentage cap for each neighborhood, which would ultimately create a cap for total permits.” Roberts added: “We’ve already sent David Ready two recommendations: a moratorium (on new permits) and a change in enforcement, bringing them back under the Vacation Rental Ofﬁce.” Code enforcement is currently handled by the Police Department. Ready told me he would recommend the council add two code enforcement ofﬁcers and refocus the educational campaign with individual applicants and agencies. STR owners often don’t live here, so full-time residents are the ones listening to their noise and subsidizing their small businesses by giving up peace and serenity. The city spends $1.6 million dollars per year to operate the vacation rental program, which is funded by fees STR permit holders pay. STRs generate $7.4 million dollars a year in Valley Voice: Palm Springs should ban vacation rentals about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contrib... 3 of 4 2/7/21, 8:09 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS transient occupancy tax for Palm Springs, according to Veronica Goedhart of the city’s vacation rental ofﬁce. The net loss to the city’s $113 million General Fund would be worth it to many residents. Kors wants better enforcement of the city’s ordinance. But no ordinance would end the noisy tourists next door who are operating within the law. That’s what other desert cities have realized. Would Palm Springs join those cities in an STR ban? The voters rejected such a ban previously, but its organizers ran an ineffective campaign and city ofﬁcials asked us to give their new ordinance a chance to work. We did and it isn’t. Hank Plante is an Emmy and Peabody Award-winning reporter who spent three decades at the CBS TV stations in San Francisco and Los Angeles. He has been a Palm Springs homeowner for 18 years. His email is . Valley Voice: Palm Springs should ban vacation rentals about:reader?url=https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contrib... 4 of 4 2/7/21, 8:09 PM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDWARD ARMENDAREZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Ergun Bakall Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:36 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Short Term Rental Issue Written Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. My wife Cheryl Ann and I are 33 year residents of our city and live currently at , 92253 at PGA West. We are very concerned about the proliferation of short term rentals in our neighborhoods and throughout the City. We fail to comprehend how is it possible to conduct hospitality business which STRs are in fact are, in single family zoned areas. STRs have become annoying and anathema to peace and quiet enjoyment of our single family home neigborhoods.In some cases short term renters have even threatened violence to the neighbors and to HOA security according to anecdotal accounts. We do not want any further permitting and allowance of rentals less than 30 days. Please we want to enjoy whatever is left of our lives in our advanced ages in peace. Ergun Bakall La Quinta ,CA 92253 Ph: CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ERGUN BAKALL BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Bob Beebe Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:44 PM To:Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Monika Radeva; Jon McMillen Subject:STR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Please do away with STRs. We are in the so called “Golden Age” of our life. We want peace and quiet, which STRs don’t offer. We are in our 80s and are too old and frail to go over to the disturbing STR and ask them to be quiet. Thanks, Glenda and Bob Beebe La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS BOB & GLENDA BEEBE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Bette Beron Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:57 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Short term rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Please make the regulations as stringent as Possible. Bette Beron Sent from the all new Aol app for iOS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT BETTE BERON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STRICKTER STVR REGULATIONS 1 From:BRIAN BEVANS Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:42 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:SVTR's EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. I am a part time resident at in PGA West, LaQuinta and am next door, and across the street from 2 SVTR's. Since these became SVTR's, the noise level has increased and the constant turnover has impacted our lifestyle considerably. I would like you to know, that at the very least, I agree with the Neighbors for Neighborhoods of LQ (N4N) proposal below: We recommend; 1. Current moratorium is extended until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would included but not be limited to; 2. Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% 3. A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 24 months. Thank you. Brian Bevans CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT BRIAN BEVANS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STRICTER STVR RESTRICTIONS 1 From:Deanneandjoe Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:33 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments Short-Term Vacation Rentals ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** 1. Deanne Bilsborough 2.La Quinta 3. 4.Public Comment 5. Short term vacation rental laws 6.Written or Verbal telephonic We recently purchased a home in La Quinta at PGA West. We live in Seattle and plan to be at our home in La Quinta two months out of the year. We were only able to purchase this home because we would be able to rent it out for the remainder of the time. By not allowing us short term rentals, we would be financially strapped and more than likely have to sell our home. We were under the impression when we purchased our home, that there was a TEMPORARY moratorium on a permit, not a possibility of restrictions. By not allowing short term rentals on current owners, this is a slap in the face of those who purchased. It is also a terrible rule as we should be able to rent out our homes. We would not have purchased in La Quinta if we thought that short term rentals would not be allowed. Please consider this for homeowners. Home owner values will drastically fall if this short term rental law was restricted. Thank you for listening, Deanne Bilsborough Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY DEANNE BILSBOROUGH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:06 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Councel Meeting on 2/25/2021----To be read at the meeting EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda item: Request for Public Comment, STVR Restrictions Kim Bloch City: La Quinta Comments: Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members, my husband and I have a STVR and have never been warned or fined since we have be running ours. With the new proposed 32 days of renting your STVR we feel this is a detriment to all the hosts, vendors they employ, restaurant’s, retail, and golf courses. Keep in mind how many more people will be unemployed and hurt if this happens. This in our opinion will do nothing to help stop the bad apples from causing issues. Why not go after the hosts who have had citations and simply don’t care. There are too many of us “good” hosts who take pride in our neighborhood, homes and guests and want to be great neighbor’s so that our community can continue to flourish. What will happen if this gets passed? Many will be putting their homes on the market to sell which means a lot of inventory equals home prices to fall, or many may do annual rentals which will promote very high rents of which most will not be able to afford. We believe that when the non‐licensed owners are weeded out this will be improved tremendously! There has got to be a better solution then only allowing 32 days of renting a short term rental. This will destroy this City what they make in TOT tax, peoples lives and values of our homes. Warmly, Kim Bloch CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT KIM BLOCH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From: Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 12:57 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:FW: Written Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Could you please confirm you received this? – Thank you. Richard Bloch From: Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:35 PM To: cityclerkmail@laquintaca.gov Subject: Written Comments Agenda item: Request for Public Comment, STVR Restrictions 2-25-2021 Richard Bloch City: La Quinta Subject: In Favor of STVR’s Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members, Reducing the stays to 32, is the worst idea yet. You might as well just ban STVR’s altogether, because that what 32 stays would effectively do. Recently, as I understand, The City has hired a 3rd party company to identify and root out, the “non licensed” operators. That’s a great step in reducing the problems. I urge the City not to pass the 32 limits on stays and wait until the “non licensed” or Bad Operators go away. This is where all the problems are. The City is looking to penalize everyone due to a small group of bad operators. Instead, go after the Bad Operators by higher fines. Then give it some time to see if that worked. Don’t just have a kneejerk response to the same ole complainers. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT RICHARD BLOCH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 2 Inverness Way 26 Avenida Juarez 25 Oak Hill 24 Legends Way 21 Golf View Dr 21 Calle Mazatlan 21 Avenida Obregon 21 Avenida Navarro 19 Avenida Herrera 19 Spanish Bay 18 Southern Hills 18 Avenida Fernando 18 Heritage Dr 17 Firestone 16 Avenida Vista Bonita 16 Avenida Vallejo 16 Avenida Diaz 16 Avenida Mendoza 15 Laurel Valley 14 Avenida Ramirez 14 Pebble Beach 13 Avenida Carranza 13 Mountain View 12 Avenida Martinez 12 Merion 11 Evangeline Wy 11 Avenida Rubio 10 Avenida Madero 10 Via Puerta Azul 9 Eisenhower Dr 9 Villeta Dr 8 Turnberry Way 8 National Dr 8 Jack Nicklaus 8 Avenida Velasco 8 Seminole Dr 8 Santa Rosa Plaza 4 8 Olympia Fields 7 Hermitage 7 Cedar Crest 7 Calle Rosarita 7 Saguaro Dr 6 Los Arboles 6 Calle Azul 6 Avenida Villa 6 Bradford Cir 6 Avenida Montezuma 6 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT REX BLOESSER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & DENSITY IN PGA WEST 3 Fiesta Dr 5 Cameo Palms Dr 5 Calle Colima 5 Calle Jacumba 5 Black Diamond 5 Avenida Madrugada 5 Santa Rosa Plaza 1 5 Santa Rosa Plaza 8 5 Santa Rosa Plaza 6 5 Vista Flora 4 Via Coronado 4 Summer Lynn Ct 4 Royal St. George 4 Muirfield Village 4 Medinah 4 Kingston Heath 4 Desert Rock Ct 4 Calle Estrella 4 Calle Fortuna 4 Avenida Cortez 4 Sanita Dr 4 Santa Rosa Plaza 7 4 Santa Rosa Plaza 2 4 Santa Rosa Plaza 5 4 Via Sevilla 3 Vista Grande 3 Singing Palms Dr 3 Palermo Ct 3 La Palma Dr 3 Highland Palms Dr 3 Declaration Ct 3 Deerbrook Cir 3 Camino Quintana 3 Champions Way 3 Calle Paloma 3 Calle Sonora 3 Calle Chihuahua 3 Avenida Montero 3 Santa Rosa Plaza 7 3 Shinnecock Hills 3 Santa Rosa Plaza 3 3 Weiskopf 2 Troon Way 2 Valencia Ct 2 Via Caliente 2 Stonebrook Ct 2 Sunbrook Ln 2 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT REX BLOESSER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & DENSITY IN PGA WEST 4 Tiburon Dr 2 Torino Dr 2 Sonesta Way 2 Pecan Valley 2 Pinehurst 2 Platinum Way 2 Sagebrush Ave 2 Mariposa Ct 2 Medalist Dr 2 Memorial Pl 2 Iris Ct 2 Interlachen 2 Forbes Cir 2 Crestview Terr 2 Dandelion Dr 2 Desert Air St 2 Desert Sand Ct 2 Coldbrook Ln 2 Calle Tecate 2 Camino Lavanda 2 Canterbury 2 Calle Oaxaca 2 Calle Palmeto 2 Calle Quito 2 Calle Tamazula 2 Brae Burn 2 Buttercup Ln 2 Calle Arroba 2 Calle Chillon 2 Calle Ensenada 2 Bellerive 2 Bottlebrush Dr 2 Avenida Tujunga 2 Avenida La Jarita 2 Santa Rosa Plaza 4 2 Seeley Dr 2 Via Vista 1 Victoria Dr 1 Village Dr 1 Violet Ct 1 Vista Bonita Tr 1 Wakefield Cir 1 Washington St 1 Westward Ho 1 William Stone Way 1 Sunberry Ct 1 Siena Ct 1 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT REX BLOESSER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & DENSITY IN PGA WEST 5 Pompeii Ct 1 Randolph Ct 1 Roadrunner Ln 1 Rosewood Ln 1 Roudel Ln 1 Saffron Ct 1 Ocotillo Dr 1 Pala Cir 1 Palms Dr 1 Naples Dr 1 Lowe Dr 1 Marguerite Ct 1 Marigold Lane 1 Milan Ct 1 Monticello Ave 1 Morning Glory Ct 1 Morris Ave 1 Kara Ct 1 Kaye Ct 1 Lago Dr 1 Horseshoe Rd 1 Independence Way 1 Franklin Ct 1 Fronterra Dr 1 Harland Dr. W 1 Dalea Court 1 Desert Eagle Ct 1 Desert Fall Way 1 Desert Fox Dr 1 Desert Hills Ct 1 Desert Stream Dr 1 Diane Dr 1 Fiesta 1 Cloud View Way 1 Colonial 1 Como Ct 1 Congressional 1 Couples Ct 1 Calle Temecula 1 Calle Vista Verde 1 Calle Yucatan 1 Camino La Cresta 1 Camino Rosada 1 Carman Pl 1 Chanticleer Dr 1 Calle Monterey 1 Calle Nogales 1 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT REX BLOESSER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & DENSITY IN PGA WEST 6 Calle Potrero 1 Calle Prospero 1 Calle Rondo 1 Calle Santa Barbara 1 Calle Sonrisa 1 Brown Deer Park 1 Calico Cir 1 Calle Cadiz 1 Calle Durango 1 Calle Hidalgo 1 Calle Madrid 1 Calle Maria 1 Avenue 54 1 Ballybunion 1 Birchcrest Cir 1 Avenida Ultimo 1 Avenida Morales 1 Avenida Nuestra 1 Avenida Club La Quinta 1 Santa Rosa Plaza 8 1 Santa Rosa Plaza 2 1 Santa Rosa Plaza 3 1 Seeley Dr 15E 1 Seeley Dr 16E 1 Seeley Dr 17E 1 San Marino Ct 1 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT REX BLOESSER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & DENSITY IN PGA WEST 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:22 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Short Term Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. These businesses do not belong in residential neighborhoods. I understand money talks but so do recall elections and citywide propositions. You have obviously never had to live near one inside your gated havens. Derrick Brown CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DERRICK BROWN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Toby Browning Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:51 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:WRITTEN COMMENTS EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Toby Browning La Quinta Cove STVR Written Public Comment below: Dear Madam Mayor, City Council Members and City Manager McMillen: I am a full time resident of La Quinta Cove since 2011, originally buying here in 1995 as a part time resident. I have taken great interest in the STVR issue facing our city and have watched many Ad-Hoc Committee and Council meetings from beginning to end. Something struck me the other evening while watching Council debate this issue after the public comment section had ended. It's something one of my professors was lecturing on while I was attending Cal Poly studying for my electronic engineering degree. The professor was teaching us about MTBF, or, Mean Time Between Failures. Very simply put, MTBF has to do with measuring how reliable an engineering design performs. Simpler engineering designs inherently are more reliable, easier to maintain and easier to repair. Thus, a higher MTBF. Complex engineering designs by contrast, are less reliable, more difficult to maintain and harder to repair. Thus, a lower MTBF. Because of this, the net performance of simpler designs is almost always superior. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT TOBY BROWNING BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – LIMIT STVRS TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONES ONLY 2 The professor also noted that in his experience, the higher the intelligence of the design group members, the more likely they gravitate towards complex design solutions, often times ignoring a more elegant, simpler design. I couldn't help but think that evening of how this lesson correlated to what the City Council seems to be moving toward: a very complex solution regarding STVR's. I appreciate all the hard work Council and the Ad-Hoc committee have done, that being said, the solution being discussed involves dozens of new codes, rules and regulations. Very complex indeed. These new rules will take an enormous amount of city resources, including staff and police, to properly and effectively enforce. Does the City really want to take this burden on? Is it worth it? Many other cities have found that it is simply not worth it and they have taken the much simpler solution of allowing STVR's in HOA developments where the CC&R's allow them. Even the Chairperson of our own Ad-Hoc committee Gavin Schutz said in his final presentation to Council on 12-15-2020, and I quote: "My second observation is that commercial rental activity seems to operate best in communities that are designed and zoned for that purpose". This to me says it all, as it appears that chairperson Schutz also recognizes the truth of this. The simpler solution is apparent and obvious. Limiting STVR's to Tourist Residential communities would take an incredible performance burden off of the City AND maintain the quality of life in our R1 residential zones. A win win. I really feel that the city may be digging itself a deep hole over this issue as it will continue to consume precious resources, especially as many more of these become active once the moratorium has been lifted. As my Cal Poly professor also reminded us: Performance can be measured. Performance should be measured. Performance will be measured. Please make the simpler, better decision. Respectfully, Toby Browning CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT TOBY BROWNING BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – LIMIT STVRS TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONES ONLY 1 From:Robert Buce Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:21 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. (1) Full name: Robert E. Buce (2) City of residence: La Quinta (permanent residence Pacific Palisades) (3) Phone: (4) Public Comment (5) Subject: STVR (6) Written comments: As a responsible STVR owner, I am very supportive of balanced STVR regulation to assure quality of life, maintenance of property values and rights and fiscal vitality of the City of La Quinta. Specifically I encourage you: 1.Do NOT put restrictions on the number of rental stays. Such a restriction will not eliminate the source of the problem; it will simply penalize responsible owners/managers who care about the quality of life, materially reduce primary and secondary tax revenues to the City threatening fiscal vitality and penalize the restaurants/retailers and service providers who depend on tourism. Quality of life issues are largely caused by irresponsible owners/managers. Restricting the number of stays will NOT address this. To protect quality of life, property values/rights and the economic health of the City, I encourage the Council to focus on (1) eliminating bad owners/managers (PGA just released violation data indicating that 34 rental homes generated 60% of the multiple violations!), (2) prompt, fair, firm, effective enforcement (including use of noise and camera technology) and (3) assure all STVR's are licensed. 2.Exercise care in placing burdensome licensing requirements on properties with 5+ bedrooms. In the last Council meeting there appeared to be an assumption that the larger homes were the major source of problems. That is not the case with responsible owner/managers. I have a 5 BR STVR where I aggressively screen guests to attract quiet families who want to enjoy our community, communicate expectations to guests above and beyond City requirements and utilize noise and camera technologies to monitor compliance with my standards. As a result, I have had no complaints, no violations and no citations. Please do not enact overly burdensome licensing requirements on 5+ BR STVR's that penalize responsible owner/managers. Thanks for your consideration and all you are doing to make our community a great one. Bob CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ROBERT BUCE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Jann Buller Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:25 AM To:John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen Subject:Written comments re STVRs EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. To La Quinta City Council Members: As you contemplate this issue and possible solutions, I offer perspective from a sister city where we have confronted this situation, too. La Quinta’s permanent and long‐term residents are fighting to protect their homes and neighborhoods from commercial exploitation. Permanent and long‐term residents are the heart of the social fabric of neighborhoods. And distinctive, vibrant neighborhoods are the heart of successful communities in the long run. Actual neighborhoods require real neighbors. Neighbors are people who have your house key, pick up the paper while you’re away, share an impromptu potluck on the patio, and all the rest of the social fabric that makes for a strong, safe and pleasant community. Without neighbors, a once‐pleasant neighborhood loses its character, its appeal to future single‐family buyers looking for a good place to live, and ultimately its value on the market and to the city’s future. A succession of transients with no interest in La Quinta beyond their immediate personal enjoyment do not contribute to the social fabric of La Quinta neighborhoods nor to their stability and longevity. Neither do investors whose interest in La Quinta is confined to the excess profits they reap from daily or weekend rentals, when they could in fact be offering permanent or long‐term housing to local families, working people and retirees. STVRs can thrive in HOAs that welcome them and in mixed use areas designed to include commercial operations, potentially including new developments. They do not belong in neighborhoods designed and zoned for families, working people and retirees who bought or rented their homes with the expectation of domestic tranquility. Jann Buller Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JANN BULLER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS Bill and Terri Butler La Quinta, CA 92253 La Quinta City Council 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Public Comments Relating to Short Term Vacation Rentals Special Meeting 2/25/2021 Dear City Council; We are writing again to voice our opposition to Short Term Vacation Rentals continuing in our community. As owners of property within PGA West, we are moved to write in because of the explosive growth of short‐term rentals due to COVID‐19; and the negative impact these rentals are having on the community. We respect the right of property owners to use their property as they choose, but only up to the point that it does not interfere with the quiet enjoyment and property values of other community members. I have been disheartened to read of comments attributed to Council Members stating that problems are overstated. In our case they have been not overstated – in fact I could say to the opposite. It is incumbent on us to have to get out of bed to call the La Quinta code line. Countless nights we have not instead laying in bed hoping the party next store would stop. We should not have to do that. We should not have to take pictures of overflowing trash and the many cars parked on the street. I was a police officer – I have retired – I don’t want to have to police my neighborhood to enjoy peace and safety. We understand the hotline has been created to address the issue, but the hotline places the burden of community policing on community residents. We support: 1. Current moratorium is extended until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would include but not be limited to; 2. Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% 3. A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. If this problem is not addressed, then the quality of life within our community is at risk. Fortunately, there are easy solutions to this problem: either the City Council can ban short term rentals, or we can move to another community. Sincerely, Bill and Terri Butler CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS BILL & TERRI BUTLER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:M Kent Case Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 12:25 PM To:City Clerk Mail; Linda Evans Subject:STVR Commercial Businesses in RESIDENTIAL Neighborhoods - Written Commentary EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Good Day- So it seems we will be welcoming STVRs back to La Quinta with open arms. How fun. Can't wait to have hundreds, or thousands of mini-hotels throughout the neighborhood. I have experienced both the revolving-door style of in-and-out guests, and for the last five months, 30 day renters only. This has demonstrated quite clearly the difference in usage. Trust me, the long term renters are better, by far. This should come as no surprise, since using these 50 X 100 foot lots for Party-in-the-USA type hotels is an inappropriate and incompatible use of these properties. The hotel pool and spa next door to us is LESS THAN FIFTEEN FEET FROM OUR MASTER BEDROOM. I'm pretty sure no one reading this would choose that situation voluntarily. In any case, it grows wearying having to constantly sell obvious arguments to persons who clearly have a primarily financial motivation, giving little to no regard to the quality of life for those living nearby. It is obvious that nobody wants to live next door to numerous, noisy lodging establishments interspersed throughout a neighborhood. That's why there are commercial zones. It is obvious no one wants to be awakened in the middle of the night several times per week by screaming partyers, yet that is what we experienced last summer. It is obvious that no one wants extra unattended vehicles and trash scattered about. But that was the norm last summer. Clearly, no one would choose to have a constant parade of strangers coming and going at all hours, literally dozens of guests per week, in and out. We moved to La Quinta thinking we would have only neighbors in our residential section, not tourists. Nothing against tourists, they are great for our economy. How fortunate it is then, that La Quinta has so many wonderful resort and hotel properties, across all price ranges. Any meaningful solutions should include caps on the number of available room nights, along with a minimum-stay plan. That way, we might get at least some measure of peace, as opposed to last year's free-for-all. The major problem has been the 2-3 night "weekend partyer" style guest, and as I indicated earlier, the long-term guests have presented no issues. I remain skeptical however, because we have already experienced the outcomes of this overall ill-conceived money making scheme, and it appears that City Council is content, even supportive, of continuing this clearly disruptive and challenging situation. I have news for you: In reality, it just doesn't work. But ChChing-ChChing, let that cash register ring! And, oh yeah almost forgot, comes with a lot of expensive, pain in the neck enforcement activities. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that the proposed enhanced administrative policies, and stricter regulations, coupled with massively increased enforcement, will help the problem. I am still not sure why we are twisting our community into a pretzel to accommodate this marginal revenue addition, but it appears that is exactly what will happen. Meanwhile, for us, the previous STVR next door is in Escrow. We are hoping against hope that this new owner will be a resident, instead of a hotel operator. But that still leaves another recently sold home two doors down, that has already applied for a license, and another across the street which is in the rehab process, so who knows what will happen there. Not sure we are up for another year of STVR madness. So sad, and not at all what we had in mind for our retirement years. Best Regards, Kent Case - La Quinta CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT KENT CASE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Olivier Chaine Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:46 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 Attachments:VRON-LQ The Importance of Short Term Rentals.pdf EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. EMAIL:  Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Olivier Chaine Phone Number: Comments: Please include this in the council meeting ‐‐ ‐‐ Olivier Chaine | | | CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT OLIVIER CHAINE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS Save La Quinta’s Businesses Our local businesses depend on STVRs, and are pleading for help as they recover from the pandemic CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT OLIVIER CHAINE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Donald Church Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:50 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Letter to City Council for meeting on 25FEB2021 Attachments:Cove Letter 3.docx EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. I am forwarding the attached letter for the Mayor and City Council Special Meeting on STVRs on 25FEB2021. Thank you, Donald Church La Quinta Cove CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DONALD CHURCH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:AJAY CLARK Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:23 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments for 2/25/2021 La Quinta City Council STR Meeting ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** 1. Full Name: Ajay Clark 2.City of Residence: La Quinta, CA 3. Phone number: 4. Public Comment: None 5. Subject: Comments on proposed code amendments to Chapter 3.25 - Limit on number of bookings per year 6. Written Comment: Hello all, I’m writing to express my thoughts and concerns for the proposed code amendments to Chapter 3.25, specifically the topic “Limiting number of bookings per year.” A. State of the World - While I understand that the residents of La Quinta are experiencing irritation from an in flux in Air BNB rentals, we must remind ourselves that we are currently living in a very temporary work/vacation world. As the rollout of vaccines increase and Covid cases drop, we’ll more than likely see a return to rental rates that are similar to pre-covid numbers. Therefore acting impulsively with new amendments during this time could be described as reactionary and shortsighted economically. B. Business - This town main economic source is tourism, there is no arguing that. It could also be said that the businesses that are supported by said tourism have suffered greatly during covid. Limiting our right to book tourists, will essentially be limiting the amount of tourists that may come to this city, and therefore limiting the amount of total business brought to this city. Is that really what this council is prepared to do as we are coming out of a global quarantine that included business shut downs? Limit business? The idea of limiting any type of tourism business during this time is not only anti-capitalistic but borderline anti-American. -Limiting will badly hurt all business, not just airbnb’s. Our rental homes employee cleaning services, pool cleaners, plumbers, construction workers, cable companies, landscapers, electricians, grocery stores, coffee shops and restaurants and so many more businesses. Are we to assume that if you limit our occupancy to 32 rentals a year that all of those business will still maintain the same revenue that they did before? Because it definitely won’t be increasing. -If this is passed, jobs will eventually be cut. With the inability to grow, and business’ already struggling there will not be a return to “normal” -This will promote higher rent rates that only big groups of people or the wealthy can afford. This seems counterintuitive to what this council is trying to achieve. Bigger groups could mean more noise. This does not eliminate any bad apples. If anything it will encourage bigger groups as previously mentioned. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT AJAY CLARK BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSTING STRICTER REGULATIONS 2 C. Loss of revenue to the city - Capping rentals will cap how much revenue the city will receive from Airbnb owners. Which I can speak to from my own experience, the loss would be have to be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. D. Other amendments - I support the cities other amendments, I would gladly use a noise detector and ask for a security deposit. In closing, I fully understand that there are other members of this community as well STR owners and hope that we can all find a way to make this city better for everyone, while still promoting business and American values. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT AJAY CLARK BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSTING STRICTER REGULATIONS 1 From: Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:15 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear La Quinta leaders, We are sincerely asking for your help in stopping the proliferation of STVRs in our residential neighborhoods. Please don't allow La Quinta to become the dumping ground for STVRs while other cities in the Valley take steps to stop this deterioration of residential neighborhoods. La Quinta has plenty of hotel rooms coming on board that will need to be filled with hotel guests. Visitors to La Quinta would be much better served and welcomed into those hotels, rather than hotel businesses run by individual owners within residential neighborhoods. Please, please, please act on this important matter so that we, and more of our friends and neighbors aren't forced to leave La Quinta to find the quality of life that we expected when we moved here. Thank you for your efforts on this critical matter. Sincerely, Cathy Condon CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CATHY CONDON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Marcia Cutchin Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:45 PM To:City Clerk Mail; Monika Radeva Cc:John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen Subject:RE: Written Comments 2/25 special city council meeting Attachments:3Letter2CouncilX.docx EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Monika, Please include the attached letter in the written public comments to the February 25th, special city council meeting on STVRs. 1) Marcia L Cutchin 2) La Quinta 3) 4) Public Comment 5) STVRs 6) Written Comments The email “subject line” must clearly state “Written Comments” or “Verbal Telephonic Comments.” Thank you Monika. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Council has acknowledged resident constituents are unhappy with the STVR program. Council has not acknowledged residents’ request for a permanent moratorium on new licensing of un-hosted STVRs in our bedroom communities. Recall the exchange at the last special council meeting: Councilman Steve Sanchez 5:38:18 I just worry about somebody facetiming somebody, zooming, the neighbor hears it… ya know… ’they get all hissy’ that to me is not a noise… And that’s not a complaint that should be coming in…that’s just like… ya know ”grow up”. “…Since when did having a kid in a pool become a negative thing. That should bring joy to your life and like… because how’s that different if I have my nephew at my house…” and you are sandwiched by a vacation rental… to me it’s the same thing.” All this talk about my neighbors and…I love my neighbors…I get it. Well, if you wanna be neighborly…and you’re saying a kid having fun in a pool is bad... I mean, how’s that being neighborly and friendly, ya know. A kid having fun in a pool should bring JOY to your life…” Councilwoman Fitzpatrick: “…people’s frustrations build… …now it bothers them because every weekend it’s all weekend long …and you don’t know them and every weekend it’s a different group of people and a different set of screams...” Mayor Evans: I’m more on Steve’s side on this one.” Councilmembers Pena and Sanchez laughing - 5:44:29 Councilman Radi: “…The community got to become a little bit more intolerant on this because the tolerance was very thin about the whole thing so…” Mayor: “ABOUT THE WORLD” “ABOUT THE WORLD” Councilman Radi: “I agree with Steve…come on…at 3:00 in the afternoon…” No, council, it is unequivocally not the same thing. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS Please see the following illustrations. It doesn’t seem very funny to us. HOW IS THIS THE SAME THING? Your constituents Investors Neighbors, families Strangers, transients represented in local government no representation in local government community volunteers vacationers Persons per household 2.57 Persons per household: 8+ Residents are not intolerant “About the world”, “About the world” Residents are intolerant about what is pictured in the graph above – a singular and specific issue, council’s sanctioning of unsupervised business operations in our bedroom communities. At the last special council meeting…four out of every five speakers were against STVRs. Following resident voter’s contributions, council proceeded to spend hours deliberating how to make the program that the voters clearly and emphatically stated they do not want, work for STVRs. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS A gentleman from PGA West put together an extensive report that would have cost the city tens of thousands of dollars and the resulting scientifically conducted survey showed 66% of the residents here don’t want any STVRs here. https://www.neighborsforneighborhoodslq.org CONSCRIPTING UNPAID RESIDENTS AS OVERSIGHT MONITORS Residents are regularly urged through social media, various publications and the city website, to use the call center for complaints about STVRs. A mailer was sent further urging residents to report unlawful STVR activity. Following these consistently published urgings, council has, at nearly every public meeting since, announced residents are making false claims against STVRs. Setting up unmanned businesses ten feet from the beds we sleep in, conscripting us as monitors, and then repeatedly admonishing us for not doing it to council’s standards, is not a favorable working system. Council is using the very residents that are abused by STVRs – to act as watchdogs for STVR investors’ unsupervised properties. DISMISSING DENSITY CAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the last special council meeting, council ignored the residents’ requests for a density cap. Council ignored the ad hoc committee’s recommendations for a density cap. Council disregarded the expansive N4N study recommendation limiting licensing to transient tourist zones. Council ignored the residents’ requests for a permanent moratorium on new licensing and instead addressed trash, noise and heavier fines for present operators. Council’s appointed ad-hoc committee with 9 members profiting from STVRs and only three against them – along with city staff, recommended strong density caps. Council rejected them. ON JANUARY 21ST COUNCIL RECONFIRMED THE 300’ RULE FOR BED AND BREAKFASTS IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 588. Evidence this is a viable, and by your own hand, currently supported and used density measure. At the time the ad-hoc report was created, after months of studies and deliberations, staff established the 300’ foot rule was efficient, in effect, and easy to implement. Who was responsible for re-engineering staff’s findings and why? DISREGARDING SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE Council has been presented a great deal of substantiated evidence from economic think tanks and organizations such as the Economic Policy Institute, Harvard Law’s Public Policy Review, The Urban Media Lab and many others, that the effects of a proliferation of STVRs in a community are corrosive. Though the evidence in the reports is indisputably valid, they have been ignored. Neighbors for Neighborhoods prepared a lengthy, expensive, detailed and scientifically substantiated report and recommendations. The report’s findings have been largely ignored. PROTECTING OUTSIDE INVESTORS INTERESTS Numerous times, council members have, in publicly recorded meetings, expressed their concern for investor’s interests. The council has authorized the city to license 1000 STVR businesses in our bedroom communities. Subsequently, rather than serving the interests of its constituents, council now openly states in its legislative CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS decision-making process, that it considers investor’s interests in tandem with the interests of the resident voters. The new term is “stakeholders”. Purchasing property or owning a business in La Quinta, or anywhere in the United States, does not garner representation in a local government. Council, STVR businesses are NOT “part of a community”. They are not your constituents. You owe them NO allegiance and they most certainly are not to be considered in tandem with residents’ interests. Council it is imperative to the health of our city that you cease issuing licenses to investors whose interests you then later state you are considering in your deliberations. Residents will not stand back and watch their representation in local legislation be shared with special outside investor interests. Council members SOLELY represent the interests of their voting constituency. FOLLOWING PALM SPRINGS FAILED MODEL Council used what we now know to be Palm Springs seriously flawed model as guidelines to inform new legislation. Airbnb itself had to ban 30 Palm Springs properties that the city themselves had not even flagged. Residents currently have a lawsuit pending against the city awaiting appeal through the Riverside County Superior Court. And our council is discussing following Palm Springs failed plan while ignoring residents, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City councils’ consideration of their constituents. “ https://www.desertsun.com/story/money/business/tourism/2020/12/22/airbnb‐suspends‐30‐houses‐ operating‐palm‐springs/4012633001/?fbclid=IwAR2OtMzNh67Ev8XerfGXtU8cGl8j‐ JhgRtlsV2BxLyKw3ccrdedeepcGTnI STVRs ARE COSTING TAXPAYERS MONEY They do not make the city money. They come at a cost to our largest revenue stream – sales tax - and to our service providers. The displaced resident would be purchasing cars, tires, computers, bikes, cell service accounts and phones, insurance, accountant, doctor, dentist and legal services, buying wardrobes here and spending their entire paychecks here, all massive contributions to the city’s largest revenue stream, sales tax. Presently the cost of operating the program is born in part by tax paying citizens who do not want it. Appropriately licensed tourist transient zone properties and in-residence hosts do not drain the city’s police, sheriff, call center, code enforcement, etc. The remaining TOT generated from unsupervised units does not cover the massive expense of the program. The TOT from units outside of CT zones is sixth on the list of revenue not 2nd as quoted in council. All of the costs of running the program are generated from these properties and these costs are greater than the revenue generated. Further it comes at a cost to our highest revenue stream, sales tax. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS ZERO THREAT OF FORCLOSURES In public deliberations council has issued fear of foreclosures as a reason to continue funding STVRs in our communities. Home prices in La Quinta increase a whopping 29% since January of 2020. https://www.redfin.com/city/10297/CA/La-Quinta/housing-market Home sales have remained historically strong throughout the moratorium. Fear of foreclosures is unfounded, and it is inappropriately used as a fearmongering tool to further council’s STVR agenda. Legal precedence has been set. Investors are only entitled to a reasonable profit as can be realized by converting to a long-term rental, selling or renting on a 30+ day basis. DISMISSING OCCUPANCY LIMITS Every city in Southern California has lower occupancy limits than La Quinta. Council’s own strategically stacked ad-hoc committee which most certainly did not proportionally represent the voting population, recommended adopting those lower occupancy limits to bring them in line with occupancy limits established in all other Southern California cities. Council dismissed the recommendations which would have served the interests of its constituent voters. 8 adults, 2 in each bedroom and 2 in the living room in small houses ten feet apart in La Quinta Cove is obnoxious. How is this living like a local? Resident occupancy averages 2.57 per household. Council and staff expressed concern over the ease with which staff could regulate NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY home occupancy numbers. Incredibly, the majority of the $1.5 million in cost for the program is spent on about 700 un-hosted units in our bedroom communities. At $1.5M spent on 700 units we need to worry about making it easy on our enforcement team??? Council RE-ESTABLISHED OCUPPANCY DENSITY IN BED AND BREAKFASTS AT 2 TO A ROOM IN ORDINANCE 588, SIX DAYS PRIOR TO APPROVING EXCESSIVE OCCUPANCY DENSITY IN UNSUPERVISED STVRs. STVRs CONSUME SCARCE HOUSING INVENTORY Our residential housing inventory is needed to provide homes for citizens of our community. It should never have been mined as a source for funding city expenditures. The federal government has mandated La Quinta increase its low to moderate housing numbers over the next eight years. Converting our moderate-income housing in the Cove to transient tourist lodgings is in direct conflict with the federal mandate. How would the federal government feel about La Quinta flipping the homes that are counted as low to middle income homes, into high priced STVRs? Turning scarce residential inventory into transient tourist accommodations is hardly sound public policy. STVRs THREATEN OUR FRAGILE EMPLOYMENT BASE STVRs provide sporadic under the table contract work that REPLACES service jobs with benefits that are generated from hotel lodgings. Desert Sands Unified is our largest employer. Ghost hotels do not house children who go to school. The Wall Street Journal reported a school in San Diego had closed because of the conversion of so many homes to STVR units. San Diego responded with a density cap of 1%. The units you have already licensed outside of transient tourist zones wiped out the equivalent of housing for the entire population of La Quinta High School. In addition to threatening the jobs provided by our largest employer, your STVR program puts businesses in direct competition with our second largest employer, The La Quinta Hotel. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS REJECTING THE COACHELLA VALLEY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP’S RECOMMENDATIONS Increasing numbers of STVRs in our bedroom communities is a measure that directly opposes the partnership’s recommendations regarding the future of the economic welfare of desert cities. The objective recommended was to DIVERSIFY OUR DEPENDENCY ON TOURISM by attracting tech workers to live here. We need more transient tourist lodging like we need a hole in the head. Any tech workers moving to the valley are not going to move to a city where the real estate is falsely inflated by STVRs and the disturbance to the quality of life is profound. In a climate where cities are paying tech workers to relocate – council is literally repelling them from La Quinta with our aggressive STVR campaign. Young families not only won’t move here – they are leaving to avoid stranger danger to their children. The residents of the city of La Quinta need a permanent moratorium on new unsupervised short-term vacation rental licenses in our bedroom communities. Specifically, if it is not your permanent residence and you are not on the premises, you do not get a license. “New ordinances are working?” Clearly councilmembers, they are not. Hundreds of investors are using instant book inviting unvetted transients into our bedroom communities. In what universe is “let’s look at this in a couple of months” a good plan when in the interim - security in HOAs are calling the police because they are too afraid to approach the unvetted transient tourists who are terrorizing the neighbors? Solution: 1) Order a permanent moratorium on new licensing of unmanned businesses in our bedroom communities. YOU REPRESENT LOCAL VOTERS, NOT INVESTORS OR “STAKEHOLDERS”. 2) Send one more notice to properties operating without a license and then shut off the utilities. 3) CUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN CURRENTLY LICENCED RENTALS TO TWO TO A BEDROOM – as every other city does – and as you already do with bed and breakfasts. Anything more than that should never have been sanctioned – that was done for investors. 4) ORDER ON PROPERTY PARKING ONLY as you already do with bed and breakfasts. Anything other than that should never have been sanctioned – that was done for investors. 5) STOP challenging the validity of resident’s complaints. Assume all residents are aggravated for good reason; you put unmanned businesses in their neighborhood. 6) ORDER ALL PRESENT OPERATORS TO HAVE TRASH CONCIERGE SERVICE 7) When things calm down offer occasional use permits to residents registered with the federal government with the property as their primary homes for events. $$$ 8) Start a remediation process for residents who are impacted by unwanted STVR intrusions and disturbances. 9) Lift the moratorium on in home hosts. They don’t need oversight. $$$ CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 10) Build some more transient tourist zones $$$ 11) Spend the free time you gain getting this garbage off your plate in streamlining the process for setting up cannabis shops to get some REAL income. $$$ 12) STOP SPENDING MONEY you don’t have on surveillance equipment. Do not, after spending money you do not have, claim you need STVRs to pay for what you bought. 13) Enjoy your constituents’ newly appreciative RECIPROCAL and SUPPORTIVE attitude toward their council. Thank you, Marcia L Cutchin CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARCIA CUTCHIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:D & A (La Quinta Rental) Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:24 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Darren & Amalya D’Altorio are in favor of STVR’s! Thank you! Sent from my iPad CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DARREN & AMALYA D'ALTORIO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN FAVOR OF STVRS 1 From:Michael David Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 2:40 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STVR’s EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. As a recent property owner and part time resident in PGA West, We strongly oppose restrictions on Short Term Vacation Rentals. This is NOT in the best interest of the local economy or real estate market. STR’s help to defray the cost of ownership, and many purchase decisions were based on this availability. We do support enforcement of current regulations regarding noise or other disturbances, maximum occupancies, etc. Those of us who are responsible owners with professional managers have not had any tenant issues ‐ and should NOT be penalized. Regards, Michael & Christine David Mobile: CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS CHRISTINE & MICHAEL DAVID BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSITION TO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:04 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Cc: Subject:Testimonial EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Mayor Evans & City Officials: It seems to me that the topic of short term rentals ‐ as expressed by the Pro‐STVR camp has been narrowly distilled down to “only a handful of addressable issues”..... ‐ Party Houses & Related Noise ‐ Parking ‐ Trash .... and some less duplicitous other points. It’s just not true. From my POV they are dodging a number of issues that impact neighbors quality of life ‐ that does not rise to the level of a citation ‐ but no doubt degrades the neighborhood and surroundings. Party houses are terrible. As I have listened to the innumerable stories told during recent City of La Quinta open forums ‐ my heart goes out to those dealing with them. But that’s only “part of the story”. Many of your constituents live a less obvious but nonetheless disturbing rental existence. Like we do. Some examples of which I provide as my own testimony given our next door rental experience: 1. We are living with continual noise. Pool equipment that never turns off. Air conditioning that never turns off. Music playing. Exterior TV is on. It is all right over the wall from our guest bedrooms and visitors have noted that it is annoying to have to listen to it all night long. 2. Loud obnoxious drunken conversations are endless. Our homes are so close and renters are continually outside, intoxicated and while it may not be “a party” it is unpleasant and grating ‐ and serves to force us indoors when we’d really like to be quietly enjoying our own yard. 3. Cars, cars and more cars. They never park in the garage. The cars (while often 5 or less) are on the street and just serve to clutter the neighborhood. They force folks to walk in the middle of the street and add an element of risk to those walking, biking and driving on our streets. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CHUCK ECKMAN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 2 4. Trash. Renters don’t understand that they need to leave it behind the gates. Starting Sunday morning ‐ trash is moved out and even at those rental houses that have behind the gate service ‐ we have to live with visible trash ‐ when we should not have to. 5. Deferred maintenance. Dead plants. Dead trees. Broken sprinklers. Yard lighting that is broken and in‐op. Worn out furniture. Cushions, towels, yard toys, solo cups all over the yard. Dirty windows. Dirt patches what used to be grass. Painting that needs to be refreshed. No pride of ownership. We have to go next door when the gardener arrives (when he does show up occasionally) or the pool man and tell them what is broken and needs repair because the owners are NEVER there. This is my next door house. It is owned by people we met one time in our driveway for 2 minutes. They live in Sherman Oaks. They have never been back to the house. Not once. It’s not a party house. It does not have a long list of violations or fines. I have not had to call the City or the Police (yet) but it impacts our life in a negative way! Point being.... Short Term Rentals are a problem and a blemish on our once beautiful PGA WEST neighborhood. A La Quinta neighborhood. With voting, tax paying, La Quinta residents. Short term rentals bring our quality of life down. A lot of folks (just like us) choose to just “suck it up”. We don’t speak at City Hall Meetings but we desire action. Without it.... we’re gonna leave. We’re working with our HOA’s to vote in new language to our CC&R’s but “the horse is out of the barn” and near‐term change is difficult / near impossible to get passed. It’s not right and the Pro‐STVR owners who DO NOT LIVE HERE have your ear and near‐term budget implications seemingly rule your position. I implore you: ‐ Listen to residents not remote investors ‐ Continue the moratorium on permits ‐ Phase out short term rentals of less than 28 days ASAP ‐ Include HOA’s (PGA WEST) in ALL actions Sincerely, Chuck Eckman PGA WEST La Quinta, CA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CHUCK ECKMAN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:S Edwards Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:25 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:In support of STVR's Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Steffanie Edwards: La Quinta, CA Good for our local businesses and economy. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT STEFFANIE EDWARDS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN FAVOR OF STVRS 1 From:Elsenbach, Chris Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:22 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments Short-Term Vacation Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. My Name is Chris Elsenbach and we own a condo in La Quinta CA. Short term rentals provide owners, like me, the ability to afford a condo in La Quinta where I can share great times with my family a few weeks a year and have the rental income help offset costs like HOAs and Property Taxes. Without the ability to rent short term we would need to sell our Condo in La Quinta as we could no longer afford it. Many of the people in our complex would also need to sell. This will decrease values on the properties and cause many who love this part of the country to leave. Short term rentals support to the local economy. We support local restaurants and stores as do our renters. This would be a big hit on local retailers if short term rentals were banned. I have learned that I cannot control what happens in life and if you vote to restrict short term rentals in La Quinta then we will sell and find somewhere else to make our family memories where we can afford to due so with rental income. I sincerely hope this does not happen as we love the area and the people and ourselves and our renters feel like a part of this community and support it in all ways we can. Please don’t change the current law/rules on short term rentals. With Respect, Chris Elsenbach M m m One of the 2020 World’s Most Ethical Companies® Jones Lang LaSalle For more information about how JLL processes your personal data, please click here. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CHRIS ELSENBACH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS 1 From:RaeAnne Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:49 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. 1)RaeAnne Falduti 2)Santee, CA (Own ) 3 4)Public Comment 5)STVR Program 6) First, I would like to state I am aware there is an issue with STVR and some changes are needed. I feel because of Covid and hotels limiting pool time more people chose STVR for vacations‐people who do not normally use STVRs and do not understand common courtesy. I feel patience is the most prudent option before drastic measure are taken. The STVR community is a vital part in providing jobs to the community‐handymen, house cleaners, restaurants, shopping etc. Also, the TOT collected must help the city’s budget. Regarding chapter 3.25‐I feel a $1000 annual fee for too high especially if you are going to limit number of stays. Maybe consider first time applicants pay this amount. There is more expense incurred for a new license as opposed to a renewal. I would also like to provide comment on some “items listed for further discussion and direction” from the posted agenda. ‐Limiting number of booking per year… Questions regarding your graph on page 8 “Data on Number of STVR Booking per year” I would be interested in the percentage that average 32 or 36 bookings (side note did you choose 32 based on other cities?). How many of those are in the avg 47 bookings a year? That information would be more helpful in determining if enforcing or attempting to enforce is cost effective. I do not feel the city should limit number of stays. ‐Limit number of STVR permits per owner? Why is time being wasted on 4%? ‐Contract between owner ad renter acknowledging regulations‐ This is a waste of time. I have rules listed in my listing and the guests must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can book. I reiterate them in a message before checking in. They are also listed in the welcome binder. Unfortunately, guests will do what they want to do. Having a signed contract is not going to change that. ‐Owner requiring a security deposit‐I feel holding the renter accountable (issuing fine in their name) for violations would help curtail their behavior. Maybe even make it public for STVR owners to check before accepting a booking. What a novel idea holding a person accountable and having to accept the consequences for their actions. An item I would like to see added for discussion is remove the anonoumous reporting. There are a lot of false noise complaints‐this is a huge waste of resources. The property does not have to know who complained (they usually do though) but the city should. A fine schedule for repeat false call offenders should be considered. Has any study been done on the number of false reports? Regards RaeAnne Falduti CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RAEANNE FALDUTI BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Sue Farris Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:59 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:request for public comments atcity council meeting on 2/25/2021 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda item: Request for public comments of STVR Restrictions Sue Farris La Quinta, CA As a property manager and rental agent for STVR's here in La Quinta for many years, I am the first one to ask for more control of said "party houses" that exist now and in the future. NO one wants to be near one and have to be bothered by such on a regular basis. They need to be controlled, fined and shut down by the city. My owners don't want that for themselves or their neighbors and I don't want that type of clientele. My job is also to protect and maintain my client's homes and I want no damage or issues ever so I am all for fines and control and hopefully getting rid of the said party houses. It takes constant vetting and good management that are hands on and located locally for any and all rentals, no matter their length. If a reservation doesn't feel right, it's not booked with my clients. They count on me to control who stays in their homes and maintain their asset accordingly. I have never had to make a phone call reporting damage to their homes and don't want to. These owners also use their own homes and want them protected and not abused. And definitely do not want their neighbors disturbed. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SUE FARRIS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS WITH MORE RESTRICTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE 2 It falls on me to be the "enforcer' when it comes to communicating thoroughly before guests arrive, while they are here, and after they leave. They are given the "rules" when they reserve, before they arrive and at the house on arrival. I touch base with them while here and they know the drill. Noise levels inside and out, especially out ,are covered in detail and "threatened" with guards and or police showing up if any issues what so ever. Plus I show up.... I'm the contact for the city if any problems anytime. We have a beautiful city here that also relies on these taxes as a major revenue source as do the local businesses, vendors, restaurants, etc, also. The pandemic has been hard on everyone in varying degrees and people want weekend getaways within a 2 hour drive of LA and San Diego etc. This has become a way of life and traveling now and will continue to be such. We are known for and thrive on tourism here, especially with all of our major events here. There are very few hotels, or resorts and housing in general here for the tennis tournaments, art shows, concerts and golf tournaments, etc. These rentals are a proven way to travel and the bad apples should not hurt the guests or the owners to this degree. Control is key and responsible management a must. Shut down or fine anyone who does not play by the rules! It's to everyone's benefit. We know the STVR's can be handled strictly and properly as Palm Springs does successfully to still benefit the city, local businesses, etc. without the main offenders still offending with proper management , hands on and reasonable controls. We want the same things really! Please don't make the offenders and bad apples direct the control of STRV's when owners and property management can do so firmly and properly. Good management is key! CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SUE FARRIS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS WITH MORE RESTRICTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE 3 Thank you for your time, Sue Farris CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SUE FARRIS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS WITH MORE RESTRICTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:25 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Rental homes in La Quinta EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. To the Mayor and City Council of La Quinta: I am a permanent resident of La Quinta since 2002. My family and I reside in PGA West and we are homeowners. We have noticed increased lack of good behavior from residents of known rental properties over the last several years. We have also noted an increase in properties purchased by non‐residents who rent them all or much or the time. My greatest concern is that there is a point where so many properties are rentals that there is no longer a community and neighborhood spirit; suddenly it seems like we live at a Hilton or Ritz‐Carleton and not in a family area. I recommend the temporary freeze on further rental permits of all kinds, but particularly the short‐term ones. Then, via attrition, I recommend that all units remaining be limited to one month vacation rentals or greater. No weekend or holiday week rentals should be allowed as those are where many of the noise, dangerous driving, refuse and littering and general misbehaviors originate. Then a plan should be developed to restrict longer term rentals to a small number of residences in each area, defined by a square block or radius criteria. I feel that more than 10% of all homes leased for periods of less than 6 months is excessive. The recent increase in shorter term rentals has made us consider moving to one of the cities in the Coachella Valley that has stricter and more intelligent rental regulation. Please stop further expansion of rental unit counts. And then make a long‐term plan to prevent neighborhoods from disintegrating. David Gleason & Erika González CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DAVID GLEASON & ERIKA GONZALEZ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Arlene Gotshalk Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:36 AM To:Monika Radeva Subject:Request to Speak at today's Special City Council Meeting (2/25/21) and submitting attached written public comments Attachments:Arlene - 2-25-21.pdf EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Good morning Monika, I request to speak at today's Special City Council Meeting. I have attached my commets to be included in the public written comments. Thank you, Arlene CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ARLENE GOTSHALK BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS Madam Mayor and City Council Members, Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am a full time resident of the Cove. There has been a year of meetings on the STVR Program, so the Council knows the residents, your constituents in residential neighborhoods are unhappy.. It is frustrating and confusing that the many questions residents have brought to the Council of legality, safety, and other issues are never discussed or answered. But it is worse when the council has responded with disrespect and laughter at these issues. At the Special City Council Meeting on January 27, 2021, when a resident living next door to several whole house STVRs was explaining the impact of non-stop pool parties, Council members made the following comments: I quote… Councilman Steve Sanchez 5:38:18 I just worry about somebody facetiming somebody, zooming, the neighbor hears it… ya know… ’they get all hissy’ that to me is not a noise… And that’s not a complaint that should be coming in…that’s just like… ya know ”grow up”. “…Since when did having a kid in a pool become a negative thing. That should bring joy to your life and like… …and you’re saying a kid having fun in a pool is bad... I mean, how’s that being neighborly and friendly.” Councilwoman Fitzpatrick: “…people’s frustrations build… …now it bothers them because every weekend it’s all weekend long.” Mayor Evans: I’m more on Steve’s side on this one.” Councilmembers Pena and Sanchez laughing - 5:44:29 Councilman Radi: “…The community got to become a little bit more intolerant [sic] on this because the tolerance was very thin about the whole thing…” Mayor: “ABOUT THE WORLD” “ABOUT THE WORLD” Councilman Radi: “I agree with Steve…come on” Bottom line – having friends or family over for a swim is not the same as non-stop groups of transient tourists partying at all hours next door to your home. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ARLENE GOTSHALK BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS The first illustration shows how, at a minimum, one STVR directly impacts 5 houses. And the second illustration is a chart of actual use of STVRs. The average household in La Quinta is 2.57 and the average number of transient tourists/strangers in a STVR is 8+. The chart compares 2 average families and the number of gathering they engage in and compares it with 2 actual STVRs and days that they have resort experiences and partying in residential areas. This is just one example. This is not fun or funny to us. Average Number of Family Gatherings Actual Occupancy of 2 STVRs (2017) These issues are real and unsupervised mini motels do not work in residential zones. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ARLENE GOTSHALK BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS Every city in CV is dealing with them and 24 cities in CA have already banned STVRs in residential zones because they are corrosive to a residential neighborhood. •Anaheim •Carmel by the Sea •Carlsbad •Coronado •Dana Point •Danville •Healdsburg •Hermosa Beach •Huntington Beach •Irvine •Laguna Beach •Mammoth Lakes •Manhattan Beach •City of Napa •Napa County •Newport Beach •Ojai •San Luis Obispo •Santa Barbara •Santa Monica •Tiburon •West Hollywood Occupancy density in bed and breakfasts remains at 2 to a room in ordinance 588, with 300 ft distance between them. Why are you proposing more excessive occupancy and location density for whole house STVRs? Residents’ “tolerance is not very thin” and Residents’ are not intolerant “About the world.” Residents are intolerant about one specific issue: council’s sanctioning of unsupervised business operations in our bedroom communities. THE SOLUTION CAN BEGIN WITH: A permanent moratorium on new licensing of the business of STVRs in residential zones. Please protect your constituents. Thank you, Arlene Gotshalk CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ARLENE GOTSHALK BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Cary Granger Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 9:44 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions I would appreciate my comments below on this matter to be heard at the Council Meeting today. My wife and I have lived in 2 different parts of The Cove for the past 10 years. We love the 'vibe' in the Cove. It is a very diverse neighborhood, which is why it is so great. We have never had any problems with any short-term renters from nearby homes. We also own a house near Old Town that we have rented out solely as a short-term rental for the past 9 years. We have never had a complaint directed toward us or to the City of La Quinta about our tenants. We keep the house and yard clean and upkept which is a benefit to the street appearance and neighbors. The renters come to spend money! They visit Old Town almost every day/night to eat, drink, buy goods, rent bikes, etc... .. This is also the worst time EVER to adopt such a restrictive law/code. So many people are trying to put their lives back together because of the pandemic. This will not help us to 'getting back to normal'. I understand there is an extremely small percentage of cases where short term renters have caused disruption or have violated the noise ordinance. Some people drive over the speed limit, and when they do, they are pulled over and given a speeding ticket, but what doesn't happen is the speed limit being reduced which would affect all other drivers on the road! Name: Cary Granger Phone Number: City: La Quinta CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CARY GRANGER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Olympia Granger Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:27 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Name: Olympia Granger Phone Number: City: La Quinta I would appreciate my comments below on this matter to be heard at the Council Meeting today. Keeping short term rentals in the cove is essential to keeping the cove neat, clean, & manicured. We employee quite a few people to keep our home kept up and tidy for everyone to enjoy including full time homeowners. My husband and I have lived in 2 different parts of The Cove for the past 10 years. We love the 'vibe' in the Cove. It is a very diverse neighborhood, which is why it is so great. We have never had any problems with any short term renters from nearby homes. We also own a house near Old Town that we have rented out solely as a short term rental for the past 9 years. We have never had a complaint directed toward us or to the City of La Quinta about our tenants. We keep the house and yard clean and upkept which is a benefit to the street appearance and neighbors. The renters come to spend money! They visit Old Town almost every day/night to eat, drink, buy goods, rent bikes, etc... .. This is also the worst time EVER to adopt such a restrictive law/code. So many people are trying to put their lives back together because of the pandemic. This will not help us to 'getting back to normal'. I understand there is an extremely small percentage of cases where short term renters have caused disruption or have violated the noise ordinance. Some people drive over the speed limit, and when they do, they are pulled over and given a speeding ticket, but what doesn't happen is the speed limit being reduced which would affect all other drivers on the road! Olympia সহ঺঻ CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT OLYMPIA GRANGER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING STRICTER REGULATIONS 1 From:Tom Grant Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:14 PM To:Monika Radeva Cc:City Clerk Mail Subject:RE: RECEIVED: Grant, Tom (STVR) WRITTEN Comments – Feb. 25, 2021 Council Special Meeting EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** THE PREVIOUS E‐MAIL WAS WRITTEN AND SENT FROM MY MOBILE PHONE AND INCLUDED ERRORS. REVISED COPY BELOW. Monika‐ I’ve received an e‐mail from a group of PGA West homeowners mentioning that the City Of La Quinta is going to propose an ordinance that would limit STVR homeowners to only 32 days, etc. I am very aware of the issues with some STVR’s but feel this ordinance will hurt the homeowners that have FOR YEARS properly managed their STVR’s and not solve the problem. We need to target the problem STVR owners and not hold everyone liable for the few. The STVR owners that continue to have violations should have their license suspended and eventually revoked. Simple as that! My family purchased in PGA West with the expectation that we could both STVR and occupy our home, which we continue to do. We rely on that STVR rental income to pay our property bills. Whatever STVR limits should be should be for future homeowners only. Respectfully, Tom Grant Lee & Associates | Orange C: CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT TOM GRANT - BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 - IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Robert Gravina Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:35 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments Short-Term Vacation Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. 1. Name 2. City of Residence 3. Phone Number 4. Public Comment 5. Subject 6. Written or Verbal telephonic Comments Thank you. 1. Robert Gravina 2. La Quinta 3. 4.I am in favor allowing STR. There are far more problems that occur with owner occupied homes and the impact of restricting Vacation Rentals to local business, property values, etc. are unfair. Enforcement is the proper direction. Punish the owners who abuse the tikes, not those who obey them. Also, this year is an abortion. 5. STR 6. Please just do your homework. STR are not the problem. Thank you ‐‐ Robert J. Gravina President Evolution Learning; A Technology Consultancy CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ROBERT GRAVINA BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Ricardo Gray Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:42 AM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Ricardo Gray Subject:Written Comments on STVRs in La Quinta EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. 1) Full name: Richard Gray 2) City of residence: La Quinta 3) Phone: 4) Public Comment: Yes, written comments 5) Subject: STVRs in La Quinta - Written Comments 6) Written Comments In my opinion, the City of La Quinta has arbitrarily taken away part of our ownership property rights in open neighborhoods (no HOAs, not gated) with R-1 or R-2 type zoning. We bought our homes with the guarantee that the neighborhood would continue as a residential neighborhood with no open commercial activities. STVRs are effectively commercial operations and in direct competition with hotels and motels, but with less control in every aspect of short-term rental use. Owners in these residential neighborhoods will suffer an undue burden on both their usage and on future value and salability. After all, who wants to pay a premium price to live next to a commercial house with all its attendant problems of noise, unknown neighbors, and a range of other issues in additional traffic and parking, and in possible criminal activities by short-term renters not connected personally to their neighbors. The only genuine solution is to institute a program of eliminating STVRs in R-a and R-2 open neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with HOA boards and controls can be allowed to regulate themselves the issue of STVRs. If the city council cannot or will not set up a program to eliminate STVRs over an appropriate time period, the citizens should prepare a referendum for a special election to determine whether the citizens of La Quinta want to prohibit or to allow STVRs as currently allowed even subject to these proposed regulations. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT RICARDO GRAY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 2 After all, it is patently unfair to allow some properties to be STVRs and deny that same right to other properties. If a house can become a commercial site, that same right is and should be available to other property owners. Allowing only some STVRs effectively sets up an arbitrary decision between home owners - that also sets up the real possibility of corruption in the decision process. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT RICARDO GRAY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:jay griffey Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:50 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Short Term rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Short term rentals have changed the character of my La Quinta neighborhood. Quiet enjoyment of my property isn’t possible in when one of my neighbors has a party every weekend. I endorse the following modifications to City policy. Current moratorium is extended until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would included but not be limited to; Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. Thank you, Jay Griffey La Quinta Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JAY GRIFFEY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Corey Gulbranson Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:29 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Corey Gulbranson Phone Number: City: La Quinta Comments: This is a terrible proposal. What are you people doing?? We are in the worst economic disaster in our lifetime and all you can think of doing is restricting rentals further in La Quinta?? You all need to take a class (or twenty) in economics. This is insanity. Please LEAD this city, don't destroy it. If these restrictions pass, you will have a very large group of angry property owners that will not forget about it. Corey Gulbranson Shorecrest Real Estate, Inc. www.shorecrestinc.com CA DRE #01778954 CA CSLB #B993064 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT COREY GULBRANSON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:50 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STVR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. We are OK with STVRs.We rent out two rooms of our house on occasions ie Coachella and Stagecoach.Good way for neighbors to supplement income to pay property taxes etc.We have had guests from different countries and have had all good experiences.Not a noise problem during these times and from other houses in the LaQuinta cove. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT KJ HAL BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Sarah Handy Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:20 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EMAIL: ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** My name is sarah and I have a short term rental in la quinta . This was our first year running and had high hopes for festivals and events , and like everyone else we had to change our plans due to covid . That being said it still hasn’t stopped us from looking at the positive side of things . Short term rentals have played such an important role for me on a personal level because it was the only source of income I had during this pandemic, and because of the opportunities it gave to the people who contribute to the home , house keeping , pool service , landscaping , IT, management , these are all people who make a living off my rental - if this goes away they are directly impacted. On a more personal level short term rentals also allow people to gather or travel to a place where a hotel is simply not possible , a home has Offerings that a hotel could never , and those things are priceless . I personally have respected the rules and done everything in my power to be the most respectful neighbor I can be. I have open lines of communication with my neighbors and their happiness is my number one priority . Without the neighbors , the neighborhood , there are no short term rentals. Unfortunately in the world we live in today people take advantage of situations whenever possible , I plead - please do not punish those who follow the rules , Pay the taxes , and ultimately make the la quinta cove a more beautiful place . Sincerely , Sarah Handy Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SARAH HANDY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:rhonda hardin Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:50 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. In my opinion we should have a 30 minimum on STRs. It is more about security than anything else. We live at PGA West. One evening last summer, I walked into my bedroom to find an intruder in my bed. Not knowing if this guy had a gun, was here to rob us, do I put a gun to his head and protect my family? Scary situation. Turns out he was just some drunk golfer that walked into the wrong house. This could have had a deadly outcome. Several weeks later, a couple was robed while they were home. While they were in the living room watching TV, someone came in through a sliding glass door to their bedroom and stole all of the women’s jewelry. We also had our garage broken into in the middle of the night. Our gated community is not that secure. Point being, no one knows the background of the individuals coming into our community. Someone comes in and rents for the weekend. It is very easy to see who is here and who is not, easy pickins for someone with bad intentions then they are gone without a trace. Making a 30 minimum will dramatically reduce the probability that someone is here to do harm to our community. This to me is even more important than the noise factor, too many cars parking on the street. We at PGA West are voting to amend our CCR’s to make the necessary changes to enact a 30 day Minimum. Let’s hope it passes. William D. Hardin Sent from Mail for Windows 10 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT WILLIAM HARDIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Heredia, Joan Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:27 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments STR Feb 25 meeting EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. 1)Name: Joan Heredia 2)City: La Quinta 3)Phone: 4)Public Comments on Special Meeting Feb 25, 2021, First reading ordinance amendment Chp 3.25 5)Subject: short Term Rentals 6)Written comments provided below Appreciate the City’s efforts to regulate short term rentals. I support the ordinance amendment to regulate Estate Home STVR and noise devices program. I support a limit on the number of bookings per year and the limit on the number of STVR permits per owner. Suggest the number of bookings should be fixed (with no bonus bookings). I feel allowing 32 bookings is too high for a residential neighborhood and suggest at most it should be 12, which would encourage month long stays more consistent with residential use and existing land use requirements. I support a contract between owner and renter executed at time of booking and available upon request from the renter when asked by code enforcement. While not on the agenda today, I support limiting the overall number of STVRs. San Diego recently adopted a cap of 1% and is introducing a lottery permit system, with some preference given to long term STVRs with no complaints or code violations. While some STVR homeowners may view this as a taking of property, as a permanent resident I feel I already am experiencing a taking of my inherent property values and quiet enjoyment through the proliferation of STVRs. STVRs are being run like businesses, they do not belong in residential zoning and should be regulated and restricted. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to comment. Joan Heredia CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDET JOAN HEREDIA BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL STVRS RESTRICTIONS 1 From:Rick Herpich Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 8:56 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR’s ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I am a homeowner over at PGA West Legends Gate for the past nine years. We need change and stricter guidelines concerning STVR’s. Need to limit available rentals in zoned areas. We live on Golf View Drive. It should be called Rental Drive. Need limits on number of people in a rental home. Cars are parked all over our street. Should be a minimum monthly stay like I believe a lot of other neighborhoods have in La Quinta. Debi & Rick Herpich Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DEBI & RICK HERPICH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Jeff Hillebrand Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:23 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STVRs Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** We urge the City to curtail the growth of STRs in La Quinta. We oppose STRs Jeff and Beth Hillebrand Jeff Hillebrand CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JEFF HILLEBRAND BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:29 PM To:City Clerk Mail; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Monika Radeva; Jon McMillen Cc:'BethAnn Hullinger'; 'Jim Lambert' Subject:Short-Term Vacation Rentals in La Quinta ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I am writing to provide my opinion on short‐term vacation rentals (STVRs) in the City of La Quinta. I strongly favor a hard cap on the number and concentration of permits in residential neighborhoods. The current increasing change in many of our neighborhoods from residences to horizontal hotels creates many problems to those of us who have moved here for a high quality of life. Transient guests who are here in the desert primarily to party and let off steam deserve a place to do that, but our residential neighborhoods aren’t the right place for it. The real estate concept of “quiet enjoyment” has unfortunately become a joke in too many neighborhoods as a result of rambunctious short‐term guests who would be a boon to the City were they staying in a hotel setting, but who are a detriment to adjoining homeowners’ quality of life. I believe an STVR minimum nightly rental period should be established. The city staff report presented at the Jan 27 special meeting indicated that 70% of STVR rentals are four nights or less, so a 5‐ to 7‐night minimum stay would help mitigate the current problems. However, as recommended by Neighbors for Neighborhoods of La Quinta (N4N), my preference would be to begin with an immediate 3‐night minimum, which would increase to a 10‐night minimum after 18 months. The needs of La Quinta residents should take priority over La Quinta absentee landlords, property investors and unlicensed hoteliers. Unfortunately, HOA rules in most residential communities offer equal or greater representation to the latter groups, which has hampered addressing the problem at a more granular level (i.e., at the HOA level). Consequently, as fulltime residents of the City of La Quinta, my wife and I look to our elected representatives to protect our interests against outsiders who are not invested as La Quinta citizens and who look to exploit the City’s many attractions at the expense of permanent residents. Thank you for accepting citizen input on this important matter. Sincerely, Jeff Hullinger La Quinta CA 92253 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JEFF HULINGER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT FOR RESTRICTIONS FOR STVRS 1 From:Edie Hylton Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 3:17 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments No More STVR Permits EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Edie Hylton La Quinta Resident Public Comment on Eliminate the STVR’s in R‐1 Neighborhoods Written Comments Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, As the ongoing concerns of STVR’s continues I would like to make another important point. As you collect information and feedback in regard to the the Housing Element it becomes critical to understand the relationship STVR’s have on housing inventory. In the Cove homes are being purchased for STVR’s as quickly as they come on the market. Investors are seeking and paying cash for homes to turn into short term rentals. We have been contacted several times about selling. This is not good for the long term planning of a city as housing construction does not keep pace with residential growth. If we wish to bring newcomers and new industries to the city we must have reasonable priced and adequate housing. STVR’s have the potential to degrade a neighborhood when too many are allowed in a specific area (as we have seen with some streets in the Cove). As importantly, they prevent newcomers who may decide it will be better to live in Palm Desert or Rancho Mirage where STVR’s are no longer permitted. This program reduces long term rentals and homes to purchase. We need to stop permits in R-1 neighborhoods and create more residential housing to buy or rent (long term) to have the housing for those that want to live, work, grow and volunteer in our city. We want full time residents in our neighborhoods and our city. We hope you will examine carefully how STVR’s impact the housing inventory and the future growth and long term development of the city. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT EDIE HYLTON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From: on behalf of Dennis and Roberta Ingram Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:57 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda Item: STVR Restrictions Name: Roberta Jackson Ingram Phone: City: La Quinta Address: In regards to the proposed limiting of STVRs within La Quinta, I would prefer to see the problems addressed in a more constructive manner. As has been stated numerous times, the problematic rentals need to be dealt with but are a relatively small number of the total rentals. Most owners are responsible and do their best to cooperate with the city and their HOA so that the neighborhood is not adversely affected. Limiting rentals hurts many businesses throughout La Quinta. If the homes are sitting empty when owners are away, local restaurants, grocery stores, and other service providers are losing business. Many of our guests come to La Quinta to golf, relax, eat at fine restaurants and enjoy the spas and other personal services. Especially during the summer months, owners are less likely to be in residence and businesses will likely suffer a significant decrease in income. If the home is empty, there is less need of housekeeping, pool maintenance, window washing, repairs, etc. Encouraging longer term rentals limits who can take advantage of home rentals in the area. Many guests can't afford to come and spend 31 days in a hotel or STVR. Unless guests can work remotely or are retired, long term rentals are not a viable solution. Please consider all the residents of La Quinta before passing new regulations that will limit visitors to the area. Thank you for your consideration. Roberta Jackson Ingram CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ROBERTA JACKSON INGRAM BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Matthew Jakobovits Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 12:14 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Public Comments ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Matt Jakobovits La Quinta CA I appreciate all of the thought and consideration that has gone into this process, and most of the rule changes seem very reasonable and well thought out. The one I cannot wrap my head around is limiting the number of bookings per year to 32 or 36 or some arbitrary number. The main thing that will come out of this is vacant proprieties - this isn’t good for anyone, and vacant properties invite all kinds of problems like burglary, vandalism, undetected maintenance issues. If the goal is to cut down on weekend party groups and encourage longer stays, why not simply require longer stays? Require all short term rentals to be 3 or even 4 nights. This will accomplish this goal while being more easily enforced, and eliminating all of the negative consequences that come with vacant properties. Thank you Matt Jakobovits Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MATTHEW JAKOBOVITS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – OPPOSING THE 32-BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Salvador Jaramillo Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:45 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STRV. EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. I recommend that the city council adopt the following changes for the STRV within the city of La Quinta. The STRV are becoming a problem and are a recurring problem with in the city. Its not stopping all STRV but stopping the future over run of the problems that are associated with STRV. Thank you, Salvador Jaramillo. Current moratorium is extended until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would included but not be limited to; Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SALVADOR JARAMILLO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STRICTER STVR REGULATIONS 1 From:Justis Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:57 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STVR's in La Quinta issue EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Members of La Quinta City Council and City Manager: We am writing in regards to the issues before you regarding STVRs in La Quinta. My wife and I originally purchased a condo at PGA West in 2007. We retired and moved here full-time in 2014. After being here a while, we decided to move to a larger single family residence in 2015 here at PGA West. We did not imagine the proliferation of STVRs that would occur. We bought in a gated community mostly for security reasons and for an expectation of being in a nice quiet neighborhood to enjoy our retirement. After 2 years, the house next door sold to group of investors from the LA area, who to my knowledge, never used the place. They turned it into a STVR that in my opinion was nothing more than a motel with revolving people. Sometimes as many as 3 different groups of people would be occupying the place in the same week. Multiple problems occurred; noise, trespassing on golf course, trash, etc. I feel that the management of La Quinta has gone along with this only to benefit the bank account of the City via TOT. How else can you explain issuing permits to operate a commercial business (Motel/STVR) in a residential zoned area. We are in SUPPORT of the Neighborhood 4 Neighbors suggestions!! However, we would prefer more stringent rules as follows: 1. Two-strikes and Out rule....Cancelling of permit and ALL other permits issued to same holder in the City. 2. License fee should be SUFFICIENT to cover ALL costs of enforcement (salaries, vehicle, insurance, etc.) 3. A permanent moratorium on the issuance of new permits for STVR's. 4. A gradual phase-out of existing permits. Immediately restricting rental periods to be 7-day minimum. After 18 months it becomes a 14-day minimum and after 36 months a 28-day minimum. Also, whenever a residence is sold, it is removed from the STVR's. 5. Any rules regarding STVR's must apply to all residences, including those in HOA's. Please listen to the majority of the people....NEIGHBORHOODS are 4 NEIGHBORS.......get businesses out of them, Thank you for your time in reading this. Sincerely yours, Larry and Nancy Justis LaQuinta, CA 92253 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS LARRY & NANCY JUSTIS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & SUPPORTING N4N RECOMMENDATIONS 1 From:Suzanne Kahn Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:30 PM To:City Clerk Mail; Jon McMillen; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Kevin Meredith; Linda Evans; Monika Radeva; Robert Radi; Steve Sanchez Subject:Written Comment: STVRs EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. I am submitting written comments regarding Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVR) policy. 1) Name: Suzanne Kahn 2) City of residence: La Quinta, CA 3) Phone: 4) Public comment: Written 5) Subject: Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs) Please be clear, I purchased a house in a residential‐zoned area because I wanted to live in a neighborhood, a community. STVRs are businesses, Residential neighborhoods are not. If I’d wanted a transient vibe, I would have purchased a time‐share or a condo where I’d expect people to come and go every weekend. Rental properties in and of themselves are not bad. However, the volume of STVRs in an area dramatically changes its character from residential to commercial. No amount of “rule enforcement” can alter that fact. So while I would personally be more restrictive and implement immediate changes, I can also acknowledge issues from the business owners’ perspective. Therefore I can live with N4N’s (Neighbors For Neighbors) STVR recommendations: 1. Extend the current moratorium until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR Program, including but not limited to the following: 2. Cap STVRs in residentially zoned areas at 3% maximum. Note: My neighborhood currently has 24%. It’s not a residential neighborhood, it’s a motel 3. Beginning immediately, a minimum STVR should be 5 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. Sincerely, Suzanne Kahn : CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SUZANNE KAHN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Jeffrey Kaiser Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:46 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Cc:james Lambert Subject:STR Special Meeting Today EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. All: I agree with the recommendations made by the Neighbors for Neighborhoods of LQ: 1.Current moratorium is extended until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would include but not be limited to; 2.Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% 3.A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. We need to get this STVR situation under control. Our neighborhood at PGA WEST has been hard hit by noisy renters who are very disruptive and have no respect for the golf community atmosphere that we enjoyed when we moved here 11 years ago. Thanks for listening. Jeffrey Kaiser PGA WEST CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JEFFREY KAISER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF N4N STVR RECOMMENDATIONS 1 From:Ellen Kane Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:26 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Please include my letter below in the agenda packet for the special council meeting on February 25, 2021 at 4 PM. Thank you. Ellen Kane Palm Desert, CA Honorable Mayor Evans and City Council Members, The STVR quagmire is one that as a resident of Palm Desert I and many others have lived through. We are grateful to our city leaders who listened to hours of testimony in 2017 and concluded that their residents needed neighbors not short term rentals. You’ve heard the arguments on both sides but as your contemplate this issue, please ask yourself this ‐ would you buy a home next to a STVR? Sincerely, Ellen Kane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ellen Kane 81‐713 Highway 111, Suite E Indio, California 92201 www.desertcornerstoneins.com CA Lic. 0F15709 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ELLEN KANE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Stephen Kiddoo Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:54 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Stvr ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I fully endorse the recommendations of NFN. The city needs to be more concerned with it’s residents quality of life than the income provided by stvrs. Steve Kiddoo La Quinta Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT STEVE KIDDOO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & SUPPORTING N4N STVR RECOMMENDATIONS 1 From:Jahanna Knight Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:29 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:At risk ordinance ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** As a 10 year resident of La Quinta, I have noticed a serious decline in our neighborhoods with STVR’s. The noise, garbage, and parking issues are multiplying while we residents suffer weekend after weekend. Please consider no rental periods shorter than six nights within city limits of La Quinta. Save the neighborhoods from being turned into weekend nightmares. Respectfully Jo Knight, , La Quinta CA 92253. Carpe Diem! CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JO KNIGHT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Colin Lai Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:29 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Zhenke Lai Phone Number: City: La Quinta Comments: City just announced a proposed ordinance that limits all homeowners to only 32 rentals per year! I strongly against it because Reducing the number of rentals dramatically does: Badly hurt businesses, some by 50%+, that are just now trying to come out of the pandemic. Will cut jobs, especially for single moms, restaurants, golf, etc Promotes high rents that only the elite can afford (equity issues) Does nothing to eliminate the bad apples - or the bad guest behaviors The goal of the city is to get rid of the bad apples. This does nothing to get rid of them. Why not put the 32 cap on the bad apples with citations, NOT homeowners who follow the rules? We want families to come stay for a week at a time. What I suggest is the City should focus on punishing the owner who doesn't set up an accurate expectation for their guests. If every homeowner can do what I did, I don't think we will have noise complaints anymore. Here is what I do. I post the following rules in my listing in the first column "1. THIS IS VERY SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT: We are in a quiet residential neighborhood. Do not host parties or gatherings, and do not generate excessive noise, no amplified music to be heard at the property line 24/7, use of a pool or spa or other outdoor activities prohibited from 10pm-8am. The City and Sheriff will issue citations and evict guests who disturb the neighborhood with noise, bring too many cars(no more than 4 cars allowed), or exceed the occupancy limits. If any citation issued to the homeowner due to your activities, you will need to pay for that. No refund if you are evicted." Besides this, every time I got a new reservation, the first message I sent to the guest is to ask they to confirm they had read the house rules and they are willing to follow, also let them know if they don't, the City code enforcement will evict them and ruin their trip, which is very effective, some guests who know they can't follow the rules will just cancel the reservation, if you can check my record, you can see I don't have any complaint related to my 2 STR properties for over a year. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ZHENKE LAI BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 2 So my conclusion is for those responsible homeowners, their STRs will only benefit the community and the City. For those homeowners with no responsibility, the City should get rid of them by voiding their licence immediately if their violation repeats. It takes time and effort to make it right, but we are all learning from the new things, I believe we can make things right and do better than just one cut to everyone. Thank you. Zhenke Lai CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ZHENKE LAI BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Jim Lambert Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:42 AM To:City Clerk Mail; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Monika Radeva; Jon McMillen Subject:Written comments comments for the meeting 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. email comments City Council meeting February 25, 2021. please include in the public record. Jim Lambert La Quinta Public comment STVR problems Written communication In the past months I have emailed and addressed the council regarding short term rentals focusing on what I believe are violations of the city’s general plan, zoning laws and land use laws as written. Allowing unsupervised transient hotels in residential zones with no consideration of the density and impact on full time residents. Today I will highlight a result of the loss of community and neighborhood which these non conforming use stvr’s have caused. When Barb, my wife and I are out walking or riding in our golf cart we frequently meet our resident neighbors walking their dogs, Joe and Finnegan, Bud and Gracie, Doug and Duffy, Nini and Wally, Mary and Glee, Carrie and Maggie. In each meeting the dogs are eager to come and say hello, get a back rub or jump in the golf cart for a full on massage. We know them and they know us, we trust each other. Last Friday afternoon I was in my yard at the side of our home checking the watering of our potted herb garden. On the other side of the 6 foot high privacy wall at the STVR next door a Doberman Pinscher was growling and barking like crazy. I said nothing, just walked to the back of the house where Barb had come outside to see what the commotion was about. The next thing we knew, the Doberman had run around the wall onto the golf course and raced into our yard barking and growling with it’s teeth bared and hackel up and drooling. It cornered us under the portico at the back of the CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS JIM & BARBARA LAMBERT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 2 house barking aggressively 3 feet from us. We stood still and yelled and screamed for the renters next door to get their dog. We had nothing to protect ourselves if the dog lunged at us. Our neighbor on the other side was at the front of his house and heard the commotion and came running to see what was going on. Finally two of the renters showed up on the golf course and called for the dog, which ignored them, still barking and growling at us. Finally after another couple of minutes they got the dog’s attention and it went toward them but then ran back at us. The third time, they got it’s attention and it went to them and they had to pick up the probably 70 pound dog to carry it back to the rental house. We were both traumatized, shaking and pale. Never in our lifetimes had we been in a situation like this, anyone who had a potentially dangerous dog made sure to be aware of what the dog was doing and controlled the dog. These renters did not even call the dog when it was barking at me behind the privacy wall. Short term rental destruction of neighborhood and community are not limited to noise, parking, and trash, they are destroying security and peace in our residential community. Do not allow any more permits in residential zoned areas. Limit any STVRs to the areas planned for them. Jim & Barbara Lambert CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS JIM & BARBARA LAMBERT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 2 This is an urgent matter, and I would appreciate you giving me a call for discussion, at your earliest convenience... Also, it is my understanding there.. is a counsel meeting tomorrow, the 25th to discuss STVR's... If you see Linda Evans, please tell her I was appalled at her reaction to the La Quinta resident that was merely voicing his opinion.. It played all over the local evening news, this gentleman only stated "people taking matters into their own hands"-AT THE POLLS FOR A VOTE! nothing violent about it! Catherdral City has the matter on their ballot.. I will never vote for her again, but there's enough stupid people out there that probably will... Will you please call me, to discuss my concerns.. Thank you, Sandy Langson CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SANDY LANGSON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Jeanne Lombardelli Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:10 PM To:Monika Radeva Subject:Fwd: Written Comments RE:2/25/21 STVR MEETING EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Jeanne Lombardelli Date: February 23, 2021 at 4:13:34 PM PST To: CityClerkMail@laquinta.gov Subject: Written Comments RE:2/25/21 STVR MEETING REQUESTING A PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON NEW LICENSING Mayor Evans,City Counsel,City Manager and City Clerk, My family and I moved to La Quinta two years ago. We wanted to get away from the high rent and low standard of living that we were dealing with. We absolutely fell in love with La Quinta and our children have been so happy here. We live in a gated community and it has been a godsend for the kids during this pandemic. With no school our neighborhood has become the schoolyard and the children living in it have become like their best friends and classmates. Cut to January when our landlord told us that we have three months left here because he claims that he has to move back in because he is selling his home in San Francisco. My son is devastated to learn that he is going to have to leave all his friends that he has become so close with in this community. I promised that we would try and find something close but that is proving to be impossible. Not only are we unable to find anything even though half of the houses in our community sit vacant but also the prices have skyrocketed. It really pains me to see that so many of these houses remain vacant waiting for weekend vacationers when a family of four is unable to secure housing. I believe this is directly related to all the vacation rentals. This is unfair to families like us that are great tenants and also great neighbors. I hope that city counsil members hear the plight of families like mine that moved here for a better life and are now left with nowhere to live. Best, Jeanne Lombardelli CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JEANNE LOMARDELLI BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:James MacRae Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:52 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Hello ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I’m a full time resident of the PGA in LaQuinta and have lived close to a STVR for the past two years. These two short term rentals have been nothing but a problem! We’ve had noise issues of taunting players on our private golf course, people running and using the golf course as a private play ground throwing lawn darts and beer pong games. Trash over flowing from cans left for weeks and not being picked up and dumped. Most of the time when families pull up to the STVR’s they empty the car onto our streets rather then place items in garbage cans! It goes on an on. I feel if this issue isn’t addressed by council to STOP short term rental proliferation I will be selling my home and moving to a community that doesn’t allow STVR’s and it will be out of LaQuinta. James MACRAE LaQuinta,Ca 92253 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JAMES MACRAE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:James Martin Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 2:09 PM To:Monika Radeva Subject:Short Term Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear City Manager Radeva: My wife, Betty Ann, and I support the N4N proposal. We have resided in La Quinta since 2008. We originally lived in PGA West. We relocated from there in 2014, primarily because of the annoyance from short term rentals during the concerts. We moved to a community with an HOA that doesn’t permit short term rentals. The problems we experienced were as follows: 1. Loud parties going into the early morning. 2. Excessive vehicles parking and driving on the streets. 3. Excessive trash left on the curb for days until trash pick up day. 4. More than normal litter on the streets. 5. Disoriented people coming onto our property trying to find their short term rental. 6. Concert goers sleeping on the pool furniture. 7. Concert goers swimming in the golf course lakes. 8. Short term renters walking on the golf courses at all times of the day and night. We believe that La Quinta should phase out short term rentals of less than month to month tenancies. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Best regards, Jim Martin CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS JIM & BETTY ANN MARTIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Interseafisheries Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:28 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Written Comments ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Dear City Council, I live at . There is a rental in the house next to me. I strongly believe that rentals should be for a minimum of 30 days. Regards, John B. Martin La Quinta, CA. 92253 Cell, Sent from my iPad CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JOHN MARTIN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Mary Jo McCowan Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:49 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR's ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Dear City of La Quinta Council members and Mayor Evans, Reference: City Council Special Meeting on 2//25/2021 to discuss short-term rental program recommendations. This email is in support of the Neighbors for Neighborhoods of La Quinta recommendations which are: • To extend current moratorium until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would included but not be limited to; • Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% • A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Mary Jo McCowan La Quinta CA. 92253 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARY JO McCOWAN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL STVR RESTRICTIONS 1 From:Sean McGrath Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 9:39 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear La Quinta Council members, I have reviewed your agenda for the STVR Special Council Meeting on 02/25/2021 and I agree with some of the propositions placed forth. Please make a final vote and move the issue forward. As a La Quinta resident myself, I support short term vacation rentals and wish to recall the moratorium. There has been ample time to review the concerns and put into action the proposed recommendations. Coincidingly, these ordinances should be swifty executed in 30 days, alongside recalling the moratorium. Best Regards, Sean McGrath La Quinta, CA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SEAN McGRATH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & IMPOSING STRICTER REGULATIONS 1 From:Rod McGuire Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:19 AM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Linda Evans Subject:STVR issues, Written and Verbal Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Madam Mayor and City Council Members, I am a full time resident of the Cove. DISREGARDING SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE Council has been presented a great deal of substantiated evidence from economic think tanks and organizations such as the Economic Policy Institute, Harvard Law’s Public Policy Review, The Urban Media Lab and many others, that the effects of a proliferation of STVRs in a community are corrosive. Though the evidence in the reports is indisputably valid, they have been ignored. Neighbors for Neighborhoods prepared a lengthy, expensive, detailed and scientifically substantiated report and recommendations. The report’s findings have been largely ignored. PROTECTING OUTSIDE INVESTORS INTERESTS Numerous times, council members have, in publicly recorded meetings, expressed their concern for investor’s interests. The council has authorized the city to license 1000 STVR businesses in our bedroom communities. Subsequently, rather than serving the interests of its constituents, council now openly states in its legislative decision‐making process, that it considers investor’s interests in tandem with the interests of the resident voters. The new term is “stakeholders”. Purchasing property or owning a business in La Quinta, or anywhere in the United States, does not garner representation in a local government. Council, STVR businesses are NOT “part of a community”. I thought Council members represent the interests of their voting constituency. FOLLOWING PALM SPRINGS FAILED MODEL Council used what we now know to be Palm Springs seriously flawed model as guidelines to inform new legislation. Airbnb itself had to ban 30 Palm Springs properties that the city themselves had not even flagged. Residents currently have a lawsuit pending against the city awaiting appeal through the Riverside County Superior Court. And our CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ROD McGUIRE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 2 council is discussing following Palm Springs failed plan while ignoring residents, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City councils’ consideration of their constituents. “The news of the Airbnb suspensions was a surprise to short‐term rental industry experts and policymakers in Palm Springs.” We ask questions and bring up issues but Council does not discuss or address the issues we bring to you. We are asking for a permanent moratorium on new licensing of unmanned businesses in our bedroom communities. It seems our best interest in preserving our neighbors and neighborhoods have little concern for this council, you were elected to represent our interests not yours. If any member of the council holds any ownership or interests in STVRs or Realestate business, they should recuse themselves from any action on this ordinance. Thank you. Rod McGuire La Quinta Cove CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ROD McGUIRE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Ken Merchant Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:48 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. (1) Kenneth A. Merchant (2) La Quinta, CA (3) (4) Public comment (5) Data on rentals in residential areas (6) Written comments I am distressed by the renters' claims that the data on problems with rental properties, and in particular short‐term rentals, are overstated. They claim that there are a lot of false claims submitted that overstate the problem. I can't imagine that there are many false claims. Instead I would like to argue that there are many problems that do not get recorded in the official statistics, so the distortion in the data is assuredly in the direction of underreporting of problems. I can illustrate from my own recent experience some issues causing the underreporting of problems with rental properties. We have two rental houses next to us. On two recent occasions we have had late night noise problems at one of these properties. These involved drinking parties by the pool with amplified music and loud conversations and yelling. One one occasion I called the two security numbers monitored by the City. On the first one, the phone just rang and rang. The second call sent me immediately to an answering machine. So I gave up. On another late‐night noise occasion, not wanting to go through the frustration again, I did not bother to call at all. So while we suffered through two uncomfortable late‐night noisy pool parties, neither of these issues got recorded. On a third occasion, the rental house was full of renters (seven cars parked in front of the house!). Toward the end of the day, perhaps 20 of the renters headed out to the golf course with their clubs. Some of them practiced on one of the greens. Some others played the two holes in the little corner of the course in front of our house. I was worried about damage to the course, so I called PGA West security, but I got only an answering machine. So I called the PGA West Tournament Clubhouse, since the problem was on the Nicklaus Tournament course. There was no answer there, even though I was calling at about 4:10 p.m. So I called the Private Clubhouse. The lady who answered there said that the Nicklaus Tournament course was not their jurisdiction, but she would see what she could do. I never saw any security come. If they came after dark, of course, the renters would already have been inside. So here is another problem caused by renters that almost assuredly did not get recorded in the official statistics. These examples are just from the last two months. I could describe similar problems that have occurred in prior months and years. Another problem that I have heard about is when a problem is reported, but by the time security comes out, which is typically after a significant delay, they cannot identify the problem. The kids are no longer running around on the golf course, or the music has been turned off. So this problem either does not get recorded, or it is recorded as a false claim. The reality, of course, is that this is not a false claim; a real problem did occur. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT KENNETH MERCHANT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 2 The point I want to make is that these renters, particularly those renting just for a short period of time, like a weekend, are not welcome parts of our neighborhood. They come to party, and they cause problems. And the statistics that you see greatly underreport those problems. Please do what you can to limit the disruptions to our neighborhood caused by these unwelcome, inconsiderate interlopers. At a minimum, please extend the ban on new rental properties indefinitely. And hopefully you can do something to actually reduce the number of these businesses, "little motels," that we have to put up with in our residential neighborhoods. Concurrently, please find a way to deal with the poor enforcement of violations that currently exists. Thank you for your consideration. Ken Merchant CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT KENNETH MERCHANT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Christopher Mikulenka Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:48 PM To:John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:STVR Comments Attachments:RadiusMapToolSTVRLQ.PNG EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Good afternoon La Quinta City Council, First of all I would like to thank all of you for your time and effort put into the special meeting on January 27, 2021 which started at 5:00 pm and ended at 12:02 am on January 28, 2021. I was there until the end even though the audio during closing statements went silent the last few minutes. Hopefully the meeting tonight will not be a duplicate of the last marathon session. The purpose of my communication is to provide some concerns regarding STVR items as listed below. 1. I made a statement about the percentages the city was showing on the total numbers of STVRs citing the statistics to be misleading in nature. While the total numbers may be very low, the real issue is with high density in a very low percentage of streets overall in the city of La Quinta. More than 75% of the STVRs are on < 8% of the streets. These numbers prove there is a problem with density. Granted there are some streets which are 100% STVRs because of the way the development was originally built, but these are within the tourist commercial zones. As an example, there are fifteen (15) streets in the Cove that have ten (10) or more STVRs on a street. My street on Fiesta Drive has six (6) to (9), which is twenty-five (25) to thirty-six (36) percent density saturation, when counting licensed and non-licensed operators. 2. Council stated implementing a 300' radius requirement would not be cost effective while questioning how the STVR applicant could possibly provide this information to the city. This is the city's program, and the program should be managed by the city with consideration to all aspects. Please find a pdf attachment to this communication from a free site called mapdevelopers.com. I was able to provide a sample for my property in less than three minutes at zero cost. The city should accept the responsibility of administering the program based upon how they decide to regulate the program, and this cost should be passed on to the applicant to cover the city's expenses of issuing the license. 3. A simple half hour onsite inspection would allow for verification of the radius requirement along with accuracy of what the applicant is presenting to verify for accuracy (e.g. # of bedrooms, available parking spaces, etc.). Again, this cost should be passed on to the applicant in the licensing process. 4. I posed a question to City Council asking why the city chose not to issue citations during the most recent lockdown for properties who defied the order allowing for essential workers only and no recreational accommodations being allowed. The city posted a notice on the STVR website, and the city sent a letter to all STVR owners or mangers/management companies notifying them of the rules, yet not one citation was issued for the fourteen incidents reported in my area. I was told by compliance officers they had been instructed to only educate the offending licensees when a violation was reported. I would like the city to provide an official response to the original question posed. 5. I requested a copy of the City of La Quinta Official Zoning Map because I was curious as to why STVRs were even being allowed to operate in certain areas. According to the zoning map, the area I live in on Fiesta Drive is zoned as a low density residential area while the Cove is zoned as Cove residential. There is no mention whatsoever of commercial. The city does however have Village, Regional, Neighborhood, and Tourist commercial notated on the master zoning plan. Is this not where the "hotels" are supposed to be? I reviewed the city ordinances regarding STVRs beginning with Ordinance 501, and none of the ordinances appear to make changes to the master zoning plan for the city other than to define "hotel" as being a broad stroke of any dwelling where someone can sleep overnight. The ordinances appear to be written only for regulation purposes to help the city in collecting the transient occupancy tax, ensure they are licensed, and that they play by the rules. The problem is these "hotels" are in the middle of our residential neighborhoods with zero consideration for density concerns. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CHRISTOPHER MIKULENKA BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION ON STVR REGULATIONS 2 6. If the 300' radius is too difficult to implement, even though it really is not, why not go to a straight percentage (e.g. no > 15% on any given street)? 7. The moratorium on STVR licenses should be extended at least to the end of 2021 until substantial progress is made on an agreement between all parties which is beneficial to the overall harmony in La Quinta. 8. Why doesn't the city reach out to hotel corporations and offer incentives to build more hotels along the 111 corridor? The new Residence Inn by Marriott is in an appropriate location because it is located in a Regional Commercial zoning area, which is where "hotels" are supposed be located. There are a number of available properties between Washington and Jefferson which could be developed, and the building of additional hotels would provide more jobs for our local community. This is just my opinion, but I believe my opinion has merit and offers some middle ground. I believe the city is not doing enough to get a handle on STVRs other than to make simple changes which require very little thought and are being offered only as a temporary tool of appeasement. While these miniscule changes are better than nothing, they will not keep the majority happy. I know there are many who are lobbying for an outright ban on STVRs in La Quinta, and I can speak with certainty that the citizens of La Quinta will not accept anything less than density restrictions being implemented. This may be the only way to provide a middle ground solution which offers compromise to all. I believe wholeheartedly this matter will end up on a ballot initiative if the city does not act more purposely with respect to the citizens of La Quinta. Based upon recent history, STVRs probably would be no more in La Quinta if the situation progresses to the voters. Respectfully, Christopher Mikulenka Christopher Mikulenka Have a Great Day! CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CHRISTOPHER MIKULENKA BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION ON STVR REGULATIONS 1 From:Celia Miller Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:32 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Celia Miller Phone Number: City: La Quinta I own a vacation home at PGA West for personal use and do not rent my property. I would like to voice my support in restricting STVR. It is my hope that STVR are restricted to a minimum of 2 weeks in the City of La Quinta. I have had my quality of life interrupted by unruly and aggressive renters. It seems like the week-end renters are there just to party and do not care about the full-time or part-time residents. I strongly urge you to restrict STVR to 2 week minimum stays and to put a moratorium on issuing new permits. -Celia Miller CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CELIA MILLER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – RESTRICT STVRS TO 2 WEEKS & CONTINUE MORATORIUM ON NEW PERMTIS 1 From:Douglas Montgomery Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:56 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:written comment EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. hi, i do plan to attend the meeting, Feb 25th and would like to offer a written comment as a STVR home owner in La Quinta. I am in favor of STVR in La Quinta, support some controls in case the bad actors, but strongly feel these should continue. Douglas Montgomery La Quinta, 92253 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Mary Murray Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:23 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:In Favor Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** We are in favor of STVRs and oppose restrictions on STVR’s. Matt Murray Mary Murray Leah Pedro Al Ledbury CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARY AND MATT MURRAY, LEAH PEDRO AND AL LEDBURY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN FAVOR OF STVRS 1 From:andrea chavez Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 8:41 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. EMAIL: Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Andrea Nelson Phone Number: City: La Quinta Hello, I am writing to show support of STVRs. While our program has some issues and some revisions are necessary some of the proposed items are concerning and don’t seem to address the problems which the council has previously highlighted. Limiting the number of stays is yet another example of how over regulation is rampant in our state currently. Capping the number of stays per year and limiting the potential revenue brought to the city does not make sense to me or other STVR owners I have discussed this with. This is especially concerning when we are still trying to recover from a global pandemic and shut down of the economy. We should be encouraging tourism and maximum stays for STVRs, hotels and all other businesses many of which have struggled to survive and some who unfortunately have not. Additionally, what problem does this solve? Does this magically get rid of the bad hosts, bad property managers and bad guests? Does this solve parking, trash and noise issues from these same bad hosts? The only thing this seems to accomplish is creating more work for city staff in building this process out, regulating it and limiting the amount of revenue that is brought to the city. Please reconsider this as an option as many of us struggle to survive. I am happy to see the city considering holding guests and hosts accountable as this is long overdue. Hosts are tasked with properly vetting guests and while we do a very good job of this most of the time there are no guarantees in life and we cannot avoid guests that have bad intentions, have had a bad day or possibly had a little too much fun. These occurrences are not acceptable as they cause strain on our neighbors but this is not a direct reflection of the owner/host but rather of the guest. I fully support holding guests accountable but do feel that issuing a strike to the homeowner for these occurrences on a one off situation is unfair to the host. Is it possible to track multiple occurrences of issues at residences before issuing a strike? For example, a single occurrence does not result in a strike however the second occurrence then starts the clock and a first strike is issued. Also regarding accountability, there is another group of people that need to be held accountable and these are the bad actor neighbors who feel that all STVRs are bad. This group (N4N) continually floods message boards on social media promoting their agenda to get STVRs shut down by providing their audience false information, citation numbers and encouraging others to call the STVR hotline “early and often” regardless of the complaint being valid or not. This is a serious issue and a serious strain on city resources. I know personally of a homeowner who is under attack each and every time they have guests stay at their home, there have been at least 3 false claims that I am aware of against this property that happens to be nextdoor to an N4N member who is very vocal against shutting down STVRs. It is unfortunate that these individuals and this group is not also held accountable for their actions, but for some reason the rules of decency and being neighborly don’t CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ANDREA NELSON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 2 apply to them. Not only that the city has decided to include their report into council meetings along with ad-hoc recommendations as almost a show of support for this group and their actions. We all care about our neighbors and neighborhoods, not just N4N. Thank you for your time and consideration. Changes are needed but please be considerate of all parties when making these decisions and considerate of the struggles we are all having, not just certain groups. Thank you for your time, Andrea CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ANDREA NELSON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Matthew Nelson Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:04 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR'S ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Folks, I am writing to you in support of the N4N's recommendations for STVR'S. At a minimum the moratorium should be extended. I have lived here full time for 19 years and I now have 5 STVR'S within 300 ft. of my condo. Enough is enough. Matthew Nelson CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MATTHEW NELSON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & IN SUPPORT OF N4N RECOMMENDATIONS 1 From:Donald Nimis Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 5:59 AM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Policy Recommendation for STVR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Mayor Evans & City Officials: I have written several times prior to City Council meetings with my thoughts on the STVR subject. In those letters I have detailed the never ending nuisance of living on a street with three or more STVRs’. At one time, these homes were either lived in or rented by the season. I never had an issue with seasonal rentals. Now we have continuous weekly or weekend turnover of groups of young people or multiple families. The homes are not owned by individuals. They are owned by investor groups, and investor groups will continue to increase their investments with no logical conclusion unless we put more value on residents. I ask you: ‐ Listen to residents not remote investors ‐ Continue the moratorium on permits until a permanent structural changes are made with new ordinances which will; ‐ Cap STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% ‐ Phase out short term rentals of less than 28 days ‐ Include HOA’s in ALL actions Sincerely, Donald Nimis La Quinta, CA 92253 Sent from my iPad CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DONALD NIMIS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Grant Parker Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 9:31 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Good Morning, Trying to get rid of the "Bad Apples" by reducing all Short Term Vacation Rentals ("STVR's") to 32 rentals per year is highly prejudical and will prove to be ineffective. Reducing the annual rentals will yield all of the following negative results.: 1. Drastically reduce the annual TOT the City receives. 2. Reduce the revenue to most all businesses who rely on visitor revenue. 3. Reduce employment of all businesses relying on visitors revenue. 4. Increase residential rental rates which discriminate particularly against the working class. 5. Does nothing to eliminate the Bad Apples from renting. In lieu of the City plan to reduce annual rentals to 32, I suggest a more logical, proactive and systematic approach. Hit the problem where it exists as follows: 1. Increase annual STVR licensing fees to $2,000 annually making the license more exclusive. 2. Increase the fines for unlicensed STVRs to $5,000 per occurance. 3. Increase fines for proven disturbances to $1,000 per occurance. 4. To reduce false complaints by neighbors, create a $500 fine for filing a false complaint. 5. In the booking process and then again before the renters arrive, the Homeowner must notify the Renter of all of the following: - Limiting occupancy. - No parties and/or gatherings of any kind. - No outside noise after 10 PM. - No parking in front of neighbors houses. - Guests/renters may be fined $1,000-$5,000 for violation of these rules. - No exceptions. 5. Mandate all of the following for all STVRs. a. Minimum age to rent is 30 year old. b. Houses must have video cameras in the front of the house and at the front door to monitor guests. c. Each house must have NoiseAware devices stragecily located inside and outside of property. d. Multiple reflective signs posted in the rear yard areas specifying "Silence After 10PM." e. Signs must be posted at all entranes within the house stating City and House rules. - Limiting occupancy. - No parties and/or gatherings of any kind. - No outside noise after 10 PM. - No parking in front of neighbors houses. - Guests/renters may be fined $1,000-$5,000 for violation of these rules. - No exceptions. The above suggested ideas are a proactive approach and do not unfairly penalize the homeowners who ridgedly follow the rules. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY GRANT PARKER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 2 Capping the annual rentals is discriminatory, grossly unfair and will have negaitve consequences. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Best regards, Grant Parker Cell CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY GRANT PARKER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:57 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 Good afternoon, Trying to get rid of the "Bad Apples" by reducing all Short Term Vacation Rentals ("STVR's") to 32 rentals per year is highly prejudical and will prove to be ineffective. Reducing the annual rentals will yield all of the following negative results.: 1. Drastically reduce the annual TOT the City receives. 2. Reduce the revenue to most all businesses who rely on visitor revenue. 3. Reduce employment of all businesses relying on visitors revenue. 4. Increase residential rental rates which discriminate particularly against the working class. 5. Does nothing to eliminate the Bad Apples from renting. In lieu of the City plan to reduce annual rentals to 32, I suggest a more logical, proactive and systematic approach. Hit the problem where it exists as follows: 1. Increase annual STVR licensing fees to $2,000 annually making the license more exclusive. 2. Increase the fines for unlicensed STVRs to $5,000 per occurance. 3. Increase fines for proven disturbances to $1,000 per occurance. 4. To reduce false complaints by neighbors, create a $500 fine for filing a false complaint. 5. In the booking process and then again before the renters arrive, the Homeowner must notify the Renter of all of the following: - Limiting occupancy. - No parties and/or gatherings of any kind. - No outside noise after 10 PM. - No parking in front of neighbors houses. - Guests/renters may be fined $1,000-$5,000 for violation of these rules. - No exceptions. 5. Mandate all of the following for all STVRs. a. Minimum age to rent is 30 year old. b. Houses must have video cameras in the front of the house and at the front door to monitor guests. c. Each house must have NoiseAware devices stragecily located inside and outside of property. d. Multiple reflective signs posted in the rear yard areas specifying "Silence After 10PM." e. Signs must be posted at all entranes within the house stating City and House rules. - Limiting occupancy. - No parties and/or gatherings of any kind. - No outside noise after 10 PM. - No parking in front of neighbors houses. - Guests/renters may be fined $1,000-$5,000 for violation of these rules. - No exceptions. The above suggested ideas are a proactive approach and do not unfairly penalize the homeowners who ridgedly follow the rules. Capping the annual rentals is discriminatory, grossly unfair and will have negaitve consequences. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Respectfully, Greg Parker CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT GREG PARKER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From: Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:50 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. EMAIL TO: cityclerkmail@laquintaca.gov SUBJECT: Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EMAIL: Agenda Item: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Monique Pinkstaff Phone Number: City: La Quinta I support property rights and reasonable, common sense regulations of the industry. The proposed ordinance limiting homeowners to 32 rentals per year should be directed at rentals with multiple citations not the responsible homeowners following the rules and regulations. Complaints lodged to the 24/7 STVR hotline should no longer be made anonymously. The resident’s name and contact information should be mandatory at start of call. If a complaint is investigated and unfounded, the caller should be fined for misusing the hotline. This will help eliminate false complaints, curb divisiveness in the community and the wasting of precious resources. Thank you. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MONIQUE PINKSTAFF BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING STRICTER REGULATIONS 1 From:Mary Ploetz Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:46 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR RECOMMEND N4N PROPOSAL ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** My husband and I STRONGLY endorse the recommendations of N4N proposed for STRV’s. Thank you, Mary Ploetz Joe Savageau La Quinta, CA 92253 Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS MARY PLOETZ & JOE SAVAGEAU BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF N4N STVR RECOMMENDATIONS 1 From:Bruce Poynter Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:57 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments. ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am writing to request an extension of the moratorium on new Short Term Vacation Rental licensing in R1 zones. In the last year I have watched the various Coachella Valley City Council meetings. Two things stand out: 1) the number of mostly out of town STVR owners. 2) The tremendous amount of time cities, residents, Code and Law Enforcement put in trying to manage - control- babysit these problems. The mini-motel owners often say, “I’ve never had a problem with my unit.” Ha. It’s because they’re sound asleep in San Diego, Orange County, another state or country, dreaming of money. Meanwhile the de facto property manager, (neighbor, resident next door, in the middle of the night), is calling Fire, Police, Medics, Code and other agencies on yet another party house disaster in a once peaceful neighborhood. I have a great concern for the rise in serious crime in the STVR industry. Check the news. In the last 18 months, shootings, stabbings, rapes, robberies, human trafficking, drug houses, and units with multiple murders. The soft targets that are STVRs are being exploited by the criminal element. Whatever happened to Neighborhood watch.? The industry cannot vet constantly rotating groups of strangers showing up every weekend. In my lifetime I have never seen another issue that’s caused more and constant problems for Families, Neighborhoods and Cities as the STVR industry. Bruce Poynter, Fire Captain, (Ret.) Palm Desert Phone: CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT BRUCE POYNTER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & REQUESTING TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM 1 From: Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:16 PM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen Subject:Written comment: on STVR issue EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear City Clerk, please include my letter below in written comments to the February 27th special council meeting on STVRs. Christel Prokay Palm Desert Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, We cannot ignore the fact that Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs) cause serious health problems - mentally and physically. Disruptive parties cause sleepless nights, hypertension, migraines and other stress induced illnesses. Frustration, a sense of helplessness and anger are not promoters of health and happiness. The STVR problem is not just about noise and other disturbances that can make life miserable for anyone. The main problem STVRs cause is the slow destruction of the town itself. No more social cohesion and identity. No more neighborhood spirit and security. No more appeal for potential homebuyers and long term tenants who want to grow a family there, use the schools there, do the shopping all year long there, pay their taxes there and expect respect and quality of life in return. Whose town is it? Residents who live there full time or half a year there, or out-of-area investors? Is it normal for residents to feel like unwelcomed strangers in their own town? The STVR investors ironically say " we love your town". You bet they love the town; they love the money they can make there. Too bad they ruin the town and the residents' life in the process. Christel Prokay Founder Palm Desert United CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY CHRISTEL PROKAY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:MARY ROLSTON Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:55 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** As a homeowner in PGA we have seen the number of STVR’s escalate, to the point where they will soon be outnumbering homes used by owners. Who is going to police all the comings and going’s? Sincerely, Mary Rolston Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARY ROLSTON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:scott rosen Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:33 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. I am writing this email to let you know that STVR are ruining my PGA west neighborhood and quality of life. The noise is the biggest issue. The STVR model should not exist in residential neighborhoods as the model is set up for mass crowds who just want to party and show no regards for the neighborhood or neighbors. I am living this reality now. Please help. Some recommendations are:  Current moratorium is extended until permanent structural changes can be made to the STVR program; as a minimum these changes would included but not be limited to; Cap on STVRs in residentially zoned areas not to exceed 3% A minimum STVR rental period immediately beginning at 3 nights, increasing to 10 nights after 18 months and to 28 nights after 36 months. Thank you Scott Rosen Full time La Quinta resident CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SCOTT ROSEN BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Agnes Rosiak Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:13 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments Short-Term Vacation Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. 1. Agnes Rosiak 2.La Quinta 3. 4. Support for short‐term rentals 5. Supporting short term rentals by owners. 6. At a minimum, we ask that the city reconsider the separation requirement and ensure that those who rely on short‐ term rentals can continue to rent their homes. This important economic recovery lifeline should not be restricted at a time when many are struggling. Now more than ever, owners are renting their homes to provide much needed additional income. Thank you. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT AGNES ROSIAK BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:29 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:STVR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Hello all, We have chosen to live in La Quinta back in 1994 when we joined PGA West From weekenders to now permanent residents, the ONLY thing which made us chose this area is the daily QUIET and PEACEFUL living we soon noticed, then from a condo on the Stadium Course we had to wait for our house to be built and we moved in on August 2000, now living on the Nicklaus Private Course. A few more years after we were blessed with the "Quiet and Peaceful" living knowing up front that no house could never become a rental property....??? How did that change? We have no idea but as we started to see NOISE Pollution with all these "Fessssstivals" then you add the people making noise at 2 AM next door who are there for the week or weekend, this was purely and INVASION on our PRIVACY. After all PGA West is a PRIVATE CLUB, right? So who in their best mind would want to mess up this beautiful area with people who cannot afford to own without rental??? That baffles my wife and I. We are newly retired, we owned businesses and some with 300+ employees and let me brief you on how to retain employees AND residents................. IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR NEEDS, THEY WILL LEAVE and then what will you have? We did belong to 3 other Private CC, so if our opinion matters, then read this again, otherwise, you may call us very soon "out‐of‐towners".... Literally, we are at the "chosing point", get rid of the gophers or you will loose your crop. Best of Luck and this was written with all the respect we have for so many here, and we hope they were NOT duped when they bought/moved here.... The Roys (Gilles and Angele) Nicklaus Private at PGA West. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS GILLES & ANGELE ROY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Carol Runnells Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:25 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Carol and Richard Runnells (Carol) (Richard) STVR - 11/2018 I think I can speak for MOST STVR owners - we take pride in our homes that we offer our travelers. It’s a lot of work, but, well worth it to us, the travelers, our vendors we need as part of our team, for the City of La Quinta and for the increased value of real estate we bring to the community. Travelers - like it or not - have caught onto vacations spent in a HOME away from home where everyone can respectfully be together instead of staying in separate hotel rooms. This will only increase as time goes on and we all need to accept this and encourage it and reap the rewards. Restaurants, grocery stores, warehouse chains, gas stations, golf courses, polo matches, tennis matches and everything the desert has to offer, benefits from our travelers being here. Make it tough on the ones breaking the rules, not on the owners that do everything by the book! We have yet to receive a call from the city for an unruly traveler. Our fees have always been paid on time and we have a license and permit to conduct business. I request you do not restrict the number of bookings an owner may have annually. This is not the solution. This will only hurt those that benefit the most. Respectfully - Carol and Richard Runnells CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS CAROL & RIHARD RUNNELLS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From: Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:17 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STR's EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. As a full time resident of La Quinta I would urge you to continue the moratorium on short term rentals. I would also encourage the phasing out of short term rentals and work towards a ban of anything less than 28 days. The problems we have seen in PGA West are I'm sure the same as other areas of La Quinta. Your truly, Barbara Savery La Quinta, CA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT BARBARA SAVERY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Marvin Segal Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:45 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Short Term Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear LQ Council Members – Please carefully consider the current N4N STR recommendations & then – hopefully – activate them. Doing so can only further improve our wonderful city & it’s future. It has been a difficult time for many resident home owners – your constituents. Please help to correct this. Respectfully & with thanks, ‐‐‐ Marvin & Stefanie Segal LQ CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARVIN SEGAL BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF THE N4N STVR RECOMMENDATIONS 1 From:Todd Shaver Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:00 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request for Public Comments City Council Meeting on 2/25/2021 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Agenda: Request for public comment, STVR Restrictions Name: Todd Shaver Phone Number: City: La Quinta I believe that the solution to STVR issues is to manage out the known party houses and poorly managed properties, not we the responsible STVR owners and operators. In my history with STVR, myself and my management have never had a problem with any complaints because we screen our guests very well and carefully vett them before allowing them to rent. Owners and managers and workers/vendors alike need the income the STVR generate, and the pandemic has exacerbated this issue for all. Lodging in the immediate area is also limited, and STVR help keep guests and tourists in La Quinta, generating city revenue during the many events that happen annually in the area. Control and management are key and I am in full support of better regulation, but shutting all STVR down creates more problems than it could solve. Thx. Todd CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT TODD SHAVER BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & IMPOSING STRICTER REGULATIONS 1 From:nick sheth Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:01 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Verbal Telephonic Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. My name is Nick Sheth, I live in La Quinta at . My comments are brief, I have owned a property in PGA since 2017 that I used part time and and rent it on a short term basis for several years now. Due to the environment the scenery and the pace of life, I purchased another home in La Quinta and have been living here since September of last year, having moved from San Francisco with my partner. I am very alarmed to see that the city is punishing residents like me by potentially preventing me from renting my current residence on a short‐term basis also, in addition to restricting the way I rent my other property in terms of the number of bookings I may have on an annual basis. I moved to La Quinta because of the freedom to use my property as I wish within the regulations of the city. I think it’s crazy that we’re not punishing and regulating the problem short term rentals more strongly and instead punishing those of us who contribute tens of thousands of dollars per year in TOT. I also employ vendors and staff at both properties that are based in LQ to the tune of over 30k per year, I can assure you I spend more than most residents to ensure my properties are the embodiment of the LQ lifestyle. I pay dearly to ensure the quality of my guests, I only ask you let those of us willing to do so to continue to allow guests to discover what’s so great about La Quinta. I bought here after renting for years, let’s keep introducing people to our beautiful city. Thanks, Nick Sheth ‐‐ Nick Sheth CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT NICK SHETH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From: Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:44 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STVR EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Please stop and ban STVR'S . They are a major nuisance and disrupt the neighborhoods that they are in. La Quinta is a quite residential area. It seems hard for me to imagine that you have all run for election or re election with promises of working with and for the people who voted you in. It is about time for you all to full fill your promises and eliminate STVRS. I have lost confidence in Linda Evans. I can tell by her actions that she wants to show everyone how much money she has raised for the city of La Quinta, and we should be thankful she is the mayor. I am considering starting a recall petition to have a new mayor. We deserve a mayor who will listen to the people and not dance to her own music. I do hope you listen to us and STOP the STVRS. Respectfully Neale H Siegel CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT NEALE SIEGEL BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Jeff Smith Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:46 AM To:Monika Radeva Subject:forward to city council EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. February 24, 2021 To: La Quinta City Council, and Mayor Evans From: Jeff Smith La Quinta, Ca 92253 Dear Mayor Evans and Council: I again write to urge this council to indefinitely extend the moratorium on non-hosted short term vacation rentals (STVRs) in the R-1 and R-2 zoned areas of La Quinta, and begin a phase out of non-hosted STVR licenses in those areas. As those licenses expire the units can shift to 30 day + rentals or sale to expand our housing stock...housing stock that will bring permanent residents as owners or long term rentals They will remain investments for owners. Or investment can shift to the mixed use tourist-residential areas where non- hosted STVRs are still be allowed. Or investors can purchase in HOA areas where STVRs are allowed. It will not be the end of tourism or rentals. Snow birds will still flock to La Quinta. Why I make such a request is readily apparent to those who live within earshot of an STVR. As time goes on and more licenses are granted more and more residents will come to realize that these businesses are simply incompatible with our residential neighborhoods. The reasons for this incompatibility have been vigorously explained to the Council time after time. I believe you know the reasons for resident opposition, and the issues are not going to go away. Opposition will only grow. What I don't know is why the council has turned a deaf ear to that opposition. Why has the Council chosen to promote these businesses instead of protecting residents from them? This is a serious question. We really don't know why. Financial gain, once costs are subtracted from income, simply can't overcome the harm done to the fabric of our communities regardless of where they are. Residents deserve protection. Don't they? Please respond publicly. We really do want to know why. Jeff Smith CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JEFF SMITH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Sloane Smith Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:38 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. To whom it may concern: I am writing to you today in concerns regarding the 24/7 anonymous hotline for short‐term rentals. I just wanted to voice my concerns over this and let you know about some of the experiences we have seen since this was put into place. We have seen an increase in bullying and harassment throughout our neighborhood of PGA West since we purchased the property in February of 2020. What once started as a friendly relaxing environment has quickly turned to walking around on pins and needles throughout the neighborhood. I am concerned over this anonymous hotline, as it has enabled the community to harass other members of the community. I recently watched a surveillance video of a property located in PGA West where a golfer walked up to the property and pointed their finger at an individual sitting by himself in the hot tub and said something; however there was no audio to view what the exchange was. A little while later security showed up at the house where again another surveillance video recorded the interaction with audio. The homeowner provided video during the period that the complaint was filed and it clearly shows no noise coming from the house or backyard. It is clear after watching the video that this was a false complaint of noise. We have also spent thousands of dollars establishing surveillance video and noiseware on our property to protect ourselves. We are not protecting ourselves from crime that you could expect from living outside a gated community. We are protecting ourselves and our guests from the harassment and bullying of neighbors living in our community of PGA West. Please make it mandatory for everyone who calls in to file a complaint to be required to leave his or her name, address ect. This will hold all parties accountable for their actions and will eliminate the need for a false noise complaint and wasting of city's resources. I hope that by holding all parties accountable for their actions will lead to less bullying and harassment in the community and allow the City of La Quinta to restore the friendliness that we once saw. Thank you for considering my recommendations. Sincerely Sloane Smith CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SLOANE SMITH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Sloane Smith Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:57 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comment EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear City Council of La Quinta I am writing to you today regarding the limit on the number of bookings per year for certain STVRs on today’s council agenda. There are many reasons why I oppose this recommendations and I will outline them below. The first one and truly the most important one is how limiting the number of bookings allowed for STVR will have a devastating effect on the small businesses of La Quinta as well as the dining and shopping in Old Town La Quinta. Many of these small businesses rely on the business from tourism to make ends meet each month. During this trying time due to the pandemic where many small businesses are struggling to stay open, limiting a main source of revenue generated through tourism will have an overwhelming effect on their business. Second, by limiting the number of bookings per year for certain STVR will also have a negative effect on the City of La Quinta. The City will lose money from tourism through the TOT, Property Tax Revenues, Sales Tax Revenues as well as Gas Tax Revenue. Lastly, which is a personal one for me, which is the reason we choose to purchase a STVR, my children. The cost of living and raising children has drastically increased over the years. It is a known fact that nowadays living off one income is unheard of; making a living off two family incomes is just as hard. Many families now more that ever need to rely on that side gig income to make ends meet. I strongly oppose limiting the amount of rental days for STVRs. Sincerely Sloane Smith CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SLOANE SMITH BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Dick Storbo Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:30 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written comments for special meeting 2/25/21 Attachments:Dick 22521 letter.pdf EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Attached are my written comments for the special meeting. Dick Storbo CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DICK STORBO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS To: La Quinta City Council From: RE: Written Comments for Special Meeting 2/25/21 Mayor & City Council Members, It appears to me that you have already decided to ignore the comments from your constituents who oppose STVRs in residential neighborhoods, and are proceeding with adopting a revised ordinance. The revised STVR ordinance is very complex and will consume a large part of city resources to implement. Even with the revised fees, the city is greatly expanding staffing and outside consultants in order to manage this program. Policing this program will not work any better than previous attempts because it unfairly asks neighbors around STVRs to police these businesses for someone else’s proﬁt. I have three suggestions that you should consider to improve this proposed ordinance: 1.All STVRs should be required to have a code compliance inspection, not just to verify if the applicant is being truthful about the number of bedrooms and parking, but to ensure that the bedrooms are legal and the home meets basic health & safety requirements. Permit fees can be adjusted up to cover this inspection cost. 2.There should be a limit of one (1) STVR permit per owner, and owners must be residents of Coachella Valley, which would allow for a quicker response time to problems and make it easier to hold owners accountable for their property. This would also eliminate outside investment companies and groups from owning STVRs—these people have no stake in the community. 3.Appeals, including for item 2 above, should require a process of public notiﬁcation and input from property owners who live within 300’ of the STVR in question. If STVR owners can prove they are responsible neighbors, they can make their case to the people most affected. I also don’t understand why you are not codifying Executive Order #9 about the 2 Strikes and Noise Restrictions into this revised ordinance. I hope you take these comments seriously, and I hope someday you will explain why this council is supporting STVRs in residential neighborhoods over your constituents. You owe us that much. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DICK STORBO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From: Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:18 PM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez Subject:Written comments: vacation rentals ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Elected officials of La Quinta, I am writing again in support of short-term vacation rentals. As a vacation rental owner in PGA West, I am committed to being a good host for my guests and a good neighbor to other homeowners in PGA West and La Quinta. As you consider potential changes to the VR program I strongly urge you all to remember two elements of the big picture: 1. The economic impact of vacation rentals. Vacationers inject money into the local economy. Every dollar spent by vacationers has a multi-dollar impact on the local economy, as money goes into the pockets of local property managers, their staff (handymen & agents), cleaners, pool maintenance people, exterminators, etc., as well as local restaurants, shops, golf courses, gas stations, etc. 2. The importance of being a welcoming community. Before I was a homeowner in La Quinta, I was a short-term vacation renter. In fact, on my very first visit to La Quinta as a 5-year-old in 1976, my family booked a one-week vacation rental in the town. Many opponents of vacation rentals complain that they want "neighbors" next door to them, not "vacationers." What does this mean? How does the presence of "vacationers" next door diminish anyone's enjoyment of their home? The dirty little secret is that many VR opponents' complaints have very little to do with noise, littering etc. (problems that are non-existent in the overwhelming portion of vacation rentals)... and EVERYTHING to do with not wanting the "wrong sort of people" in their neighborhood. When VR opponents say that they want they want "neighbors" next door, what they mean is that they want to live next to the sort of people who can afford to own a home like theirs. Yes, snobbery and elitism are very much at play here. Vacation rentals open up enjoyment of La Quinta to people from all walks of life including young adults, middle-class people and young families with children. For young adults, families and groups of friends, renting a 3 or 4-bedroom home is much more economical than staying in a hotel. In a previous email to you all, I mentioned one of my recent short-term renters, a severely disabled Afghanistan war veteran who is now an avid golfer and was profiled in a national golf magazine. I challenge VR opponents to explain to me why that young man, a veteran who nearly lost his life fighting on behalf of this country, is unworthy to rent a home in La Quinta for 3 days of golf and recreation with his friends. I'm sorry, but if residents of La Quinta have a problem with the presence of short-term vacationers like that veteran, the problem is with them, not him. Michael Sweeney, Homeowner, PGA West, La Quinta CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MICHAEL SWEENEY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Megan Taylor Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:57 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written comment in favor of stvrs EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Hi! I’d like to email in support of stvrs, specifically that we not be capped at how many rentings we can do per year. If we are only allowed a certain amount of reservations per year it will severely affect us and our livelihood. We do everything we can to abide by the rules and be respectful homeowners and manager of other rentals. Please don’t hurt the ones who do this, simply target the “bad apples” and inflict restrictions on them directly. A few comments: This would Badly hurt businesses, some by 50%+, that are just now trying to come out of the pandemic. Will cut jobs, especially for single moms, restaurants, golf, etc Promotes high rents that only the elite can afford (equity issues) Does nothing to eliminate the bad apples - or the bad guest behaviors Thank you So much. Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MICHELLE TAYLOR BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP 1 From:Craig Thompson Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:32 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written comments: Feb. 25 meeting permanent ban, density EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear Mayor, City Manager and City Council, The short term vacation rental situation has been a point of discussion and I have to say from personal experience a real detraction in the La Quinta Cove over the last ten years. A quick view of Google maps can show the simple fact that the Cove is reaching capacity for any new residential construction. Regular Short Term Rentals in the Cove have clearly become a business that often requires hotel level support. Boisterous party attitudes, with the playing of loud outside music is common, often echoing in our canyon until after 10:00pm. Neighbors are often required to call the STVR hotline multiple times. In general, the Cove is a quiet, respectful neighborhood. STVR’s need to be more considerate for the majority, full time residents by maintaining reasonable noise regulations, strict property maintenance and parking rules. They need to follow cleanliness and health regulations that are monitored and inspected. CAL‐ OSHA has a number of regulations for Lodging establishments that clearly include STVR’s. We should make sure that STVR owners and their third party partners and employees clearly understand that they will be held to these regulations and required inspections. I think that it if the City is going to license STVR’s then it is the City’s responsibility to provide clear guidance defining all of the regulations required to operate these mini‐hotels. We should continue the STVR moratorium and consider stopping additional STVR licensing in the COVE. Regulations for limiting licensing density like the 300 ft recommendation from the AD Hoc Committee could be considered in the future. No one wants to see our residential neighborhood de‐evolve into transient party locations. The Cove has survived through a number of economic highs and lows and old timers will tell us that we have recently been on an upswing with home prices accelerating. If the city is going to continue to promote the unbridled spread of STVR’s, operating as mini‐ hotel businesses that offer daily scheduling, then we are likely to find the long term residents disappear. I don’t believe an STVR dominated neighborhood the size of the Cove is sustainable or desirable. Sincerely, Craig R. Thompson P.E. La Quinta Homeowner CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CRAIG THOMPSON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Marie Thompson Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:55 AM To:City Clerk Mail; Craig Thompson; Jon McMillen; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Linda Evans; Monika Radeva; Robert Radi; Steve Sanchez Subject:Written comments: Feb. 25 meeting permanent ban, density EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. City manager, city council and mayor, It is important for the city to make the moratorium of new STVR permanent in residential neighborhoods R‐1 (including the Cove), non gated communities. Plan your STVR communities outside of our Neighborhoods. You need to implement a 300 ft radius for density for STVRs that already exist. Adhoc committee and N4N recommended this and the city has chosen to ignore it. The city says that is too expensive to implement, how is that possible? More expensive than adding more code enforcement or the “hotline”? The hotline is a poor attempt to handle the over saturation of STVRs and the issues that come with that. In the future we are going to call the sheriff department, which will create a record of issues which is not happening with the hotline or code enforcement. Please do your duty and represent your constituents not “business” interests invading our neighborhoods. Sincerely, Marie Thompson La Quinta resident, 8 years ‐‐ Marie Thompson CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARIE THOMSPON BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – STVR PERMANENT MORATORIUM & DESITY RESTRICTIONS 1 From:Dave Torrey Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:40 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written Comments / Short-Term Vacation Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. 1. Name ‐ Dave Torrey 2. City of Residence ‐ Santa Barbara,CA 3. Phone Number ‐ 4.Public Comment ‐ I started coming down to the La Quinta area 30 years ago. I brought my wife down to La Quinta when we first started dating (17 years ago) and she too fell in love with the town. Two years ago while staying at Legacy Villas while on our 14th anniversary (and down for the Desert Triathlon) we went thru a few open houses. When I came back from getting my race packet my wife told me she had been doing the math and said she thought we could do this. It was the best purchase we have ever made and Legacy Villas is now the main part of our retirement plans. But we could only make the purchase because of our ability to have short term vacation rentals. We want to be able to come down and enjoy our unit, spend time with family and friends, so we are not looking for long term tenants but rather short term guests who can discover the "Gem of the Desert" for themselves, whose dollars help pay the wages at restaurants, golf courses and attractions. Please keep short term rentals as an option for those who depend on the income and made life decisions based upon its potential. 5. Subject ‐ Short‐term Vacation Rentals 6. Written or Verbal telephonic Comments ‐ Written Comments Thank you Dave David Torrey CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DAVE TORREY BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS 1 From:Charles Valutas Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:22 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:STR Rentals EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Since most of the problems are by the select few who rent for under five days, I suggest a seven day minimum. There are a number of retirees and families who come over from San Diego, Orange, and L.A. counties during the holiday weeks of Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, and Easter. Moving forward toward a ten day minimum would deprive owners of being able to rent to these folks, and deprive law abiding vacationers of enjoying our outstanding community. I pay real estate taxes in La Quinta although I cannot vote because I am not a permanent resident. Regards, Charles Valutas CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CHARLES VALUTAS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STRICTER STVR REGULATIONS 1 From: Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:03 AM To:Monika Radeva Subject:VERBAL TELEPHONIC COMMENTS Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. LAURA VANO La Quinta, CA 92253 Public Comment REQUEST TO SPEAK AND HAVE MY WRITTEN COMMENTS ADDED TO PUBLIC COMMENTS PLEASE EXTEND THE MORATORIUM PERMANENTLY ON NEW LICENSING OF ABSENT OWNER STVRs IN OUR R-1 ZONES Madam Mayor and Council Members, Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. This is a very important matter to me. I watched the entire SEVEN HOURS of the last meeting on January 27th (Sally wasn't the only one). It was a first for me, and at the end I was very disappointed because it really felt like our City Officials either aren't listening, or simply don't care about their RESIDENTS. At the last special council meeting…four out of every five speakers were against STVRs. Following resident voter’s contributions, council proceeded to spend hours deliberating how to make the program, that the voters clearly and emphatically stated they do not want, work for STVRs. A gentleman from PGA West put together an extensive report that would have cost the city tens of thousands of dollars. The resulting scientifically conducted survey showed 66% of the residents don’t want any STVRs here. https://www.neighborsforneighborhoodslq.org CONSCRIPTING UNPAID RESIDENTS AS OVERSIGHT MONITORS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT LAURA VANO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & SUPPORTING STRICTER REGULATIONS 2 Residents are regularly urged through social media, various publications and the city website, to use the call center for complaints about STVRs. A mailer was sent further urging residents to report unlawful STVR activity. Following these consistently published urgings, council has, at nearly every public meeting since, announced residents are making false claims against STVRs. Setting up unmanned businesses 10 feet from the beds we sleep in, conscripting us as monitors and first responders, and then repeatedly admonishing us for not doing it to council’s standards, is not a favorable working system. Council is using residents to protect investor’s interests. We didn’t sign up for this job! DISMISSING DENSITY CAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the last special council meeting, council ignored the residents’ requests for a density cap. Council ignored the ad hoc committee’s recommendations for a density cap. Council disregarded the expansive N4N study recommendation limiting licensing to transient tourist zones. Council ignored the residents’ requests for a permanent moratorium on new licensing and instead addressed trash, noise and heavier fines for present operators. Council’s appointed ad hoc committee with 9 members profiting from STVRs and only three against them – along with city staff, recommended strong density caps. Council rejected them. ON JANUARY 21ST COUNCIL RECONFIRMED THE 300’ RULE FOR BED AND BREAKFASTS IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 588, evidence this is a viable, and by your own hand, currently supported and used density measure. At the time the ad hoc report was created, after months of studies and deliberations, staff established the 300’ foot rule was efficient, in effect, and easy to implement. Why was staff’s finding re-engineered? Density is a huge issue!! Begin a Solution by: CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT LAURA VANO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & SUPPORTING STRICTER REGULATIONS 3 A permanent moratorium on new licensing of unmanned businesses in our bedroom communities. YOU REPRESENT LOCAL VOTERS, NOT INVESTORS. Thank you for your time! Laura Vano CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT LAURA VANO BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS & SUPPORTING STRICTER REGULATIONS 1 From:Rick Vershure Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:42 AM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Written comment ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I am Richard Vershure and live at in LaQuinta. Phone - . My wife and I want to weigh in with those who favor 28+ day minimum rentals. For every reason we can think of, we would vote to eliminate short term rentals in our neighborhood as soon as possible Richard and Maureen Vershure Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS MAUREEN & RICHARD VERSHURE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Olivier Chaine Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 6:53 AM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Bruce Hoban; Jelena Tamm; Kimberly Estrada; Eddy Estrada Subject:Written Submission for Special Meeting, City Council, February 25th, 2021 Attachments:Oridance586-2.pdf EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. From: VRON‐LQ Board & We Love La Quinta Coalition Residence: La Quinta Subject: STVR Special Meeting 2/25/2021 Phone: In an effort to provide constructive input into the city's ordinance review process, we have prepared a draft that we are submitting for the city council, mayor and city attorney's review. Sincerely, Olivier Chaine President ‐ VRON‐LQ CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 586 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.25 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS WHEREAS,Chapter 3.25 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) relates to short-term vacation rentals; and WHEREAS,the City has the authority to regulate businesses operating within the City; and WHEREAS,Chapter 3.25 of the LQMC addresses permitted uses, short term vacation rental process and permitting procedures; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendments are necessary to clarify regulations, process, and standards for short-term vacation rentals under the City’s short-term vacation rental program, as more particularly set forth in this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of La Quinta does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 3.25 shall be amended as written in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby grant the City Clerk the ability to make minor amendments to "Exhibit A" to ensure consistency of all approved text amendments prior to the publication in the La Quinta Municipal Code. SECTION 3.Posting:The City Clerk shall, within 15 days after passage of this Ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council, shall certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City of La Quinta. SECTION 4.Effective Date:This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 5.Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 17 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 3.25 SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS Chapter 3.25 SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS 3.25.010 Title. EXHIBIT A This chapter shall be referred to as the “Short-Term Vacation Rental Regulations.” (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.020 Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations for the use of privately owned residential dwellings as short-term vacation rentals that ensure the collection and payment of transient occupancy taxes (TOT) as provided in Chapter 3.24 of this code, and minimize the negative secondary effects of such use on surrounding residential neighborhoods. B. This chapter is not intended to provide any owner of residential property with the right or privilege to violate any private conditions, covenants and restrictions applicable to the owner’s property that may prohibit the use of such owner’s residential property for short-term vacation rental purposes as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) C. The requirements of this chapter shall be presumed to apply to any residential dwelling that has received a short-term vacation rental permit. A rebuttable presumption arises that, whenever there is an occupant(s), paying rent or not, of a residential dwelling that has received a short-term vacation rental permit, the requirements of this chapter shall apply, including but not limited to any suspension or other modifications imposed on a short-term vacation rental permit as set forth in this chapter. The city manager or authorized designee shall have the authority to implement any necessary or appropriate policies and procedures to implement the rebuttable presumption set forth in this section. 3.25.030 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning respectively ascribed to them by this section: “Advertise,” “advertisement,” “advertising,” “publish,” and “publication” mean any and all means, whether verbal or written, through any media whatsoever whether in use prior to, at the time of, or after the enactment of the ordinance amending this chapter, used for conveying to any member or members of the public the ability or availability to rent a short-term vacation rental unit as defined in this section, or used for conveying to any member or members of the public a notice of an intention to rent a short-term vacation rental unit as defined in this section. For purposes of this definition, the following media are listed as examples, which are not and shall not be construed as exhaustive: Verbal or written announcements by proclamation or outcry, newspaper advertisement, magazine advertisement, handbill, written or printed notice, printed or poster display, billboard display, e-mail or other electronic/digital messaging platform, electronic commerce/commercial Internet websites, and any and all other electronic media, television, radio, satellite-based, or Internet website. “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 vacation rental. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 4 of 17 “Applicant” means the owner of the short-term vacation rental unit. “Authorized agent or representative” means a designated agent or representative who is appointed by the owner and also is responsible for compliance with this chapter with respect to the short-term vacation rental unit. “Booking transaction” means any reservation or payment service provided by a person or entity who facilitates a home-sharing or vacation rental (including short-term vacation rental) transaction between a prospective occupant and an owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative. “City manager” means that person acting in the capacity of the city manager of the city of La Quinta or authorized designee. “Declaration of non-use” means the declaration described in Section 3.25.050. “Dwelling” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 9.280.030 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code; “dwelling” does not include any impermanent, transitory, or mobile means of temporary lodging, including but not limited to mobile homes, recreational vehicles (RVs), car trailers, and camping tents. “Good neighbor brochure” means a document prepared by the city that summarizes the general rules of conduct, consideration, and respect, including, without limitation, provisions of this code and other applicable laws, rules or regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of short-term vacation rental units. “Hosting platform” means a person or entity who participates in the home-sharing or vacation rental (including short-term vacation rental) business by collecting or receiving a fee, directly or indirectly through an agent or intermediary, for conducting a booking transaction using any medium of facilitation, including but not limited to the Internet. “Local contact person” means the person designated by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative who shall be available twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week with the ability to respond to the location within forty-five minutes for the purpose of: (1) taking remedial action to resolve any such complaints; and (2) responding to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit. A designated local contact person must obtain a business license otherwise required by Sections 3.24.060 and 3.28.020 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. “Notice of permit modification, suspension or revocation” means the notice the city may issue to an applicant, authorized agent or representative, local contact person, occupant, owner, responsible person, or any other person or entity authorized to be issued such notice under this code for a short term vacation rental unit, upon a determination by the city of a violation of this chapter or other provisions of this code relating to authorized uses of property subject to this chapter. “Occupant” means any person(s) occupying the dwelling at any time. “Owner” means the person(s) or entity(ies) that hold(s) legal and/or equitable title to the subject short term vacation rental. “Property” means a residential legal lot of record on which a short-term vacation rental unit is CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS located. “Rent” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 3.24.020 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 5 of 17 “Rental agreement” means a written or verbal agreement for use and occupancy of a privately-owned residential dwelling that has been issued a short-term vacation rental permit, including a dwelling that may have a permit which has been or is under suspension. “Responsible person” means the signatory of an agreement for the rental, use and occupancy of a short-term vacation rental unit, and/or any person(s) occupying the short-term vacation rental unit without a rental agreement, including the owner(s), owner’s authorized agent(s) or representative(s), local contact(s), and their guests, who shall be an occupant of that short-term vacation rental unit, who is at least twenty-one years of age, and who is legally responsible for ensuring that all occupants of the short-term vacation 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 vacation rental unit. “Short-term vacation rental permit” means a permit that permits the use of a privately owned residential dwelling as a short-term vacation rental unit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, and which incorporates by consolidation a transient occupancy permit and a business license otherwise required by Sections 3.24.060 and 3.28.020 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. “Short-term vacation rental unit” means a privately owned residential dwelling, such as, but not limited to, a single-family detached or multiple-family attached unit, apartment house, condominium, cooperative apartment, duplex, or any portion of such dwellings and/or property and/or yard features appurtenant thereto, rented for occupancy and/or occupied for dwelling, lodging, or any transient use, including but not limited to sleeping overnight purposes for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days, by any person(s) with or without a rental agreement. “STVR” may be used by city officials as an abbreviation for “short-term vacation rental.” “Suspension” means that short-term vacation rental permit that is suspended pursuant to Section 3.25.090. “Tenant” or “transient,” for purposes of this chapter, means any person who seeks to rent or who does rent, or who occupies or seeks to occupy, for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, a short term vacation rental unit. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.040 Authorized agent or representative. A. Except for the completion of an application for a short-term vacation rental permit and business license, the owner may designate an authorized agent or representative to ensure compliance with the requirements of this chapter with respect to the short-term vacation rental unit on his, her or their behalf. Nevertheless, the owner shall not be relieved from any personal responsibility and personal liability for noncompliance with any applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short-term vacation rental unit, regardless of whether such noncompliance was committed by the owner’s authorized agent or representative or the occupants of the owner’s CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS short-term vacation rental unit or their guests. B. The owner must be the applicant for and holder of a short-term vacation rental permit and business license and shall not authorize an agent or a representative to apply for or hold a short-term vacation rental permit and business license on the owner’s behalf. The owner’s signature is required on all short-term vacation rental application forms, and the city may prescribe reasonable requirements to Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 6 of 17 verify that an applicant or purported owner is the owner in fact. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.050 Short-term vacation rental permit—Required. A. The owner is required to obtain a short-term vacation rental permit and a business license from the city before the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative may rent or advertise a short-term vacation rental unit. No short-term vacation rental use may occur in the city except in compliance with this chapter. No property in the city may be issued a short-term vacation rental permit or used as a short-term vacation rental unit unless the property is a residential dwelling that complies with the requirements of this chapter. B. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall be valid for one (1) year and renewed on an annual basis in order to remain valid. 1. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license renewal application shall be submitted no earlier than sixty (60) calendar days but no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the permit’s expiration date. Failure to renew a short-term vacation rental permit as prescribed in this section may result in the short-term vacation rental permit being terminated. 2. A new owner of a property (or a new person and/or new entity that owns or controls a business or organization or other entity of any kind, such as a limited liability company, which is the owner of a property) previously operated as a short-term vacation rental unit by the former owner (or by a former person or entity that owned or controlled the business or organization or other entity of any kind that continues to be the owner of the property) may not renew the previous owner’s short-term vacation rental permit and shall apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit, pursuant to this chapter, if the new owner (or new person and/or new entity that owns or controls a business or organization or other entity of any kind that continues to be the owner of a property) wants to continue to use the residential dwelling as a short-term vacation rental unit. 3. If an owner or an owner’s authorized agent or representative, pursuant to all applicable laws, constructs additional bedrooms to an existing residential dwelling or converts non-bedroom spaces and areas in an existing residential dwelling into additional bedrooms, the owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall notify the city and update the short-term vacation rental unit’s online registration profile upon city approval of the addition or conversion so that the city may confirm that such conversion is consistent with this chapter and the code, including all applicable provisions in Title 8 of the code, and reissue the short term vacation rental permit so that it accurately identifies the number of approved bedrooms, if the owner wants to continue to use the dwelling as a short-term vacation rental unit. The CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS city may conduct an onsite inspection of the property to verify compliance with this chapter and the code. Code compliance inspections may be billed for full cost recovery at one hour for initial inspection and in thirty-minute increments for each follow-up inspection pursuant to subsection D. For purposes of this chapter, “reissue” or “reissuance” of a short-term vacation rental permit means a permit that is reissued by the city, with corrected information, as applicable, to be valid for the balance of the existing one (1)-year permit and license period. Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 7 of 17 C. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall be valid only for the number of bedrooms in a residential dwelling equal to the number of bedrooms the city establishes as eligible for listing as a short-term vacation rental unit and shall not exceed the number of bedrooms allowable for the number of occupants as set forth in Section 3.25.070. The allowable number of bedrooms shall meet all applicable requirements under federal, state and city codes, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 9.50.100 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) governing “additional bedrooms” and all applicable building and construction codes in Title 8 of this code. A short-term vacation rental permit shall not issue for, or otherwise authorize the use of, additional bedrooms converted from non-bedroom spaces or areas in an existing residential dwelling except upon express city approval for the additional bedrooms in compliance with this code, including Section 9.50.100 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time), and upon approval of an application for a new or renewed short-term vacation rental permit as provided in subsection B. D. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed, and may be suspended or permanently revoked, if the property, or any building, structure, or use or land use on the property is in violation of this code. The city may conduct an inspection of the property prior to the issuance or renewal of a short-term vacation rental permit and/or business license. Code compliance inspections may be billed for full cost recovery at one hour for initial inspection and in thirty-minute increments for each follow-up inspection. For purposes of this subsection, a code violation exists if, at the time of the submittal of an application for a new or renewed short-term vacation rental permit or business license, the city has commenced administrative proceedings by issuing written communication and/or official notice to the owner or owner’s responsible agent or representative of one or more code violations. For purposes of this chapter, “building,” “structure,” and “use or land use” have the same meanings as set forth in Section 9.280.030 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. E. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed, and may be suspended or permanently revoked, if any portion of transient occupancy tax has not been reported and/or remitted to the city for the previous calendar year by the applicable deadline for the reporting and/or remittance of the transient occupancy tax. F. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed, and may be suspended or permanently revoked, if the residential dwelling to be used as a short-term rental unit lacks adequate onsite parking. For purposes of this subsection, “adequate onsite parking” shall be determined by dividing the total number of occupants commensurate with the approved number of bedrooms as provided in the table under Section 3.25.070 by four, such that the ratio of the total CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS number of occupants to onsite parking spots does not exceed four to one (4:1). For example, a residential dwelling with five bedrooms may permissibly host a total number of ten occupants and therefore requires three on-site parking spots. Onsite parking shall be on an approved driveway, garage, and/or carport areas only in accordance with Section 3.25.070(R), and no more than two street parking spots may count towards the number of on-site parking spots necessary to meet the “adequate onsite parking” requirement under this subsection.Properties in HOA developments to follow HOA rules (CC&Rs). G. An owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative who claims not to be operating a short term vacation rental unit or who has obtained a valid short-term vacation rental permit and business license pursuant to this chapter, may voluntarily opt-out of the requirements of this chapter, prior to the issuance or expiration of a short-term vacation rental permit and business license that are Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 8 of 17 applicable to the short-term vacation rental unit, only upon the owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person executing, under penalty of perjury, a declaration of non-use as a short-term vacation rental unit, in a form prescribed by the city (for purposes of this chapter, a “declaration of non-use”). Upon the receipt and filing by the city of a fully executed declaration of non-use, the owner or owner’s authorized agent representative shall be released from complying with this chapter as long as the property is not used as a short-term vacation rental unit. Use of the property as a short-term vacation unit after the city’s receipt and filing of a declaration of non-use, is a violation of this chapter. If, after a declaration of non-use has been received and filed by the city, the owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative wants to use that property as a short-term vacation rental unit, the owner shall apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit and business license and fully comply with the requirements of this chapter and the code; provided, however, that if a short-term vacation rental permit is or will be suspended on the date an owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative submits to the city a declaration of non-use for the short-term vacation rental unit under suspension, then the owner may apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit and business license only after twelve (12) consecutive months have elapsed from the date of the declaration of non-use, and the owner and owner’s authorized agent or representative otherwise shall fully comply with the requirements of this chapter and the code. (Ord. 577 § 1, 2019; Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.060 Short-term vacation rental permit—Application requirements.A. The owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative must submit the information required on the city’s short-term vacation rental permit application form provided by the city, which may include any or all of the following: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the subject short-term vacation rental unit; 2. The name, address, and telephone number of the owner’s authorized agent or representative, if any; 3. The name, address, and twenty-four-hour telephone numbers of up to two (2) local contacts; 4. The address of the proposed short-term vacation rental unit, Internet listing site and listing CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS number; 5. The number of bedrooms shall not exceed the number of bedrooms allowable for the number of occupants as set forth in Section 3.25.070. The allowable number of bedrooms shall meet all applicable building and construction requirements under federal, state and city codes, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 9.50.100 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) governing “additional bedrooms” and all applicable building and construction codes in Title 8 of this code; 6. Acknowledgement of receipt of all electronically distributed short-term vacation rental information from the city, including any good neighbor brochure; 7. The owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative who has applied for a short-term vacation rental permit shall provide the city with written authorization that issuance of a short term vacation rental permit pursuant to this chapter is not inconsistent with any recorded or unrecorded restrictive covenant, document, or other policy of a homeowner association (HOA) Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 9 of 17 or other person or entity which has governing authority over the property on which a short-term vacation rental unit will be operated; in furtherance of this requirement, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that an owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative does not have written authorization for the issuance of a short-term vacation rental permit if a HOA or other person or entity which has governing authority over the property has submitted to the city a duly-authorized official writing, which informs the city that short-term vacation rentals of thirty (30) consecutive days or less are not permitted on the property applying for a short-term vacation rental permit; and 8. Such other information as the city manager or authorized designee deems reasonably necessary to administer this chapter. B. The short-term vacation rental permit application shall be accompanied by an application fee as set by resolution of the city council. A short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall not be issued or renewed while any check or other payment method cannot be processed for insufficient funds. C. The city may determine the maximum number of bedrooms in a residential dwelling with multiple bedrooms eligible for use as a short-term vacation rental unit upon issuance of a short-term vacation rental permit. When determining the maximum number of bedrooms eligible for use as short-term vacation rentals, the city shall consider the public health, safety, and welfare, shall comply with building and residential codes, and may rely on public records relating to planned and approved living space within the residential dwellings, including, but not limited to, title insurance reports, official county records, and tax assessor records. Owners of residential dwellings that exceed five thousand square feet of developed space on a lot may apply for additional bedrooms. An owner and/or owner’s authorized agent or representative may not advertise availability for occupancy of a short-term vacation rental unit for more than the approved number of bedrooms listed in the short-term vacation rental permit issued by the city pursuant to this chapter. In addition to any other rights and remedies available to the city under this chapter, the first violation for failing to advertise the approved number of bedrooms may be subject to a fine by an administrative citation, and a second or subsequent violation for failing to advertise the approved number of bedrooms may result CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS in a revocation (which may include permanent revocation) of the short-term vacation rental permit and/or any affiliated licenses or permits pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3.25.100. D. A short-term vacation rental permit application may be denied if the applicant has failed to comply with application requirements in this chapter, or has had a prior short-term vacation rental permit for the same unit revoked within the past twelve (12) calendar months. In addition, upon adoption of a resolution pursuant to subsection H, the city may limit the number of short-term vacation rental units in a given geographic area based on a high concentration of short term vacation rental units. The city shall maintain a waiting list of short-term vacation rental permit applications for such geographic areas where the city determines, based on substantial evidence after a noticed public hearing and public hearing, there is a higher than average concentration of short-term vacation rental units that either affects the public health, safety, and welfare or significantly negatively impacts the character and standard of living in a neighborhood within that geographic area, or both. E. Short-term vacation rental permit applications may take up to, and the city shall have, thirty (30) calendar days to process. An application for a renewal of a short-term vacation rental permit and business license should be submitted at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the existing permit’s Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 10 of 17 expiration to allow sufficient time for the city to process the renewal application. Nothing in this subsection or chapter shall be construed as requiring the city to issue or deny a short-term vacation rental permit in less than thirty (30) calendar days, as no permit shall be issued until such time as application review is complete. No short-term vacation rental use may occur in the city without a valid short-term vacation rental permit is issued in accordance with this chapter. F. Upon a change of ownership of a property (or upon a new person and/or new entity owning or controlling a business or organization or other entity of any kind, such as a limited liability company, which is the owner of a property) licensed to operate as a short-term vacation rental unit, the owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall notify the city of such change immediately within 5 business days.The existing short-term vacation rental permit shall be terminated and the property must cease operating as a short-term vacation rental immediately. Failure to comply may result in a fine of $1,000 per day for a continuing violation of this subsection F. G.Within 5 business days immediately upon a change of an owner’s authorized agent or representative, local contact, or any other change pertaining to the information contained in the short-term vacation rental application, the owner or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall update the short-term vacation rental unit’s online registration profile used by the city for the implementation of the short-term vacation rental regulations. Failure to update this information within 5 business days may result in a violation of this chapter, including but not limited to a suspension or revocation of a short-term vacation rental permit, until all information is updated. H. The city manager or authorized designee shall prepare, for adoption by resolution by the city council, a review procedure and criteria to evaluate the limitation for issuance of STVR permits and/or STVR applications for geographic areas within the city as set forth in subsection D. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 3.25.070 Operational requirements and standard conditions. A. The owner and/or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the short-term vacation rental unit is used in a manner that complies with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the subject short term vacation rental unit. {add}. Failure to do so, a short term rental unit in neighborhoods zoned as residential, who has received a citation in the preceding 12 month, will be limit to no more than fifty two (52) contracts for vacation rental use of the property by a paying guest, in the following 12 months. A short term rental unit who has received 2 citations in the preceding 12 months will be limited to thirty two (32) contracts for vacation rental use of the property by a paying guest, in the following 12 months. B. The responsible person(s) shall be an occupant(s) of the short-term vacation rental unit for which he, she or they signed a rental agreement for such rental, use and occupancy, and/or any person(s) occupying the short-term vacation rental unit without a rental agreement, including the owner, owner’s authorized agent or representative, local contact(s) and their guests. No non-permanent improvements to the property, such as tents, trailers, or other mobile units, may be used as short-term vacation rentals. The total number of occupants, including the responsible person(s), allowed to occupy any given short-term vacation rental unit may be within the ranges set forth in the table below. By the issuance of a short-term vacation rental permit, the city or its authorized designees, including police, shall have the right to conduct a count of all persons occupying the short-term vacation rental unit in response to a complaint or any other legal grounds to conduct an inspection resulting from the use of the short-term vacation rental unit, and the failure to allow the city or its authorized designees the ability to conduct such a count may constitute a violation of this chapter. The city council may by resolution further restrict occupancy levels provided those restrictions are within the occupancy ranges set forth below. Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 11 of 17 Number of Bedrooms Total of Overnight* Occupants Total Daytime** Occupants (Including Number of Overnight Occupants) 0 – Studio 2 2—8 1 2—4 2—8 2 4—6 4—8 3 6—8 6—12 4 8—10 8—16 5 10—12 10—18 6 12—14 12—20 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 7 14 14—20 8 16 16—22 9 18 18—24 * Overnight (10:01 p m. – 6:59 a.m.) ** Daytime (7:00 a m. – 10:00 p.m.) C. The person(s) listed as the local contact person in the short-term vacation rental unit’s online registration profile shall be available twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, with the ability to respond to the location within thirty (30) minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit or their guests. The person(s) listed as a local contact person shall be able to respond personally to the location, or to contact the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative to respond personally to the location, within thirty (30) minutes of notification or attempted notification by the city or its authorized short-term vacation rental designated hotline service provider.The city must attempt to contact the local 24 hour contact person(s) immediately when a complaint is received from an identifiable numer, and prior sending code enforcement to the property. D. The owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure that the occupants and/or guests of the short-term vacation rental unit do not create unreasonable or unlawful noise 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 vacation rental unit. E. Occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit shall comply with the standards and regulations for allowable noise at the property in accordance with Section 9.100.210 and 11.08.040 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. 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 the outside of any short-term vacation rental unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. Observations of noise related violations shall be made by the city or its authorized designee from any location at which a city official or authorized designee may lawfully be, including Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 12 of 17 but not limited to any public right-of-way, any city-owned public property, and any private property to which the city or its authorized designee has been granted access. F. Prior to occupancy of a short-term vacation rental unit, the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall: 1. Obtain the contact information of the responsible person; 2. Provide copies of all electronically distributed short-term vacation rental information from CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS the city, including any good neighbor brochure to the responsible person and post in a conspicuous location within the short-term vacation rental unit, in a manner that allows for the information to be viewed in its entirety; and require such responsible person to execute a formal acknowledgement that he or she is legally responsible for compliance by all occupants of the short-term vacation rental unit and their guests with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term vacation rental unit. This information shall be maintained by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative 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 this code or any other applicable law, rule or regulation pertaining to the use and occupancy of the short-term vacation rental unit.The city shall maintain and provide an accurate and up to date good neighbor brochure on its website and made available to the owner or the owner’s authorized representative including an changes made based on the ordinance and / or through emergency orders. G. The owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person shall, upon notification or attempted notification that the responsible person and/or any occupant and/or guest of the short-term vacation rental unit has created unreasonable or unlawful 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 vacation rental unit, promptly respond within thirty (30) minutes to immediately halt and prevent a recurrence of such conduct by the responsible person and/or any occupants and/or guests. Failure of the owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person to respond to calls or complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants and/or guests of the short-term vacation rental unit within thirty (30) minutes, shall be subject to all administrative, legal and equitable remedies available to the city. H. [reserved] I. 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 on scheduled trash collection days. The owner, the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall use reasonably prudent business practices to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Chapter 6.04 (Solid Waste Collection and Disposal) (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. J. Signs may be posted on the premises to advertise the availability of the short-term vacation rental unit as provided for in Chapter 9.160 (Signs) (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. K. The owner, authorized agent or representative and/or the owner’s designated local contact person shall post a copy of the short-term vacation rental permit and a copy of the good neighbor brochure in a conspicuous place within the short-term vacation rental unit, and a copy of the good neighbor brochure shall be provided to each occupant of the subject short-term vacation rental unit. L. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the owner and/or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 3.24 concerning transient occupancy taxes, Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 13 of 17 including, but not limited to, submission of a monthly return in accordance with Section 3.24.080 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code, which shall be filed monthly even if the short-term vacation rental unit was not rented during each such month. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS M.In neighborhoods zoned as residential: guesthouses, detached from the primary residential dwelling on the property, or the primary residential dwelling on the property, may be rented pursuant to this chapter as long as the guesthouse and the primary residential dwelling are rented to one party. N. The owner and/or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall post the number of authorized bedrooms and the current short-term vacation rental permit number at the beginning or top of any property description in advertisement that promotes the availability or existence of a short-term vacation rental unit.Where a field is provided by an OTA, the permit number must be posted in that field.In the instance of audio-only advertising of the same, the short-term vacation rental permit number shall be read as part of the advertisement. O. The owner and/or owner’s authorized agent or representative shall operate a short-term vacation rental unit in compliance with any other permits or licenses that apply to the property, including, but not limited to, any permit or license needed to operate a special event pursuant to Section 9.60.170 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. The city may limit the number of special event permits issued per year on residential dwellings pursuant to Section 9.60.170 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time). P. The city manager, or designee, shall have the authority to impose additional conditions via administrative regulation on the use of any given short-term vacation rental unit to ensure that any potential secondary effects unique to the subject short-term vacation rental unit are avoided or adequately mitigated, including, but not limited to, a mitigating condition that would require the installation of a noise monitoring device. Remove: to keep time-stamped noise level data from the property that will be made available to the city upon city’s reasonable request. Q. The standard conditions set forth herein may be modified by the city manager, or designee, upon request of the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative based on site-specific circumstances for the purpose of allowing reasonable accommodation of a short-term vacation rental. All requests must be in writing and shall identify how the strict application of the standard conditions creates an unreasonable hardship to a property such that, if the requirement is not modified, reasonable use of the property for a short-term vacation rental would not be allowed. Any hardships identified must relate to physical constraints to the subject site and shall not be self-induced or economic. Any modifications of the standard conditions shall not further exacerbate an already existing problem. R. On-site parking shall be on an approved driveway, garage, and/or carport areas only; this section does not impose restrictions on public street parking regulations. Recreational vehicles may be parked in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 9.60.130 (or successor provision, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. (Ord. 577 § 1, 2019; Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.080 Recordkeeping and hosting platform duties. A. The owner or the owner’s authorized agent or representative shall maintain for a period of three years, records in such form as the tax administrator (as defined in Chapter 3.24) may require to determine the amount of transient occupancy tax owed to the city. The tax administrator shall have the right to inspect such records at all reasonable times, which may be subject to the Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 14 of 17 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS subpoena by the tax administrator pursuant to Section 3.24.140 (Records) (Transient Occupancy Tax) (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. B. Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential dwelling or other property purporting to be a short-term vacation rental unit in the city unless the dwelling or property has a current and valid short-term vacation rental permit issued pursuant to this chapter, which is not under suspension, for the dates and times proposed as part of the booking transaction. 1. The city shall maintain an online registry of active and suspended short-term vacation rental permits, which hosting platforms may reference and rely upon for purposes of complying with subsection B. If a residential dwelling or other property purporting to be a short-term vacation rental unit matches with an address, permit number, and/or current and valid permit dates (not under suspension) set forth in the city’s online registry, the hosting platforms may presume that the dwelling or other property has a current and valid short-term vacation rental permit. 2.The provisions of this subsection B shall be interpreted in accordance with otherwise applicable state and federal law(s) and will not apply if determined by the city to be in violation of, or preempted by, any such law(s). (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.090 Violations. A. Additional Conditions. A violation of any provision of this chapter or this code by any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, or owner’s authorized agent or representative, shall authorize the city manager, or designee, to impose additional conditions on the use of any given short-term vacation 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, this code, California Vehicle Code, or any other applicable federal, state, or local laws or codes, including, but not limited to, applicable fire codes and the building and construction codes as set forth in Title 8 of this code, by any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, or owner’s authorized agent or representative, shall constitute grounds for modification, suspension and/or revocation (which may include permanent revocation) of the short-term vacation rental permit and/or any affiliated licenses or permits pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3.25.100. C. Notice of Violation. The city may issue a notice of violation to any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, owner’s authorized agent or representative, or hosting platform, pursuant to Section 1.01.300 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code, if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. D. Three Strikes Policy. Three violations of any provision of this chapter or this code within one (1) year by any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, or owner’s authorized agent or representative, with respect to any one residential dwelling will result in an immediate suspension of the short-term vacation rental permit with subsequent ability to have a hearing before the city, pursuant to this chapter, to request a lifting of the suspension. Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 15 of 17 E. Administrative and Misdemeanor Citations. The city may issue an administrative citation to any applicant, occupant, responsible person, local contact person, owner, owner’s authorized agent or representative, or hosting platform, pursuant to Chapter 1.09 (Administrative Citations) (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code, if there is any violation of this chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties. Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from also issuing an infraction citation upon the occurrence of the same offense on a separate day. An administrative citation may impose a fine for one or more violations of this chapter in the maximum amount allowed by state law or this code in which the latter amount shall be as follows: 1. General STVR Violations (Occupancy/Noise/Parking),to be issued by Code Compliance directly to the guest: a. First violation: one thousand dollars; b. Second violation: two thousand dollars; c. Third violation: three thousand dollars. 2. Operating a STVR Without a Valid Short-Term Vacation Rental Permit. a. First violation: three thousand dollars; b. Second or more violations: five thousand dollars; c. In addition to the fine set forth above, the first violation of operating a STVR without a valid short-term vacation rental permit shall be cause for an owner (or person and/or entity that owns or controls a business or organization or other entity of any kind, such as a limited liability company, which is the owner of a property) to be prohibited for all time from being eligible to be issued a short-term vacation rental permit and/or business license for use of a property as a short-term vacation rental unit. 3. Hosting a Special Event at a STVR Without a Special Event Permit as Required by Section 9.60.170 (or Successor Provision, as May Be Amended From Time to Time) of This Code. a. First violation: five thousand dollars; b. Second violation: five thousand dollars. F. Public Nuisance. In addition to any and all rights and remedies available to the city, it shall be a public nuisance for any person or entity to commit, cause or maintain a violation of this chapter, which shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1.01.250 (Violations public nuisances) (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. (Ord. 578 § 1, 2019; Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017; Ord. 501 § 2, 2012) 3.25.100 Appeals. A. Any person aggrieved by any decision of a city officer made pursuant to this chapter may request a hearing before the city manager third party hearing officer or impartial three (3) person committee in accordance with Chapter 2.08 (or successor provisions, as may be amended from time to time) of this code. B. Notwithstanding any provisions in Section 2.08.230 or otherwise in the code, the decision by the the city manager third party hearing officer or impartial three (3) person committee of an CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS appeal brought under this chapter shall be the final decision by the city for any Ordinance No. 586 Amendments to Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals Adopted: December 15, 2020 Page 16 of 17 violation of a short-term vacation rental permit issued under this order, except for any administrative citation imposing a fine, which shall be processed and subject to an administrative appeal pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of the code. (Ord. 572 § 1, 2018; Ord. 563 § 1, 2017) CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY VRON-LQ BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 -STVR CODE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1 From:CRAIG WADE Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:14 PM To:City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Robert Radi; Linda Evans; Kevin Meredith; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:Rentals Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I have seen first hand how it destroys real estate values. Just look at the mess PGA West is in. 30 night minimum and nothing less. Thank you for all your time & effort to make this the Best place in the Country to call home. Craig Wade Sent from my iPhone CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CRAIG WADE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN OPPOSITION OF STVRS 1 From:Steve Weiss Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 3:39 PM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Linda Evans; Robert Radi Subject:La Quinta STVR Special meeting, 25th of February - An Approach to a STVR Plan EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear City Council, Thanks for taking the time to discuss the Short Term Vacation Rental (STVR) issue. This is a very difficult situation us, our local communities, the LQ City Council and our city. I know that you will try to lead our city to the best outcome possible and will be sensitive to the needs of all our residents including those at PGA WEST. I have spent my professional career in numerous negotiations both as a manager, operating executive, venture capitalist and board member. All negotiations are are a compromise for all parties involved. Each party has some wins and some losses but in the end a plan is developed that can work for all. Often negotiations get bogged down in the details where parties get entrenched. It is always best to see each detail in the context of the complete solution. Below is my concept for a plan for LQ for STVR's STVR Plan for LQ 1) Maintain moratorium on STVR’s until enforcement and new rules (density and occupancy) are established and tested - Revenue neutral for city 2) Once new rules and enforcement are in place, allow new STVR’s in properly zoned areas (i.e. Tourist Commercial (TC)). 3) Utilize new rules and enforcement to weed out current bad performer STVR owners. Allow replacements of these STVR’s in residential communities complying with density and occupancy guidelines. Maintain current cap on the number of STVR’s in residential communities. 4) Develop new TC zones in new housing/residential developments, allowing for new STVR’s 5)Pursue alternate/substitute projects that will generate substantial revenue for LQ - SilverRock, WaterPark, etc These outcomes as viewed from: LQ City/General Residents - revenue neutral with modest income growth in future years Residential Homeowners - maintains cap on STVR’s, weeds out bad performers STVR Owners - allows them to maintain their continuing business so long as they comply with new rules. Offers modest growth for new STVR’s. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT STEVE WEISS BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – STVR RECOMMENDATIONS 2 And again, with apologies to Bobby Burns, I quote, And if God choose, I shall but love thee better after elimination of all STVRs. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT KAY WOLFF BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS ON STVR REGULATIONS 1 From:Willie Wulff Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:19 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:SHORT TERM RENTALS VACATIONERS EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. Dear City Clerk, it has come to my attention and others that you're considering limiting the short‐term rentals to 32 properties. I totally feel it's unfair to all of us that offered our 2nd homes in La Quinta to families that can enjoy the beauty of The City by staying in a home where they can purchase food and items that give taxes to the city while enjoying their stay there. Check out what I was able to find by this choice: Badly hurt businesses, some by 50%+, that are just now trying to come out of the pandemic. Will cut jobs, especially for single moms, restaurants, golf, etc Promotes high rents that only the elite can afford (equity issues) Does nothing to eliminate the bad apples - or the bad guest behaviors The goal of the city is to get rid of the bad apples. This does nothing to get rid of them. Why not put the 32 cap on the bad apples with citations, NOT homeowners who follow the rules? We want families to come stay for a week at a time. It’s simple. William Wulff President NMLS 359240 The OC Real Estate Financing NMLS 365271 DRE 01080244 616 S. EL Camino Real, Suite J San Clemente, CA 92672 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – FEBRUARY 25, 2021 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY RESIDENT WILLIAM WULFF BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 – IN SUPPORT OF STVRS & OPPOSING THE 32 BOOKINGS CAP