CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Study Session
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
3:00 PM
PURSUANT TO AB 361 AND CATHEDRALCITY RESOLUTION 2022 -01, THIS MEETING MAY BE
CONDUCTED BY VIDEOCONFERENCE OR TELECONFERENCE AND THERE WILL BE NO IN -PERSON PUBLIC ACCESSTO THE ME ETING LOCATION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE MEETING VIA ZOOM PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING LINK TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE:
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_9SS1VOf2TgaBW18sXg4XVw
AFTER REG ISTERING, YOU WILL RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION EMAIL CONTAINING INFORMAT ION ABOUT JOINING THE MEETING.
MAYOR
Ernesto Gutierrez
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor Pro Tem
Rita Lamb
Councilmember
Mark Carnevale
Councilmember
Nancy Ross
Councilmember
Raymond Gregory
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA FINALIZATION
At this time the City Council may announce any items being pulled from the agenda or continued to another date.
1. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2).
Number of Potential Cases: Two
B. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.6
Agency Negotiator: Charles McClendon, City Manager
Represented Employees: CCPMA - Cathedral City Police Management Association
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Cathedral City P a g e 2
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or m ay request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. Public Comment will be limited to three (3) minutes.
3. STUDY SESSION
Normally no action is taken on Study Session items, however, the City Council reserves the right to give specific policy directio n and take specific action as necessary. Presentation will be limited to 10 minutes unless other provisions are made in advance.
A. DRD Annexation Update
Recommendation: Desert Recreation District (DRD) Annexation Update is presented for review and discussion only.
B. Chapter 5.96 Short Term Vacation Rental Units - Discussion of Possible Ordinance Amendments
Recommendation: This item is presented for information, discussion and direction only.
ADJOURN
NOTES TO THE PUBLIC:
The City of Cathedral City complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting , please call the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 770-0322 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
Any documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any i tem on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s off ice at City Hall located at 68 -700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero during normal business hours. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at www.cathedralcity.gov.
Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/24/2022
Staff Report
City Council
Meeting Date: January 26, 2022
From: Eric Vail, City Attorney
Title: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2).
Number of Potential Cases: Two
1.A
Packet Pg. 3
Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/24/2022
Staff Report
City Council
Meeting Date: January 26, 2022
From: Charles McClendon, City Manager
Title: Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.6
Agency Negotiator: Charles McClendon, City Manager
Represented E mployees: CCPMA - Cathedral City Police
Management Association
1.B
Packet Pg. 4
Cathedral City Page 1 of 2 Printed on 2/24/2022
Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 3.A
Meeting Date: January 26, 2022
From: Katherine Fuentes, Assistant City Manager
Title: DRD Annexation Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Desert Recreation District (DRD) Annexation Update is presented for review and discussion only.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council is currently considering annexing into the Desert Recreation District (DRD) to provide park maintenance services and recreational programs to Cathedral City residents. In April 2018, the DRD and City staff sub mitted a preliminary feasibility analysis that included the cost to maintain Ocotillo, Century and Panorama parks. At this meeting, the City Council requested that the DRD incorporate the future dog park and Dream Homes Park into the feasibility analysis.
On April 25, 2018, the City hosted a meeting that included district staff as well as one (1) District Board member and two (2) Council members, Council members Aguilar and Carnevale, to review the revised feasibility analysis that included the cost to ma intain Ocotillo, Century, Panorama and the future dog park and Dream Homes Park.
On May 9, 2018, the DRD provided a detailed presentation to the City Council about the District, its programs, and associated estimated fiscal analysis.
On June 13, 2018, the DRD Board approved the recommendation to move forward with Phase I of the Community Facilities District (CFD) formation process subject to City Council's agreement on July 11, 2018.
On July 11, 2018, City Council agreed to support the DRD conducting a citywide poll, otherwise known as Phase I of a CFD formation process, to determine the residents’ level of interest in becoming part of the DRD.
On January 23, 2019, Council received a presentation on the outcome of public opinion polling related to th e DRD and the level of support for annexation and the necessary CFD assessment. At that time, it appeared there was slightly better support for the proposals among likely voters in a November 2020 election as opposed to other options and general direction from Council was to work toward that election date. On May 22,
3.A
Packet Pg. 5
Cathedral City Page 2 of 2 Printed on 2/24/2022
2019, Council confirmed their direction to proceed toward a November 2020 election.
On February 26, 2019, then Mayor Pro Tem Aguilar, along with staff met with DRD officials to map out a plan to move toward an election on annexing into the DRD and forming the necessary CFD to support the assessment. On March 18, 2019, Council members toured DRD facilities to get an understanding of the type of facilities and programs which could be brought to Cathedral City as part of the annexation into the DRD.
On October 26, 2019, Council received a presentation from Kevin Kalman, Director of the Desert Recreation District (DRD) that covered the services Cathedral City residents would receive from the DRD and a tentative timeline on when services would begin. The Parks and Community Events Commission received a similar presentation on October 28, 2019.
On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency to help Californians prepare for the broader spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID -19) pandemic. This act was followed by a stay-at-home order and a cancellation of all social gatherings. Subsequently, Council decided not to pursue the DRD annexation election in 2020 as originally planned. At their goal -setting session in early 2021 Council developed a goal statement to re -engage with the Desert Recreation District working toward a 2022 annexation vote.
DISCUSSION:
In October 2021, the City began reengaging the DRD with a new election month /year of November 2022. Kevin Kalman, Director of the DRD, will be presenting an update on the annexation and what the City Council can expect with respect to the timeline of events. There will also be an update on the status of the Palm Springs Unified Sc hool District (PSUSD) Pool Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Future costs related to the annexation election, CFD formation costs and other items will be covered through an agreement with the DRD, which will be considered by Council at a future meeting.
3.A
Packet Pg. 6
Cathedral City Page 1 of 2 Printed on 2/24/2022
Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 3.B
Meeting Date: January 26, 2022
From: Sandra Molina, Code Compliance/Development Manager Title: Chapter 5.96 Short Term Vacation Rental Units - Discussion of Possible Ordinance Amendments
City Council
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is presented for information, discussion and direction only.
BACKGROUND:
In 2019 , the City Council established a Short-Term Vacation Rental ( STVR) Task Force comprised of residents, STVR owners and managers, and Staff to study local public safety concerns and make recommendations to address the neighborhood impacts of STVRs.
After a year of input and local resident feedback, the Task Force’s recommendations were presented to the City Council and on September 9, 2020, Ordinance No. 8 42, which substantially changed the City’s regulations related to STVRs, was adopted. The Ordinance was temporarily suspended due to a referendum petition but due to the results of the March 2, 2021 ballot, became effective on March 18, 2021.
On September 9, 2020, the City Council also a dopted a resolution increasing S TVR permit fees to $1,950 and established a home share permit fee of $525. These fees were established to cover the costs of operating the STVR Program including enforcement.
DISCUSSION:
In the implementation and enforcement of Ordinance No. 842 over the last year, the STVR Program has identified several provisions that may warrant amendmen t. The specific sections and Staff’s comments and recommendations are contained in Attachment 1.
On October 27, 2021, the resident members of the former STVR Task Force met, via Zoom, with City staff and in addition to discussing enforcement of the Ordinance, presented suggestions for possible revisions. Attachment 2 includes their suggestions, and staff ’s comments and recommendations.
For reference, Attachment 3 contains Ordinance No. 842.
As part of the study session, staff would request that the City Council provide direction on possible revisions to the STVR ordinance.
3.B
Packet Pg. 7
Cathedral City Page 2 of 2 Printed on 2/24/2022
FISCAL IMPACT:
This discussion item has only incurred costs related to staff time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. STVR Ordinance - Staff Proposed Changes
2. Suggested Revisions from Residents with Staff comments
3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96)
4. Resolution 2020-52_Fee Schedule for Violations
Public Comments- Item 3B
Public Comments - Item 3B (2)
3.B
Packet Pg. 8
Code Section Topic Code Language Comments Recommendation
5.96.040 (H) Commercial Insurance The owner must provide proof of commercial insurance that covers the rental
of the property as a short-term vacation
rental with limits as may be established by
the city manager and amended from time to
time. Proof of insurance shall be provided at
the time of both initial and renewal permit
issuance and shall remain in effect for the
duration of the annual permit. Failure to
maintain commercial property insurance
shall result in suspension of the permit.
Revise the requirement for
commercial insurance, as
commercial insurance is applicable
to commercial uses such as retail,
restaurants, etc.
Revise this section to delete the
requirement for commercial
insurance and instead require the
property owner to obtain short
term vacation rental insurance.
5.96.040 (N)(2) Denial of application A permit application shall be denied if the city determines any of the following grounds
for denial exist:
Findings not included. Refer to Attachment 3-
STVR Ordinance.
This section does not indicate if the
findings apply to new or renewal
permits and should be clarified to
indicate findings for a new or
renewal permit.
Revise language establishing
findings for both "New" and
"Renewal" applications.
Proposed CCMC 5.96 Ordinance Changes
SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM
01/11/2022 Page 1 of 6 CCMC 5.96 Proposed Changes
3.B.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: 1. STVR Ordinance - Staff Proposed Changes [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Code Section Topic Code Language Comments Recommendation
5.96.040 (Q) Certificate of Occupancy Any newly constructed dwelling applying for a permit must be accompanied by a
completed and approved certificate of
occupancy.
A certificate of occupancy is not
issued on single family residential
construction. A final inspection is
conducted on the building permit
and final approval granted.
Recommend deletion of this
provision, as certificates of
occupancy are not issued for single
family residential construction.
Section 5.96.040 (L) prohibits the
issuance of a new or renewal
permit if the STVR does not have
functioning smoke and carbon
monoxide detectors, utilities,
unpermitted alterations or other
conditions that present health and
safety concerns, which would
cover the original permitting.
5.96.040(R) Mailing Notification Within thirty days of the issuance of a new permit or renewal permit, the city shall mail
a notice to all residences within three
hundred feet of the STVR notifying the
residents that a permit has been issued and
providing information regarding how to
lodge complaints regarding the STVR, if any.
This requirement should only be
applicable for new applications.
In HOA communities, the 300 foot
radius can average 200 mailings for
one STVR. Where there are multiple
STVRs residents are receiving
multiple mailings and have called to
complain. Hundreds of notices have
been returned by the post office,
the majority of which are for HOA
properties.
Revise to require that notification
should be required for new permit
applications only.
For HOA properties, notification to
be given to HOA management,
rather than the property owner.
It should be noted that postage
associated administrative costs are
not offset by the STVR owner.
01/11/2022 Page 2 of 6 CCMC 5.96 Proposed Changes
3.B.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: 1. STVR Ordinance - Staff Proposed Changes [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Code Section Topic Code Language Comments Recommendation
5.96.050 (C) Occupancy The number of occupants allowed to be present at any short-term vacation rental or
home share shall be limited as follows:
Table not included. Refer to Attachment 3 -
STVR Ordinance.
Currently there is no distinction
between adults and children as
occupants.
Staff has received calls from
potential renters with a young child
forced to rent a larger STVR
because the child is counted
towards occupancy.
Occupancy limitations are intended
to limit overcrowding, noise and
other deleterious effects related to
the number of persons in a STVR.
Should the City Council be inclined
to consider a change, staff
recommends that children under
the age of two (2) not be
considered towards occupancy.
5.96.050(G) Trash Permitted short-term vacation rental
properties shall have walk up trash service
for trash cans and are further required to
have a total of two regular trash cans and
two recycling trash cans. The owner or the
owner’s authorized agent or representative
shall use reasonably prudent business
practices to ensure compliance with all the
provisions of Chapter 6.04 and Section
13.80.090 of the city municipal code.
Additional trash bins should only be
required for four (4) bedroom
properties or more.
Add verbiage that this does not
apply to home shares.
Walk up service should not apply to
homeshares where the homeowner
is at the home to ensure
compliance and has lesser
occupancies, nor to STVR's in an
HOA which either have communal
bins and/or are gated.
Amend the code as noted.
5.96.050(K) URL Submittal All internet listing sites (e.g., website URLs) and listing numbers associated with a short-
term vacation rental shall be submitted
within thirty days of approval of the permit
and thereafter with the monthly transient
occupancy tax form due to the city.
Providing URL on a monthly basis is
redundant for staff and property
owner and provides minimal
enforcement value. URL
information should be gathered at
the time of application and upon
yearly renewal.
Delete requirement for monthly
URL submittal.
01/11/2022 Page 3 of 6 CCMC 5.96 Proposed Changes
3.B.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: 1. STVR Ordinance - Staff Proposed Changes [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Code Section Topic Code Language Comments Recommendation
5.96.050 (N) Parking A maximum of one vehicle per bedroom of the STVR is permitted to park in the garage
and driveway of the STVR or property or on
the street. Vehicle parking in front of any
mailbox is prohibited.
STVR Officers respond to a number
of complaints of a car parked in
front of an STVR property's mailbox
and determined that the car
belonged to the STVR occupant.
Consider revising so that vehicles
associated with the STVR can park
in front of the mailbox for the STVR
property.
It should not be a violation to park
in front of the STVR property's own
mailbox. Determining whether the
vehicle belongs to an STVR
occupant can easily be done by
checking the guest
acknowledgment form which
identifies the vehicles associated
with the rental.
5.96.050(R) Long Term and
subleasing property
short-term
The lessee of a long term rental property
shall not obtain a permit and is prohibited
from using the property as a short-term
vacation rental. No person who has rented a
short-term vacation rental shall sublet such
dwelling unit or any portion thereof to any
other person or entity.
This language is a permitting
requirement and should be moved
to Section 5.96.040.
Move to Section 5.96.040.
5.96.050(S) Administrative Appeal
Process
If a permit is suspended or revoked, all
property owners within three hundred feet
of the short-term vacation rental property
shall be provided written notice within ten
days of such action. If such action is
appealed, all property owners within three
hundred feet of the short-term vacation
rental property shall be notified of the time,
date, and location of the appeal hearing and
shall be afforded the right to testify during
the hearing.
Inconsistent wording with the
administrative appeal process in
Chapter 13. 150 (Permit and License
Suspension, Modification and
Revocation Procedures).
A hearing is required on a
suspension/revocation. The hearing
officer's decision can be appealed,
but it is done through civil
proceedings, which is outside of the
City's authority.
Revise this Section so it is
consistent with Chapter 13.150.
01/11/2022 Page 4 of 6 CCMC 5.96 Proposed Changes
3.B.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: 1. STVR Ordinance - Staff Proposed Changes [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Code Section Topic Code Language Comments Recommendation
5.96.050(S) Administrative Appeal
Process: Noticing of
Neighbors
If a permit is suspended or revoked, all
property owners within three hundred feet
of the short-term vacation rental property
shall be provided written notice within ten
days of such action. If such action is
appealed, all property owners within three
hundred feet of the short-term vacation
rental property shall be notified of the time,
date, and location of the appeal hearing and
shall be afforded the right to testify during
the hearing.
Notification of the action taken
should be provided to residents.
The hearing to suspend or revoke, is
not a public hearing and should not
be treated as such.
Revise Section so it is consistent
with Chapter 13.150 and remove
requirement for public notice
and/or participation.
5.96.070 (B)(2) Permit suspension
process: automatic
suspension
A violation of any provision of this chapter
by any of the occupants, responsible parties,
owner(s) or the owner’s authorized agent(s)
or representative(s) shall constitute grounds
for modification, suspension and/or
revocation of the short-term vacation rental
unit permit and/or any affiliated licenses or
permits pursuant to the provisions set forth
in Chapter 13.150. The city may issue a
notice of violation to any occupant,
responsible party, owner(s) or the owner’s
authorized agent or representative, pursuant
to Chapter 13.55, if there is any violation of
this section committed, caused or
maintained by the any of the above parties.
Chapter 13.150 (Permit and License
Suspension, Modification and
Revocation Procedures) requires
that the permittee be served with a
notice of action recommendation
and a hearing held regarding the
suspension.
The Code is clear that upon the
fourth violation that the permit
shall be suspended, and that is the
only deciding factor on a
suspension. Consideration should
be given to revising the language
stating the permit is automatically
suspeded, and a hearing would be
scheduled only if an appeal is filed.
If the Council were in agreement
with this change, the City
Attorney's office would need to
determine if such a change is
consistent with Chapter 13.150.
01/11/2022 Page 5 of 6 CCMC 5.96 Proposed Changes
3.B.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: 1. STVR Ordinance - Staff Proposed Changes [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Code Section Topic Code Language Comments Recommendation
5.96.070 (E) Permit suspension upon
fourth violation
Any person issued an administrative citation
under Chapter 13.58 for a violation of this
chapter or for violation of a term or
condition of a permit, for each separate
violation, shall be subject to a fine in an
amount to be established by resolution of
the city council. Upon a fourth violation
within twelve months at the same short-
term vacation rental, the city shall suspend
the permit for that STVR for a period of time
determined by the city.
In implementing this provision, Staff
determined that suspensions would
be issued upon the fourth citation,
rather than violation. This is a more
consistent and fair approach. The
reasoning is that there may be a
STVR owner with a well-managed
STVR but has a one-time bad tenant
that triggers four violations at one
call during a twelve month period.
As opposed to a STVR owner who
does not manage the property well
and may have multiple complaints
and may never reach a fourth
violation in a twelve-month period
and would not trigger a suspension.
Revise language so that a
suspension occurs upon the fourth
citation, rather than fourth
violation.
N/A - New Number of rooms that
can be rented in a home
share
N/A - New The code is silent on whether there
should be a limitation on the
number of rooms that can be
concurrently rented at a home
share. A premise of home shares is
that the generate less noise, trash,
parking, etc. Should the number of
rooms rented be limited to 50% of
the number of rooms in the home?
Provide staff direction on possible
code amendment.
01/11/2022 Page 6 of 6 CCMC 5.96 Proposed Changes
3.B.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: 1. STVR Ordinance - Staff Proposed Changes [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Suggested Revisions To 5.96 Ordinance, The STVR Fee Resolution and Zoning Ordinance
10/27/2021
Suggested Revisions (Vers 02) - Page 1
Suggestion 01
Denial of permit renewals…
Under 5.96.040(N)(1), the application shall be denied if at the time the application is being submitted the city has commenced any code compliance proceedings against the owner with respect to any building, structure, use or land use in the city. Code compliance proceedings need to be clarified.
Staff comments and recommendation: “Compliance proceedings” means a code enforcement case has been opened. Staff is supportive of further clarification if directed by Council.
Under 5.96.040(N)(2), the application shall be denied if the owner has had a prior permit suspended or revoked or has been cited for violating any provision of the code for any STVR in the city within the past 12 months.
Based on documents produced for PRRs, it appears that permits are being renewed notwithstanding the fact that the owner has been cited. If there are reasons this Section is not being followed, the language needs to be revised.
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff understood this provision applied to new permits only. The concern raised is that the intent was for it to apply to renewals as well.
Staff recommends that this provision be clarified to apply to new permits only. For renewals, there are current provisions that allow for modifications, suspensions or revocations, and that process should continue to be utilized. For example, if a STVR owner has one citation, the permit would not qualify for a suspension. However, if it has four citations, it would be suspended.
This process should not be circumvented by denying a renewal due to one citation.
Suggestion 02
All adult occupants of an unpermitted STVR shall be found in violation of the STVR ordinance and subject to a citation and fine. If any occupant shares information identifying the illegal STVR with the compliance team or code enforcement regarding the platform used and/or URL, or otherwise, in renting the property, and assists the city in citing the STVR owner the citation(s) may be dismissed.
Staff comments and recommendation: The average guest is not versed in municipal ordinances nor aware of City licensing requirements. Furthermore, preliminary review by the City Attorney’s office recommends this suggestion should not be considered.
Failure to open a door to a CCPD Officer or STVR Compliance Officer to verify the property is being occupied by an owner or renter shall result in a citation (and/or strike) against the property owner.
Staff comments and recommendation: The existing Ordinance already states that if no one responds at the property when an officer is there that a citation will be issued to the property owner. The citation counts as a strike against the property owner’s permit. No revision is recommended.
3.B.b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: 2. Suggested Revisions from Residents with Staff comments [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment) Suggested Revisions To 5.96 Ordinance, The STVR Fee Resolution and Zoning Ordinance
10/27/2021
Suggested Revisions (Vers 02) - Page 2
.
Suggestion 04
Section 2(B) of the fines resolution regarding operating and/or advertising a STVR without a permit should be clarified to state that each night the unpermitted property is occupied as an STVR shall constitute a separate violation. For example if the property is rented for 3 nights, that constitutes 3 violations amounting to $15,000. Each subsequent rental will result in $15,000 fines each.
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff does not support this recommendation as a $5,000 citation will already be issued; to fine for each night would be punitive and unreasonable. The City Attorney has added that such a punitive fine may not be defensible in Court.
Suggestion 05
Add STVRs as a prohibited use in single family residential zones in the Zoning Ordinance (exceptions for CIDs and Home Sharing).
Staff comments and recommendation: This suggestion is being discussed with the City Attorney, and if supported by the Attorney’s Office and City Council, can be included in the municipal code update initiative (Chapter 9).
Suggestion 03
Hold online platforms accountable for listing unpermitted STVRs, similar to what’s mentioned in this article for Paris - click here.
SF and other cities also are attempting to do the same. For example, Santa Monica prohibits online platforms like Airbnb from advertising unpermitted STVRs (click here).
Staff comments and recommendation: City Attorney to review and provide recommendation.
3.B.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: 2. Suggested Revisions from Residents with Staff comments [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment) Suggested Revisions To 5.96 Ordinance, The STVR Fee Resolution and Zoning Ordinance
10/27/2021
Suggested Revisions (Vers 02) - Page 3
Suggestion 06
Next, the fine resolutions 2020-52 Section 2(A) should be corrected such that the permit shall be suspended on the third violation, not the fourth. First violation $1,000; second violation $3,000; 3d violation $5,000 AND suspension of permit.
Staff comments and recommendation: This suggestion is inconsistent with Section 5.96.070(E), which provides that a permit shall be suspended upon the fourth violation. Should the Council determine that this section should be revised to suspend a permit upon the third violation, the code should be revised, as well as Resolution 2020-52.
Suggestion 08
Revise the 5.96.050(S) regarding notifications during appeals.
The ordinance regarding notification to residents within 300 feet of an STVR property that is being suspended should be amended because it’s not clear and may be inconsistent with other parts of the Muni Code related to appeals and notifications. For example, does a resident receive written notice before a hearing and then after a hearing?
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff agrees that the wording is inconsistent with the administrative appeal process in Chapter 13. 150 (Permit and License Suspension, Modification and Revocation Procedures) and needs to be amended.
Regarding notice, once a permit is suspended, revoked or modified, providing residents notice of the action taken after the hearing is appropriate and should remain.
Suggestion 07
Fine resolutions 2020-52 Section 2(C)...
We suggest the city review the fine amounts to determine if they should be changed to reflect the seriousness of the infraction. An example, the current fine under Section 2(C) are: $2,500 for first violation, second violation is $5,000 and a six-month suspension of the permit; third and subsequent violations are $7,500.
The fine amounts and suspension seem excessive - unless the ad is for advertising for too many occupants or for less than 3 nights. If the citations are being dismissed by either the code enforcement officer or ALJ because the correction has been made, perhaps there would be more inclination to process the citation if the fines were less.
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff agrees that the fine for advertising violations should be reduced. Staff recommends deleting this section of the Resolution so that advertising violations are assessed the same fines as noise and trash violations, which escalate during a 12-month period: $1,000/$3,000/$5,000. Staff does not support parsing out the section of the Code and applying varying fine amounts.
3.B.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: 2. Suggested Revisions from Residents with Staff comments [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment) Suggested Revisions To 5.96 Ordinance, The STVR Fee Resolution and Zoning Ordinance
10/27/2021
Suggested Revisions (Vers 02) - Page 4
Suggestion 09
Reference: CCMC 5.96.050 (N)
Issue a “strike” for parking violations at a STVR property… over sidewalks [ CA VC 22500 (F) ] or
crossing the driveway [ CA VC 22500 (E )(1) ]
CA Vehicle Code states it is illegal to park “in front of a driveway” - click here and click here
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff recommends that these parking violations continue to be issued as vehicle code violations. Should an STVR property have ongoing parking issues, there are other provisions of the STVR Code that would allow the officer to issue a citation to the owner for not using prudent business practices to ensure that the STVR is used in a manner that complies with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of the STVR. That citation would then count as a strike.
Suggestion 11
The City should consider adding specific language to the STVR permit application such as the permit is subject to any future changes to the STVR ordinance and related resolutions as may be enacted by the city council from time to time and renewal is not guaranteed.
The trial court in the Pacific Grove case (Hobbs v. City of Pacific Grove) pointed to the express language in that City’s business license that stated “renewal of this license is not guaranteed” as one reason in its decision that the STVR owners did not have a vested right in their STVR licenses. Unless there is some reason to not include such language, it would seem there is no drawback to adding this or similar language.
Staff comments and recommendation: The City Attorney will review this section to determine if the language of the STVR permit application or business license application should be revised.
Suggestion 10
Initial and renewal permits…
The language of 5.96.040(N) should be revised to read "An initial application and renewal application shall be denied...." Right now the ordinance only says a permit application, which may be interpreted to include both types of applications but it should be clarified to specifically include both.
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff agrees that this section needs to be revised.
3.B.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: 2. Suggested Revisions from Residents with Staff comments [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment) Suggested Revisions To 5.96 Ordinance, The STVR Fee Resolution and Zoning Ordinance
10/27/2021
Suggested Revisions (Vers 02) - Page 5
Suggestion 14
Prevent new HOAs being established in residential neighborhoods for the primary purpose of operating STVRs and circumventing 5.96. This was STVR Task Force Recommendation #17. It should apply to either existing or new properties.
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff is discussing options with the City Attorney. If changes are supported by the Attorney’s Office and City Council, these will be incorporated into the municipal code update initiative (Chapter 9).
Suggestion 12
Clarification of permit revocation...
5.96.070(B)(2) doesn’t address specific grounds for revocation.
The City should look into revising the ordinance to specifically describe what events constitute grounds for a permit revocation?
Staff comments and recommendation: Staff recommends leaving the wording as is to provide flexibility based on the facts of the violation(s) and citation history.
Suggestion 13
.
Reference: CCMC 5.96.050(I)(6)
Photo in ads must display the house # either on the house or on the curb.
Staff comments and recommendation: All licensed STVR properties are plotted on an STVR map that the City maintains online on which ownership and address information is already available. Adding this provision is not necessary and does not provide additional assistance to the enforcement team and could create security concerns.
No change is recommended.
3.B.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: 2. Suggested Revisions from Residents with Staff comments [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment) Suggested Revisions To 5.96 Ordinance, The STVR Fee Resolution and Zoning Ordinance
10/27/2021
Suggested Revisions (Vers 02) - Page 6
Suggestion 15
The city should monitor the Pacaso home share fractional ownership model to determine if it expands into Cathedral City and what impact that might have.
See NPR article on Pacaso - click here; DS Article - click here.
Staff comments and recommendation: City Attorney to review.
3.B.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: 2. Suggested Revisions from Residents with Staff comments [Revision 1] (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.c
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: 3. Ordinance No. 842 - STVR Ordinance (Chapter 5.96) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.d
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: 4. Resolution 2020-52_Fee Schedule for Violations (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.d
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: 4. Resolution 2020-52_Fee Schedule for Violations (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.d
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: 4. Resolution 2020-52_Fee Schedule for Violations (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.e
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Public Comments- Item 3B (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)
3.B.f
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Public Comments - Item 3B (2) (3055 : Discussion - STVR Ordinance Amendment)