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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.