Palm Springs Vacation Rental Ordinance to be Reconsidered by City Council

[Updated March 10, 2017 to note that revised ordinance №1908 will be considered by the City Council on 3/15/17. Updated Feb 20, 2017 with a post-script about the results of the Feb 15 vote of the City Council on the various ordinances described in this article.]

As reported by The Desert Sun (see this article), the Citizens for a Better Palm Springs referendum petition has been successful in gathering enough validated signatures to force a reconsideration of recently adopted legislation governing vacation rentals in the city of Palm Springs.

The Palm Springs City Council on Wednesday (February 15, 2017) will consider a repeal of Ordinance №1907 (which requires a 4/5th vote) and begin consideration of “new” regulations that (as is required as a result of the petition) are, in the words of the City, “not essentially the same as those provided in Ordinance №1907.” (Agenda and details for this meeting can be found here.)

A City Council Staff Report provided by the City Manager and City Attorney on this subject (found online at http://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showdocument?id=49857) describes the City’s recommended course of action.

In that report, the Vacation Rental Subcommittee recommends rescinding Ordinance 1907, adopting an interim “urgency ordinance” covering vacation rentals and introducing a “permanent” ordinance to the Planning Commission for that commission’s review and recommendations. The report goes on to detail both the urgency ordinance and draft permanent ordinance (which are very similar if not identical).

The urgency ordinance, if passed by a 4 of 5 vote, would take effect immediately and stay in force until June 9, 2017 unless otherwise extended by the City Council. Presumably, the goal would be to pass (essentially the same) ordinance as “permanent” in advance of that date.

Currently, ordinance number 1848 — the “previous” Vacation Rental Ordinance — is in effect and would remain in effect, should the urgency ordinance (or a variation of it) not pass. It’s worth noting that an increased Vacation Rental Permit fee (now $900) is already in effect and presumably, there is already some improved ability for the City to enforce that ordinance and/or improve response to hotline calls. Note that the funding for the City’s expanded Vacation Rental Compliance department comes entirely from these annual permit fees.

As I understand it, the City could pursue another course of action, in lieu of the Vacation Rental Subcommittee’s recommendation — namely, putting 1907 to an up/down vote of citizens on an upcoming ballot (presumably November 2017). Debate and discussion during the February 15th City Council meeting may provide some clarity around whether that’s an option they would seriously consider.

Differences Between the Urgency/Newly Proposed Permanent Ordinance and Ordinance 1907

The report notes that both revised ordinances (which are roughly the same, so going forward I’m just going to refer to them as the “new” proposed ordinance) are “essentially different” from ordinance 1907 (it goes on to say, “in that it contains… changes that are now endorsed by those who prepared, circulated or supported the referendum petition”).

Key changes from ordinance 1907 include the following. There are several changes I would interpret as being “more lenient,” which are:

• Holders of multiple vacation rental permits (who otherwise meet the requirements of being an “Owner” as defined in the draft ordinance) are allowed to continue to renew their permits until they sell or otherwise choose to dispose of each property. (That is, they are “grandfathered in” as multiple permit holders.)
• Ordinance 1907 allowed a maximum of 32 rental contracts per year. The revised ordinance allows an additional 4 vacation rental contracts during the third quarter of the year (that is, July, August, September) so long as the entire duration of such contracts occurs during that period. (As with the №1907, all stays, even if they are not-for-compensation, are to be contracted and count toward the cap. Owners can annually designate 5 individuals who are allowed to stay at the property free of charge and who are not subject to a contract, though they must abide by other terms of the ordinance.)
• The updated ordinance defines a process for larger “estate homes” to seek exceptions from the occupancy limits defined in ordinance 1907. This process involves being granted a land use permit for such use and an “administrative review before the Planning Commission under certain circumstances.”

There are also some new requirements proposed which I would interpret as being “more restrictive.” These are:

• Owners and their agents and representatives would be required to have periodic training and testing on the rules governing vacation rentals.
• There are new prohibitions on gardening and property maintenance (including pool service) on weekends. (I will editorialize and say that I am somewhat baffled by this suggestion as I’ve not heard it raised previously and not entirely clear on what particular issue it’s trying to address.)
• A new requirement for what I call “hosted check-in,” also with an education and signature component. The Owner or Owner’s agent/representative must meet the “Responsible Person” (renter who signed contract) at the property “prior to commencement of the occupancy and verbally explain and describe all rules and regulations applicable to the use of the property as a vacation rental and the responsibilities of the Responsible Party to the neighbors and the City as well as the Owner.” Further, “the Owner shall secure the signature of the Responsible Party and all guests to a statement of rules and regulations prepared by the City Manager.”

Other Key Components of Ordinance 1907 Remain Unchanged

Aside from the modifications described above, the new ordinance is roughly equivalent to Ordinance №1907 and key differences between that ordinance and the less restrictive (currently in-force) Ordinance №1848 remain. These have been described well in other venues, but to summarize, they include:

• What I call a more “City led” approach to disturbance response/hotline complaints: It’s my understanding that, in some (most? all?) cases, City enforcement personnel may respond to hotline complaints by a face-to-face meeting with guests, prior to asking the Owner/agent to respond (though this is not explicitly spelled out in the ordinance). In any case, the Owner or their designated local contact person must be available 24/7 to respond when contacted by an Enforcement Official. They must respond by phone withing 15 minutes of hotline complaints and respond in person within 30 minutes to any additional or successive complaints.
• Occupancy and parking/vehicle limits: Overnight occupancy of vacation rentals would be limited to 2 guests per bedroom, no more than 8 persons total (with exception for 2 minor children). The Owner may allow up to 4 additional daytime occupants. Vehicles are limited to no more than 1 automobile per bedroom. The responsible renter must provide a list of guest vehicles including license plate numbers.
• “Business Entities” (which do not consist of natural persons) are not allowed to obtain Vacation Rental Permits. An “Owner” entitled to a Vacation Rental Permit includes a personal or family trust or LLC composed of natural persons (any such natural person can have interest in only one permitted vacation rental property at a time). Deadlines for disclosure of business interests and/or trust/LLC composition are defined.
• An abstract of each written rental contract (to be defined by the Vacation Rental Compliance department) must be filed with the City prior to occupancy and must be posted within the vacation rental and made available should enforcement officials request it. (Even stays that are not in exchange for monetary compensation are to be governed by a contract and count toward the limit on number of contracts. Owners can annually designate and file the names of up to 5 persons that may occupy the vacation rental without cost/impacting the contract cap.)
• The City Manager (or presumably Vacation Rental Compliance) will define requirements for insurance that cover the property for use as a short-term rental as well as defining requirements for annual fire and safety inspections prior to renewal of a Vacation Rental Certificate.
• Other stipulations of the ordinance which might impact an Owner’s contract (such as authority to evict a short-term guest at the request of an Enforcement Official) are also present in the new draft ordinance.
• Significantly increased fines and penalties for violations of the ordinance are preserved.

As with any item under consideration by the Palm Springs City Council, feedback can be sent to the Mayor and council members in advance of Wednesday’s meeting via the email addresses shown at http://www.palmspringsca.gov/residents/mayor-city-council.

Postscript: Results and Impact of the February 15, 2017 City Council Vote on Palm Springs Vacation Rental Ordinance

Without going into too much minutia, I wanted to recap the results of the Feb 15 vote on the ordinance described above. The results were somewhat surprising and not entirely what I would have expected. They were:

• Ordinance №1907 rescinded: The council voted to rescind Ordinance №1907, thus fulfilling the requirements of the Citizens for a Better Palm Springs initiative (repeal or send to voters). During the meeting, Mayor Moon made some compelling arguments for sending 1907 to voters for an up/down vote, but they seem not to have persuaded the rest of the council.
• Urgency Ordinance did not pass: The Urgency Ordinance failed to gather the 4 required votes (Mayor Moon voted against adoption). As a result, Ordinance №1848 (the “old” Palm Springs Vacation Rental Ordinance) remains in effect.
• Modified Ordinance 1907 (now known as ordinance 1918) sent to committees for review and comment — will come to a vote on March 15, 2017: The modified version of 1907 was sent to the Planning Commission and other city departments for review and comment. This move passed by a unanimous vote. The revised version of that ordinance, now known as №1918 can be read here. This ordinance will come before the City Council for a vote on March 15, 2017.

Follow me here on Medium for future updates about this evolving situation!