RECAP: Planning Commission, February 20, 2024
The Commission takes another look at camping on private land and dives into a database of Vacation Home Rental code violations
Note: Ofland/Yonder resort developers will be holding a “community meeting” Wednesday, February 28, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm to explain their vision and hear the community’s concerns. The meeting will take place at the Elks Lodge, 6501 Elk Trail in Twentynine Palms.
We are delaying Wildlife Wednesday this week due to City Hall, TBID, and election coverage.
This meeting delved into hot-button issues for Twentynine Palms residents including zoning for private campgrounds and handling complaints and violations of the city's vacation home rental rules. The agenda and video of the Planning Commission meeting are available here.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cindy Bernard addressed the organization of Freedom Plaza and suggested a professional should be engaged to create a more appealing public space.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
After accepting the Housing Element Annual Progress Report1 in the Consent Calendar, the Planning Committee began considering the place of private campgrounds in the city (we took a close look at the issue here.)
Keith Gardner, Community Development Director, noted that the city’s staff had a hard time finding relevance between other cities’ regulations and said, “generally speaking, campgrounds are managed by federal, state, or county agencies….And in our view, commercial campgrounds are not an appropriate use in residential zones.” He recommended removing campgrounds from the development code that lumps them in with RV parks.
Planning Commission Chair Jim Krushat opened the agenda item to comments from the public. The first email he read was from Michal Rosenoer, Hipcamp’s Head of Government and Community Relations,2 who contradicted Gardner’s assertion that there were no comparable regulations that allowed for camping on private land. He claimed that many counties within California have regulations to this end and that at least 10 are considering updates to their code, including Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, and Mendocino counties. “I’m also including a list of development standards,” he said, “I think Twentynine Palms could consider regulations that come from Calaveras and San Luis Obispo counties and Henderson County in North Carolina.”
John Talley-Jones sent an email that cited sanitation and lack of water as issues and highlighted the potential for disaster. “One bad decision or a stiff breeze would devastate the area.”
Gretchen Grunt echoed that camping within residential zones was a “bad thing to support,” as she had noted in her recent open letter to city officials. Douglas Cooper spoke and echoed the perspective of the previous comments, saying, “I’m sure most of the residents in the city would appreciate the privacy that they moved here for.”
Cindy Bernard commented that she feared the potential for wildfires if primitive camping were allowed on residential parcels, “and I applaud staff on this one for realizing it’s not a good idea in residential zones.” She also pointed out that the Hipcamp representative might not understand that many undeveloped parcels in Twentynine Palms don’t have access to water, sewer, or even roads.
In Planning Commission discussion, Chair Krushat talked about illegal camping, “a person that just comes in and plops down…and it usually doesn’t matter if we have a regulation or not.” He suggested that parcels along Utah Trail would be natural locations given proximity to the park.
Keith Gardener responded campgrounds could be confined to areas zoned commercial tourist (check out the zoning map here if you would like to see the zones more clearly), which would be a few spots near downtown. Most of the areas along Utah Trail are zoned residential.
Krushat pushed to consider areas that would accommodate overflow from the park so that people are not camping illegally and so that none of these campgrounds abut residential areas. Could there be a buffer when Tourist Commercial abuts residential? What other zones could be considered that aren’t rural living?
However, Code Enforcement Officer Vanessa Cabrera pointed out that “not once have we encountered someone camping say they didn’t have space at the park.”
Commissioner Leslie Paahana suggested that there be a code so that people can be held accountable. How often does the city get complaints about people camping in rural living zones?
Keith Gardner said, “It’s regular. At least once or twice a week.”3 He suggested that whatever the code changes might be, the National Park buffer zone should be exempt. “We get a lot of complaints from Indian Cove about VHRs and camping because they’re saturated.”
Commissioner Max Walker suggested that camping be allowed in rural living zoning, but not within one mile of the National Park buffer zone, “then that takes Indian Cove all the way out of the conversation.”
After a great deal of back and forth about what zoning could accommodate camping, the Commission agreed to study Commercial Tourist zoning with additional restrictions and to keep camping away from residential areas. No specific date was set to continue the discussion.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR UPDATES
Vacation Home Rentals Violation Database. Keith Gardner introduced the discussion by reminding Commissioners that the City Council had sent back their recommendations for changes to Vacation Home Rental (VHR) codes and directed it to consider feedback from the public in their recommendations. (“Council refers STR ordinance back to Planning, requests density options,” November 14).
He recommended that Commissioners have an understanding of VHR code violations and the type and frequency of residents’ complaints. Staff and Committee Members discussed possible changes to the current policy for VHR violations in response to the frustration expressed by both residents and VHR owners about effectively reporting violations and the consequences for those violations.
Code Enforcement Officer Chris Giunta and staff compiled three years of data on VHR complaints and distilled them by type of complaint: noise, building violations, lighting, trash, and unpermitted improvements—including extra rooms, extra buildings, and sheds, buses, RVs, and pool houses used as rentals.
Chair Krushat asked what would make a report of a violation actionable, given that reports cannot be verified after an incident. Staff indicated that the violation could be reported to the Sheriff, but the best path would be to call the owner using the number on the unit’s VHR permit sign or call Southwest Security at 760-362-6927. Southwest can take decibel and light meter readings to support such complaints. Clear, time-stamped video is also an accepted method of verification.
There were 183 Code Enforcement complaints targeting parties, loud music, and outdoor gatherings. There were 53 building and safety referrals, mostly from city inspectors, for unpermitted improvements, such as spas, cowboy tubs, and mini-splits. Inspectors issued red tags for unpermitted conversions and modifications. Of these, the city considered 37% non-actionable, 31% no violation, and 25% unverifiable, leaving just 7% resulting in citations. The 12-page violations database is here.
There have also been complaints that flow the other way—residents who make noise to create an unpleasant experience for guests.
During public comment, Chair Krushat read a summary of a situation resident Heidi Heard tried to report. Her full letter referenced fireworks shot off from a VHR at midnight. Heard said she called Avantstay, the agent for the property, and they replied they had responded to the incident. Heard pointed out that when calls are made directly to VHR owners, it does not automatically register on the city's database, nor would calls made to the Sheriff. The city does not contact the complainant about their report, Heard wrote, and in this case, her reported incident was not included in the current report the city released.
Susan Peplow took issue with the violations database’s missing report dates and the inclusion of violations that occurred before the current ordinance was in place. Peplow said the best way to avoid problems with VHR owners is to "set them up for success" by having clear and reasonable rules, not by creating more stringent ones.
Cindy Bernard said when she tried to call a VHR owner to report off-road vehicles going in and out of a VHR, a language barrier prevented the owner from understanding her concern, and the noise level got to the point that a neighbor left his house to escape the disturbance. There were no consequences for the VHR owner despite reporting the noise and illegal ORV use on the property and surrounding parcels to the city and the Sheriff.
Staff asked for a more "flexible administrative policy" to apply fines and move toward revocation of a VHR permit if warranted. Having all the fines and enforcement in ordinance leaves staff little flexibility in making decisions on penalties.
With that, the meeting was adjourned.
Cindy Bernard and Heidi Heard are Desert Trumpet staff members.
The report shows the city is far behind the state's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal of 989 more residential units constructed by 2029. Only 13 units are currently in process so far this year, and last year's total was only 27 units. One hundred sixty-four units would have to be built each year to hit the state's goal.
No distinction was made between tourism camping and unhoused camping.
Share your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Share this post—it’s free!
Subscribing is always free. We are grateful to our paid subscribers; thanks to them, we have met $1,440 of our $10,000 goal. Won’t you consider taking us over $1500 by upgrading to a paid subscription or donating?
I’ve used Hipcamp (outside the Grand Canyon) and it was a positive experience, for what it’s worth. I think if the numbers and density are strictly limited it could be a good thing around here.