Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConditional Use Permit 11-244 - APN 627-164-005CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE RETURN OF FEES PAID REGARDING A DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11- 244 TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LOCATED AT 44-600 SAN JOSE AVENUE, APN 627-164-005 SUBMITTED BY: Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Alan and Susan Parker 44-600 San Jose Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO.: CUP 11-244 DATE: July 12, 2012 CONTENTS: Letter requesting reimbursement of fees paid Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 19, 2011 City Council Minutes, dated September 8, 2011 Recommendation By Minute Motion: Approve the applicant's request for reimbursement of fees paid for review of a short-term rental CUP application and appeal. Background Staff received the attached letter from the applicant on June 14, 2012, requesting reimbursement of fees paid for the review of CUP 11-244 to operate a short-term rental. The applicants were charged a one-time fee of $500 for processing a CUP, and a $210 appeal fee. The City Council approved a new Short-term Rental Ordinance (Section 5.10) requiring a license for all property owners wishing to operate a short-term rental on March 8, 2012. Prior to this ordinance adoption, permission to operate a short-term rental in non -gated communities required a Conditional Use Permit and the payment of a $500 fee for staff review of the application prior to,a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Staff Report Case No. CUP 11-244 Page 2 of 3 July 12, 2012 On July 19, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed the short-term rental CUP application by Mr. and Mrs. Parker at 44-600 San Jose Avenue. The proposed short- term rental consists of a two-story house consisting of 1,785 square feet on a 10,620 square foot lot. The home has four bedrooms, which will allow rental to a maximum of eight overnight guests and no more than four daytime guests. Off-street parking for four vehicles is available within the garage and driveway. Public Hearing notices were mailed to 42 property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel and placed in The Desert Sun; no letters or comments were received in favor of or opposition to the proposed use prior to the public hearing. The applicant complied with the requirements, therefore staff recommended approval. At the meeting, one neighbor spoke in opposition to the proposed use and the applicant was absent; therefore not able to respond to the complaint. The opponents' complaints were trash left at the curb until pick-up day, noise, and additional cars in the neighborhood from guests. Police and Code Compliance reported there were no official calls for service or complaints on this address during a two-year background search. The Planning Commission denied the request. In response to the complaint during the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant provided a very thorough amount of information that staff believed corroborated the assertions of the neighbor may be attributable to other residences in the neighborhood and recommended approval to City Council. After receiving the denial, the applicant filed an appeal and paid the associating $210 fee for review and an additional public hearing with the City Council to seek an approval. On September 8, 2011, the City Council reviewed the appeal and request for approval of the short-term rental CUP application. After discussing the request and closing the public hearing, the City Council denied the appeal upholding the Planning Commission's decision of the request for the short-term rental CUP. On June 14, 2012, staff received a letter from the applicants of the denied short-term rental CUP requesting a refund of both the $500 CUP fee for the application and the $210 appeal fee. The applicant states that they are in a financial hardship and they believe that they should receive a refund. At the time the applicant voluntarily applied for approval of a short-term rental which required a CUP and a public hearing. The $500 fee was a reduced fee from $2,915 that is required for all other CUPs at that time. In addition, a CUP is a discretionary approval and the fee is based on staff time necessary to review the application and to hold a public hearing. The applicant additionally filed an appeal and paid the $210 fee required for City Council review. Since CUP's were only required for short-term rentals from May 14, 2011 until the ordinance changed on March 8, 2012, staff recommends returning the fees to the applicant given the fact that the process has changed over a short period of time and the public hearing and associated fees are no longer required. Only six people applied C:\Users\mwighlman\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\l MN85ETK\City Council Staff Report Request for Return of Monies. dOCX Staff Report Case No. CUP 11-244 Page 3 of 3 July 12, 2012 during this period; staff determined that the $500 fee was' a deterrent to applicants registering their property as a short-term rental and paying T.O.T. Fiscal Analysis A denial would not result in a fiscal impact. Should City Council deem that the fees paid should be returned to the applicant, $710 would be deducted from the General Fund. Submitted By: Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner Department Head: C�Z;-r-7-57- oe-7 Arne Lauri Aylai n, Direct r of Community Development .e M. Wohlmuth, City Manager CITY COUNCIL ACTION APPROVED L/ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETING DATE_ 2_/a'­2C1,:;L AYES:ber6on, �ner�Tt kacoI lK Ernon��i ite NOES: Z ABSENT: /J__ 6 ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: 7 i Original on File with City Clerk's Office C:\Users\mwightman\NppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\1 MN85ETK\City Council Staff Report Request for Return of Monies. docx City of Palm Desert Community Development Susan & Alan Parker 44600 San Jose Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case Number 12-2511 JUN 14 2012 The degrading garden condition is as a result of the Palm Desert City Council CUP denial on September 8`h 2011. 1 applied for a CUP permit for a short term rental on 06/08/11. It was denied for no good reason. We have owned the house for 10 years and kept it in excellent condition, with no complaints or problems. We are hardly ever there. But I had 1 neighbor who is a snob and didn't want to share the neighborhood., and she had something to say. I then appealed the denial and I presented myself in person to the City Council. I explained at my Appeal that I did not even want to rent out my house as a short term rental for income, but had to, due to the current financial economic situation having a direct effect on my income.. I had to be resourceful and rent it out or I would not be able to pay for the upkeep on it and I might have to foreclose. I also suggested to the City Council then, that the whole neighborhood could be affected if I was unable to pay the maintenance on the property - the house would decline and the garden would die. Thus it would lower the property values in the neighborhood. Your 5 Council members listened to my Appeal, stated their understanding, and 3 of them callously looked me in the eye and declined my CUP application. 2 agreed because they had the sense to see the implications of their decision, but they were over ruled. Thus, the City Council who were aware of my problem and of what the outcome could be, refused to help me and should now be held accountable for this current situation. I paid $ 500 CUP application and $210 for an Appeal — both cases were denied and I got no refund. I suggest that the City Council, in order to restore the neighborhood, refund me my fees which you took from me with no permit provided, so that I can pay the utility bills in an attempt to try and restore the garden. A copy of this letter has been sent to my lawyer. Please include him in any further correspondence. Michael Shemtoub, Esquire 8383 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 702 Beverly Hills, Ca 90211 Sincerely, Susan Par r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2011 Commissioner Limont asked if the masseur would be an employee of J Russell Salon or independent. Mr. Swartz said that he'd let the applicant speak to that. Commissioner De Luna wanted to clarify that this isn't being considered a stand-alone use. Mr. Swartz stated that was correct, that it was a secondary use to the salon. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to step forward. Ms. Meg Firestone, owner of J Russell Salon, introduced herself and Sally Harland, the masseuse, whom she has asked to be the full-time masseuse at the salon, to the commission. Ms. Sally Harland, 72-996 El Paseo, spoke about her experience as a massage therapist. She has been one in the desert for nearly 20 years either as an employee in physicians' offices or on her own. She is a registered nurse (RN). Since the new ordinance was passed in the city, both she and Ms. Firestone came to the City to apply for permission to operate a massage facility within the salon. Commissioner De Luna asked Ms. Harland if she was a full —time employee of the salon. Ms. Harland stated that she would be an independent contractor. Chair Campbell asked for any testimony in favor of or opposition to this application. Seeing none, she declared the public hearing closed. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approving CUP 11-173, subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2556 approving CUP 11-173, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 11-244, Alan and Susan Parker, Short-term Rental, Applicants. Request by applicants for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a short-term rental at 44-600 San Jose Avenue. 5 MINUTES RALl i 1 11 ►_-WO9-2A Missy Wightman orally presented her staff report and presentation. She showed the location and floor plan of the house on the computer screen. The zoning for the area meets the requirements to operate a short-term rental. The applicant is in compliance with all of the standards in place to operate a short-term rental. This house is a 4-bedroom house which, according to the ordinance, limits any overnight guests to two per bedroom for a total of eight. All parking must be on site and at this location there is room for two cars in the garage and two more in the driveway. The applicant's lease contract does list the additional requirements and mentions payment of TOT. Ms. Wightman showed site photos of the property. There is one bedroom downstairs and three more upstairs. Ms. Wightman stated that there were no public comments received either in favor of or in opposition to this application since the legal notice was mailed July 1, 2011. She verified with the Police Department and the City Code Compliance division that there weren't any noise or other violations on file. Staff recommends approval of this CUP and she offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Limont began her questions by asking what the stages of enforcement for various violations are, are the owners called after the police, or before? Ms. Wightman indicated that the police are called first. Then the property owners are contacted. The City is keeping record of the new requests for short-term rentals and their owner/property manager contact information should something like this occur. If there are multiple violations, then the CUP could be revoked along with fines levied. If there is just one violation, then a warning would be issued. Commissioner Limont also asked about who would bear the cost of the police or code enforcement answering these calls. She stated that the `Augusta issue' ran up huge bills related to staff time. Ms. Aylaian stated that there is now some recourse for the City to recover some of these costs. When the noise ordinance was passed, a companion ordinance was also included which allows the City to charge the violator for repeated calls to a location. These charges include time charged for police and code enforcement. Commissioner Limont wanted to know if this information is being distributed along with the CUP application packet. Ms. Aylaian stated that it has not been part of the packet, but that it certainly could be included. Mr. Bagato wanted to add that Pedro Rodriguez, Senior Code Compliance Officer, and Lt. Andrew Shouse from the Police Department have been kept apprised of any violations: new or repeat offenses that any citizen reports. Having noise violations on record assists the police and the code officers in levying heftier fines against repeat offenders. Mr. Bagato wanted to add that stricter ordinances that would allow for heftier fines and quicker citations n. IIMIUTES ''_u DESERT PLANNINGCOMMISSION •► may be forthcoming for consideration. Under the current noise ordinance, Mr. Bagato stated that if there are fewer than 10 people, then a 'rowdy party' citation can't be issued. The new proposal would drop that count down to one person or more, regardless of the individual being a permanent resident or a visitor. Commissioner Tanner requested that Mr. Bagato state for the record, the number of homes the sheriff department visited relating to short-term rentals [referring to a meeting that both Mr. Bagato and Commissioner Tanner recently attended]. Mr. Bagato stated that the Police Department has no way of knowing if the noise violation calls they respond to are short-term rentals or not; but that the overall total of noise violations responded to was very low. The police lieutenant stated that the tools are already in place to enforce these infractions; the education to the owners and the neighbors is the main issue —getting the word out of what repercussions there are for violations. Commissioner Tanner asked about the $500 fee and if it was a deposit or a one-time fee and if that fee would be used to pay for back code or police responses to ordinance violations. Mr. Bagato stated that the fee was a one- time, non-refundable, administrative fee. That fee would not be used toward any code violations or fines, only for the staff time to process the application. Commissioner De Luna asked about the size of the lot and also about parking: if there are four guests allowed, where would they park? Ms. Wightman said that she didn't know the lot size off -hand; her guess was about 7000 square feet. As for the parking, two cars would park in the garage and two more could park in the driveway. Commissioner De Luna wanted to know about parking for additional guests, where would they park? Ms. Wightman stated that they would have to park along the street. She wasn't certain that the code intended to have on -site parking for daytime guests, just for nighttime guests. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to step forward. The applicant was not in attendance. Chair Campbell asked for any testimony in favor of or opposition to the application to come forward. Ms. Sabine Gaedt, 44-595 San Jose, came forward to speak in opposition to this project. She stated that she liked the applicants, a nice couple from out of town. Ms. Gaedt's 80-year-old parents live across the street from this property. She mentioned that the applicants must have offered their house a few times as a short-term rental on a trial basis and during those times, there have been a few problems: trash bags sitting on the street until trash day, some noise complaints that some of the neighbors have previously let slide, and cars of guests and guests -of -guests parking all over the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2011 neighborhood and giving her elderly parents an uncomfortable feeling. Ms. Gaedt said that she wasn't aware of the City Council ruling regarding allowable guests, until she received a notice in the mail about today's hearing. She felt that calling the police is a hassle: there was another property nearby that seemed to have been rented to drug -dealers and the police were constantly called and after many days and nights of complaints, and thousands of dollars of repairs to the property, those tenants finally went away. But the whole process was a huge hassle. Seeing no one else willing to offer testimony, Chair Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commissioner comments. Commissioner De Luna began with her comments and concerns about this project. She stated that the last speaker mirrored many of her concerns just now. Commissioner De Luna mentioned that the size of the property is an issue because it's a larger property with four bedrooms that would potentially house up to 12 people. That is a large number of people for a neighborhood, especially during Coachella Fest or another 'fest' like that. She wants to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood for families that live there with young children. She understands that guests are required to leave at 8 p.m. but that doesn't always happen, especially when the party starts going at noon and could get louder as more guests arrive during the day. The neighbors can be accommodating sometimes by not calling the police every time there is an infraction, but that doesn't help the overall problem at hand. In this instance, she can't support the request for a CUP. Commissioner Tanner commented that the Planning Commission's desire is to preserve the neighborhood for those that live here full time. He noted that there are a lot of residents that aren't here full time and would like to get revenue for their second homes and he understands that side of the problem also. He believed that the current ordinances have teeth and that if the current methods of enforcement aren't working, then they should go back before the City Council and be changed. If there is nothing in place (a CUP) then the City would have no recourse against those violators, because they aren't registered, they are 'underground'. But if the Planning Commission approved CUP's for these applicants who have paid their money and read the rules and understood the consequences, then the City could register the applicants, prosecute those few violators and collect the TOT. He felt that the City has created a well defined procedure to deal with any problems that neighbors (like the parents of the speaker present tonight) report. The City already requests that the owners post trash days, and noise ordinances and where people can park and call the police or the City if there is a violation to get it on record. If the public doesn't report it and if the owner doesn't have a CUP, then there isn't much or anything the City can do about MINUTES PAL it after -the -fact. In sum, Commissioner Tanner would be in favor of this application. Commissioner Limont stated that she has a short-term rental in her neighborhood that is a constant violator and has and is taking months to control. They are operating without a CUP and that also complicates the issue. She is infuriated when neighbors come to her asking her for help with the late -night parties that are being held on school nights and there isn't much that she can do. Her issue is that the owners of this house live in Chicago and don't know what's happening on a weekly basis. She feels that people should be allowed to do what they wish with their property, but not at the expense of neighborhoods. Commissioner De Luna wanted to respond to something that Commissioner Tanner said and in this case the landlord seems to be an absentee landlord and although there are codes in place and consequences for those violations, she also pointed out that Commissioner Limont has to contend with the short-term rental in her neighborhood and is STILL working through those issues. In this particular case, she believes that the house is large enough that the code will permit too many families and guests and create a legal noise problem. She can't support this instance; she could in theory, but not this reality in this instance. Commissioner Dash stated that he did and does support short-term rentals. He felt that this instance was fraught with problems: noise and garbage, but more importantly, that the applicants weren't present for this meeting. He stated that there is no local address for them [contact address] and that that shows that they don't appreciate the gravity of short-term rentals out here and the issues surrounding them. He, therefore, will not vote in favor. He stated that if the applicant wants to come back with some answers, he might change his mind, but at the present time, he would vote against it. Chair Campbell stated that the applicant does have a property manager that is available 24/7 with contact information. She agrees with Commissioner Tanner that the Planning Commission did approve the CUP process and here is an applicant going through the process, so the Commission should grant it and keep them on the record rather than sending them and others like them `underground'. With that, she moved for approval of staffs recommendation. Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion with more discussion. He wanted to point out that any appeal from any applicant doesn't come back to the Planning Commission but would go directly to the City Council. He wanted to mention that if there is a problem with this house, one calls the management company that the owners have hired and let them know about the trash or the noise and find a quick solution to any problem, since that's what they're paid to do. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING•lLll •► 1 Commissioner Dash asked Ms. Gaedt if she was aware of this property being managed by a rental agency. Ms. Gaedt stated that she was not. (other inaudible remarks were made) Ms. Wightman advised that a continuance be issued to give the applicant time to respond. Commissioner De Luna said that the applicant had plenty of time already and that request would not be granted. Action: Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Tanner seconded approving CUP 11-244, subject to the attached conditions. Motion failed 2-3 (Commissioners De Luna, Dash and Limont voting NO). Commissioner De Luna moved and Commissioner Limont seconded a motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for CUP 11-244 to be brought to the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Tanner and Campbell voting NO). IX. MISCELLANEOUS ►IL•7�1� X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION Commissioner Campbell stated that the last meeting artists were chosen for the registries. Some art pieces were sold to a music school on the East Coast. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont mentioned that the meeting would be Wednesday, July 20, 2011 (tomorrow). C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner said that they met, but Commissioner Tanner was unable to attend. He said that the meeting was an update on the Aquatic Center. He urged everyone to go see it. He also stated that the parking area was prize -worthy, it was that well - designed. Ms. Aylaian stated that there were about 600 people per day in attendance. Commissioner Tanner mentioned that there have been trespassers at night, but the sheriff and a private security company are now watching the grounds. 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 Councilmember Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the recommended letter of Request to Assemblyman Nestande and Senator Emmerson. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 5-0 vote. XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS None XVI. OLD BUSINESS None XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LOCATED AT 44-600 SAN JOSE AVENUE (APN 627-164-005), Case No. CUP 11-244 (Alan and Susan Parker, Applicants/Appellants). Assistant Planner Missy Wightman stated this was an appeal of the Planning Commission decision for a short-term rental at 44-600 San Jose Avenue. On April 14, 2011, the City Council approved Zoning Ordinance Amendment 1223, revising standards for short-term rental. On July 19, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny the first proposed short-term rental under the revised Ordinance. On August 2, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution of Denial. She said no public comment was received in response to the 42 legal notices mailed July 1, 2011, to neighbors within 300 feet of the proposed property. At the public hearing, one neighbor spoke in opposition due to trash being left at the curb prior to pick up, noise, and additional cars from guests of the property owner. The Applicant was absent from the Planning Commission meeting and unable to respond to the complaint. Police researched records going back two years prior and there have been no calls on this property. Additionally, Code Compliance researched their records and found no calls on this property for the past six years. She said the property is located on the northwest corner of San Jose Avenue and De Anza Way. She said this was a consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a short-term rental in a non -gated Single -Family Residential Zone. The General Plan land use designation is Medium Density Residential, the Zoning is Residential Single Family as well as all the surrounding properties. Part of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment requires a 24-hour contact, and the Applicant did have a Property Management Company called McLean Company Rentals for the neighbors to call if there's a problem with this house. The Applicant also complies with some of the more major issues like the minimum three-day rental occupancy. She said this four bedroom home allows for eight overnight guests maximum 25 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 with four on -site parking spaces available. The remainder of the contract is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Responding to question, she confirmed a three-day rental meant a two -night stay. She displayed photographs of the two-story house, which is kept in clean appearance. She said the Applicant provided a site plan, which shows the lot is 10,620 square feet and the total square footage for the two floors is 1,785. She said when staff formulates their recommendation to the City Council, it takes into consideration the number of people who spoke in opposition or in favor. She said there was one person that spoke in opposition out of the 42 notices that were sent out. Additionally, they look at police and code compliance reports, and in this case, there was no indication of calls on the property. She said the Applicant is in complete compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment that was approved; therefore, staff recommended approval of the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a short-term rental at 44600 San Jose Avenue, Palm Desert. Mayor Benson asked if at the time the complaint was filed, if the Applicant already had a contract with the property management. Ms. Wightman deferred the question to the Applicant. Mayor Benson declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. SUSAN PARKER, Applicant, stated she didn't want to rent her home, but is doing so because of the current economic situation. She said they've lived there ten years, and it's their second home. She and her husband work in Santa Monica and have another home there, but the home in Palm Desert is what they work for. She said her husband is in construction and has done all the maintenance on the home and continues to do it; therefore, they continue to be part of this house, which is why they are applying for a short-term rental as opposed to a long-term rental. She said they need help on the rental, because of the horrible mortgage and the effects this economy has had on their business. She said her kids are in college, the house is empty, and they need the additional income, so it just seemed like the logical thing to do. With regard to trash being left out, she said they never leave trash behind, she always takes it back with her to Santa Monica, and the only noise coming from her house is from her children playing in the pool. She called upon the McLean Property Management to help with the property and signed a contract in July, but she has never rented the house out as this is a brand-new endeavor for her. She has had friends and family who come over from Europe to stay at the house. She said the Property Management Company will screen the renter thoroughly, because she is very particular. She asked the City Council for its approval, because this would be a means to an end. 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 MR. PAUL GREEN, McLean Property Rentals in Palm Springs, stated they worked with the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and La Quinta on developing the Vacation Rental Ordinance. He said they screen all the renters, they are on call 24/7, and if there is a complaint of noise, too many vehicles, etc., they are required to respond within 45 minutes. He said it was his understanding that the person who complained about the trash and noise, there was no one using the property at that time. What they do as a rental company, they screen renters, collect the rent, inspect the property before and after the stay, and respond to any problem at that time. He said their business card is given to all the neighbors, but they have not rented this property yet, because they wanted to make sure it was approved by the City before it started renting it out. Councilman Kroonen asked staff how many requests have been received by the City to go through the CUP process. Ms. Wightman answered ten since the new process was adopted in May, but there were some that were grandfathered. Councilmember Harnik stated she recalled the Ordinance would be reviewed in six months to see how many people applied for a CUP. Ms. Aylaian agreed, stating staff is preparing to come back to the Council in October with an update on how many people have applied and how many have been grandfathered along with feedback received going through the process. Mayor Benson asked whether this property was under the rental service when the Planning Commission denied the CUP. The Applicant signaled that it wasn't. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Benson declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Harnik stated she supported the short-term rental, because the last thing the City wanted was foreclosed homes. She knew the City of Rancho Mirage had done an ordinance, which she would like to take a look at and discuss in October. She felt it was important the City made it possible for people to get a CUP, but the Ordinance needs to include teeth where it can issue fines for noncompliance or violations. She said people will go underground if it's made difficult to obtain a CUP. She believed it was important to get people registered so that the City was able to watch and track short-term rentals. She would appreciate staff looking into ways that teeth can be put into the Ordinance. She said the short-term renters on her street have never been a problem, but understood that was not everyone's experience. 27 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 Councilmember Harnik moved to, waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2011 - 83, granting the Appeal and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 11-244, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Spiegel. Councilmember Finerty stated the Statement of Use included in the staff report indicates that for two nights for a four -bedroom house it has the potential for eight overnight guests. She said parking would be an issue for her, because if everybody on the street did the same, it will destroy the residential integrity of the neighborhood. She has always been and will continue to be opposed to short-term rentals. The letter received from Sabine Gaedt states, 'Allowing a neighbor to turn their second home into a short-term rental will threaten the integrity of our neighborhood." She understood it was tough times for everyone, but it was important to keep the character of the neighborhood that everybody bought under and wasn't to turn it into a short-term rental or second units in the back yard. Therefore, she would be voting NO. She wished the Applicant luck with her financial position. Councilman Kroonen concurred, stating he was concerned this was a residential community and people bought their home under the premise that they would have quiet solitude and not be invaded. He complimented the work of Code Enforcement, because when he's brought issues to them, they have been cooperative and productive in bringing about resolution. He is not the least bit interested in seeing Palm Desert become known as the short-term rental capital of the world. He pointed out this issue had gone through the Planning Commission, which on a majority vote turned it down. Mayor Benson noted other people who have second homes in Country Clubs have been turned down that wanted to rent their home, but used the economic downturn as a reason to do so. She was against turning neighborhoods into rentals, because the City had rental places and hotels. She said the Planning Commission looked at this case first and her vote will also be NO. Councilmember Harnik commented she'd rather see a few renters in her neighborhood than a foreclosed home. Mayor Pro Tern Spiegel stated Palm Desert was a resort area, which couldn't be denied, and there are people that have purchased homes in the resort area to make them financially stable and eventually retire to them, but they are living in Los Angeles or San Diego. He said there is approximately $200,000 in hotel occupancy tax that the City was not getting, which is the reason he wanted to put teeth in the Ordinance; otherwise, people will continue to rent their home and go underground. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 Councilman Kroonen pointed out that when this issue was being considered in the spring, he suggested a provision that it be for more than two nights, which is where the problem was created as far as he is concerned. He said that suggestion was declined by the majority of the Council, but he continues with his position that two nights was just too short. Councilmember Finerty concurred, stating the minimum for a homeowner association was 30 nights, and it was for the exact same reason, when people buy into an area/place, they are expecting a certain type of atmosphere. However, when you open it up to short-term rentals, it becomes an entirely different atmosphere. Mayor Benson called for the vote, and the motion FAILED on a 2-3 vote, with Finerty, Kroonen, and Benson voting NO. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE REALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS PREVIOUSLY AWARDED TO FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT AND REMAINING UNSPENT FUNDS FROM PREVIOUSLY FUNDED CDBG PROGRAMS/PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO RANCH RECOVERY CENTER. Ms. Riddle stated the subject request is to ask the Council to approve reallocation of the Community Development Block Grant to the Ranch Recovery Center. She said Housing and Urban Development (HUD) notified the City of their concern with the Family YMCA for monitoring. She said HUD's focused for CDBG is for abused, neglected, and homeless. Mayor Pro Tern Spiegel asked who made the recommendation to reallocate the funds to the Ranch Recovery Center. Ms. Riddle answered she made the decision based on the application and information provided. Further responding, she explained that the YMCA was going to use their funds for Capital Improvement to replace doors and flooring, etc., that equaled $28,000. She said previously capital improvement projects didn't have to track and monitor the users of the facility, but now HUD requires that regardless of the type of project, 51 % or more of the users of that facility need to be low income. She said the YMCA does not have participants fill out self -certification forms, and after talking to them, she confirmed they did not undertake that kind of tracking nor did they believe they could get 51 % or more low-income participants at that facility. She said the City has funded the Ranch Recovery Center in the past, and they have always had more than 51 % low income participation at their facility. Further responding, she said the Recovery Center is located in Desert Hot Springs.