FPPC Sets Stage to Fine Cathedral City

CATHEDRAL CITY — This city is likely to be fined $31,500 for sending prohibited campaign-related mass mailings at public expense, according to the published FPPC agenda.

Cathedral City sent prohibited campaign-related mass mailings at public expense, in violation of Government Code Section 89001 and Regulation 18901.1 (2 counts); failed to include the proper advertising disclosure on mailers, in violation of Government Code Sections 84502 and 84504.2 (2 counts); failed to timely file an independent expenditure committee campaign statement for the period of January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021, in violation of Government Code Section 84200, subdivision (b) (1 count); and failed to
timely file two 24-Hour Reports, in violation of Government Code Section 84204 (2 counts), according to the FPOC,

The total proposed penalty is $31,500.

“The City of Cathedral City acknowledges the recent California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) determination regarding informational mailers sent to residents in January and February 2021 concerning Measure B, which addressed Short Term Vacation Rental regulations,” Ryan Hunt, Communications and Events Director wrote in a statement.

“While the FPPC has determined that the style and tenor of our communications crossed into advocacy, it’s important to note that the factual content of the mailers was accurate and truthful. The information presented to residents reflected the documented issues our community was experiencing related to short-term vacation rentals, including public complaints, nuisances, and safety concerns.

“After careful consideration, the City has chosen to accept the FPPC’s determination and will comply with all requirements to resolve this matter. The City remains committed to transparent communications with our residents.

“It should be noted that the FPPC took four years to reach this determination, which reflects the nuanced nature of this case. The regulations in question were developed through extensive community engagement and ultimately upheld by voters, allowing Cathedral City to effectively address neighborhood concerns regarding short-term vacation rentals.

“The City continues to enforce these regulations, which have proven effective in maintaining overall quality of life for our neighborhoods while allowing responsible vacation rental operations within our community.”

Alex Rose, Senior Commission Counsel and Jay Gehres, Special Investigator represented the FPPC. Eric S. Vail of Burke, Williams, &
Sorensen. who serves as the city attorney, represented Cathedral City

The item is on the consent calendar when the FPPC meets on Thursday, May 15 at 10 a.m. at 1102 Q Street in Sacramento.

The fine relates to Measure B, a proposed additional short-term vacation rental (“STVR”) regulations and limitations for the City. Measure B was on the ballot for City voters on the March 2, 2021 Special Election.

Measure B was successful with 5,006 votes and 63% of the electorate voting yes. The City had a total population of 52,220 in 2021.

Prior to the election, on or around Jan. 21, 2021, the city sent approximately 21,000 two-sided mailings (“Mailer #1”) to its residents According to invoices obtained from the city, the mailers cost $37,960 to produce, which includes $10,950 in legal service charges from the Lew Edwards Group and $17,875 in survey costs as described below.

According to the FPPC, the style and tenor of one side of the mailer clearly urges support for Measure B. Specifically, one of the pages included a small Q&A titled, “Questions and Answers About Measure B” with the following three questions: “What is Measure B?,” “What are the community concerns addressed by Measure B?,” “How does Measure B affect housing needs?”

The first answer is informational until it states that Measure B would address “resident complaints and demands to improve neighborhood safety by addressing the impacts of STVRs.” The City argues for support by linking the passage of Measure B to residents’ complaints and demands for improved safety, the FPPC maintains.

The second answer is the most egregious in providing a one-sided argument in favor of Measure B. The answer highlights specific concerns about STVRs causing disruptions and safety issues in residential neighborhoods. By emphasizing “nearly 2,000 complaints from residents,” “instances of loud parties,” “criminal activities” (such as stabbings), and “illegal activities” (like unauthorized
cannabis cultivation), the statement builds a case that STVRs can negatively impact neighborhood quality of life and safety. It suggests that tighter controls or limitations on STVRs could reduce these problems, supporting the argument for Measure B.

Finally, according to the FPPC, the third answer supports the argument in favor of passing STVR restrictions, focusing on the housing market and affordability issues rather than community disruptions. It highlights how rising local “housing costs” and the decreasing availability of affordable housing are affecting long-term residents, including working families

 

 

 

 

f