HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2013-02-11 #H t�04*S€ACeF'ti
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
"'CgLtFORN1P,:"
DATE: February 11, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Jim Basham, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-21, TO ALLOW
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 247 17TH STREET TO
BE RENTED ON A SHORT-TERM BASIS AS A
VACATION RENTAL
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council consider upholding the Planning Commission's denial of
Conditional Use Permit 12-21, for a short-term vacation rental of the property
located at 247 17th Street.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
After conducting a public hearing on November 7, 2012, the Planning
Commission denied an application for a conditional use permit (CUP 12-21) for a
short-term vacation rental of property located at 247 17th Street. Neighboring
residents complained that the short term residents of the subject property create
excessive noise during their vacation stays, and that the operation of multiple
vacation units on the subject property negatively impacts an already deficient
parking and traffic circulation environment. Attachment "B" is Planning
Commission Resolution No. 12-34 containing the findings and determination of
the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission minutes are attached as
Attachment "C".
Appeal:
On January 2, 2013, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision from the property owners Robert and Nancy Beck.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.20.005.D, an appeal must indicate in what
way the appellant contends the decision was incorrect or must provide
extenuating circumstances that the appellant contends would justify reversal or
modification of the Planning Commission's decision. The appellant's appeal
states:
Agenda Item H
"The basis of my appeal is that there was insufficient facts/evidence before the
Commission to support the findings required by California law and the Seal
Beach Municipal Code in order to deny our CUP application." The Applicants' 11
page appeal letter is attached as Attachment "A".
Proiect Characteristics:
The subject property is located in the Residential Low Density (RED-20) zone
area of Old Town Seal Beach, which is characterized by narrow residential lots
with narrow setbacks. 17th Street is a narrow, single lane, one-way street, with
parking on both sides. Parking is scarce in the area.
The subject property is an approximately 2,500-square foot lot approximately 25'
by 100', and is presently developed with a two-story residential duplex. The
downstairs dwelling unit consists of two bedrooms and one bathroom, and the
upstairs dwelling unit consists of three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The
property is nonconforming on the basis of: (1) density because the Zoning Code
permits only one dwelling unit on the subject property; and (2) parking because
the subject property has only one off-street parking spot for each unit and the
Zoning Code requires two spots for each unit.
The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential High
Density (RHD-20) zone.
SOUTH: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential High
Density (RHD-20) zone.
EAST: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential High
Density (RHD-20) zone.
WEST: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential High
Density (RHD-20) zone.
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
The City may conditionally approve a CUP only if the City can make certain
findings to ensure compatibility. Seal Beach Municipal Code Section
11.5.20.005(B) provides that an application for a CUP requires special
consideration to ensure that a proposed use can be designed, located, and
operated in a manner that will be compatible with the City. Seal Beach Municipal
Code Section 11.5.20.020(A) provides a CUP can only be granted if the
reviewing body finds, based upon evidence presented at the hearing, the
proposal as submitted, or as modified, conforms to all of the following criteria:
441. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and with any other
applicable plan adopted by the City Council;
Page 2
2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with use
permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code;
3. The site is physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use
being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of physical
constraints;
4. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect uses and properties in
the surrounding neighborhood; and
5. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the
location proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use."
Planning Commission Findings:
The Planning Commission found that:
a. Use of the subject property as a short term vacation rental is inconsistent
with the General Plan because the adverse noise, parking, and other impacts
from the use of the subject property as a short term vacation rental are
incompatible with the residential designation of the neighborhood.
b. The subject property is not physically adequate for the type, density and
intensity of use proposed because the neighboring residences are so close that
there can be no effective buffer for the sort of noise and other use impacts
created by short term occupancy of a nonconforming duplex and the street is so
narrow that the addition of multiple vehicles for vacation renters at a property that
is already nonconforming as to off-street parking will negatively impact an
already deficient situation.
C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use would not be compatible with and would adversely affect uses and properties
in the surrounding neighborhood because allowing vacation renters increases the
number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbates noise,
traffic and other land use impacts.
d. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of a short term vacation
rental at the subject property is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of
persons residing in the vicinity because the addition of vacation renters increases
the number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbates
noise, traffic and other land use impacts.
Legal Notification:
The legal notice of this hearing was published in the Seal Beach Sun Newspaper
on January 24, 2013 and mailed to 180 property owners and 174 occupants
Page 3
within a 500' radius of the subject property on January 29, 2013, with affidavits of
publishing and posting on file.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
If the Council upholds the Commission's decision, the decision would be exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15270; because CEQA does not apply to project that a public
agency rejects or disapproves.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code and applicable state law, the City may
uphold, overturn or modify the Commission's decision. If the Council overturns
the decision, it may impose reasonable conditions upon the CUP designed to
ensure that the proposal conforms in all significant respects to the Seal Beach
General Plan and to all other applicable plans and policies adopted by the City
Council and to mitigate any potential impacts.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council, after considering all relevant testimony,
written and oral presented during the public hearing, direct staff to prepare a
resolution upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit
12-21.
BMITT D BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
t
J m Basham Ji R. Ingram, Cit Ma ager
irector of Community Development
Attachments:
A. Appeal received January 2, 2013
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-34
C. Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 2012
D. Location Map
E. Written Correspondence
F. Plans
Page 4
Attachment A
Appeal received January 2, 2013
Jan. 2. 2013 12:01PM No. 5240 P. I
SEA
RECEIVED
APPEAL APPLICATION
TO CITY COUNCIL JAN 0 2 2013 CITY CLERK
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
For Office Use Only
Planning Commission Cate:,it2,,�_Iq-12 Manning Comm. Resolution No.: 1
Planning Commission Action: Approval Denial Other
Date Appeal Fled: 1-2-13 -City Council Date:
Notice Date:
City Council Action: Resolution No.:
1 Property Address: 247 17th Street
2. Applicants Name: Robert W. Beck - c/o Law Offices of Robert Beck
Address:- 3828 Carson Street, #100 , Torrance, CA 90503
Work Phone: (3 1 .31 ra.-_413 2 - Mobile: (3)t0- 779-0050
Home Phone: @11 935-2544 . FAX: (310) 316-0075
3. Property Owner's Name: Robert & Nancy Beck
Address: 3828 Carson Street, #100 , Torrance CA 90503
Home Phone: P1 935-2544
4. The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach
Planning Commission concerning Public Hearing No.
Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning Commission is
being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and include your
statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error or must provide
e4erf6ifing circumstances that the appellant-,c6rit—egilds would justify reversal or
modification of the decision. (Municipal cre"§1,20. _11). ftpeai Contents)
7
(Slgnature of Applicant) Signature of Owner)
Robert W. Beck Robert W. Beck
(Print Name) (Print Name)
01-02-13 01-02-13
(Date) (Date)
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
CUP 12-21
RESOLUTION 12-34
Property Owners: Robert W. Beck and Nancy L. Beck
Property Address: 247 17th Street, Seal Beach
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council:
1. We, Robert W. Beck and Nancy L. Beck, respectfully submit this Appeal to the
Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach, denying our request
for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), permit 12-21 for a Short Term Rental located at
247 17th Street, Seal Beach. We understand that a revised resolution, 12-34 was
submitted to the Planning Commission on December 19, 2012, but do not know if it was
signed or adopted. The blank, unsigned resolution does not advise us of the time within
to appeal. Since City Hall was Closed from Monday December 23rd to January 1, 2013,
we could not file the appeal until January 2, 2013. We are also aware that on CUP 12-
15, denying a CUP, that Mr. Hastings sent via email to the owner a copy of the
resolution denying the CUP, advised the owner of the time within which to appeal, which
started the day after the Planning Commission Meeting and also provided an appeal
form, which is not available on line on the City's Website. So this appeal is being filed
within 10 days from the effective date of the denial of the CUP 12-34, which we
understand to be December 20th, 2012. 1 was informed on January 2, 2013 by Tina
that at the meeting on December 19, 2012 that the City Attorney stated that the time to
appeal would by 5:00 p.m., January 2, 2013.
2. On October 3, 2012 we filed our application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) after
being denied our application for an exemption. Our application was submitted pursuant
to the City's Interim Ordinance 1619-U.
3. The matter came before the Planning Commission on November 7, 2012 came
before the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. There were other matters,
including other CLIP requests before the Commission that evening.
4. The Staff Report recommended adoption or issuance of a CUP based upon their
examination of the application, supporting documents and a site visit. The Staff report
included the Staff making the findings to support issuance of a CUP in accordance with
Interim Ordinance 1619-U and California law. Staff announced that it had received no
written communication in opposition to the CUP and that there were no complaints by
anyone to the Seal Beach Police Department. There were no documented complaints
regarding the use of the property, whether as a short term vacation rental nor as a
rental unit that does not fit within the definition of a vacation rental unit under the
ordinance. Staff recommended that the Commission approve a CUP, noting that there
were no reported complaints about noise disturbances or any other adverse impacts as
a result of the operation of the property as a vacation rental unit. Staff, charged with
conducting a thorough investigation of the facts and circumstances in order to make the
proper findings for approval, concluded that as long as the applicants continued to abide
by city laws, ordinances and regulations that the continued use of the property as a
vacation rental unit that it would be compatible with the existing development pattern
and uses of the surrounding neighborhood. The Staff recommended certain conditions
to be part of the CUP, including restricting occupancy as set forth in the staff report and
in the proposed Resolution.
4. Before the matter was opened for discussion, yet during the public hearing, the
Commission requested Staff to prepare a map of the Old Towne District, noting the
existing vacation rental units, including those which had been issued a CUP, those
pending, and those that had been denied.
5. Because of this request, there was no testimony given by applicants nor by any
member of the audience (except as noted below) I do not believe that the public hearing
was opened for discussion on CUP 12-21.The hearing was continued to December 5,
2012.
6. The applicants requested Staff to provide them with a copy of the map they were to
prepare at the direction of the Commission and written correspondence that Staff
received on or about November 7, shortly before the meeting that was not attached to
the Staff Report. However, Staff did not provide Applicants with the Map nor the written
correspondence before the continued public hearing on December 5, nor did Staff
provide applicants with a copy during the meeting/hearing on December 5, 2012.
Applicants only recently obtained a copy of the Map after making a request under the
California Public Records Act and then in response to the Request, the City Clerk
referred applicants to the City website to obtain a copy of the map.
7. During the meeting on November 7, 2012, audience members were allowed to speak
in opposition to vacation rentals in general during the time allotted for members of the
public to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda. (in doing so the
Commission may have violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, but more critical to this process
was that it may have given the Commission the impression that the complaints and
concerns of those members of the public were about problems with units that were
being considered for a decision during the public hearing agenda items, including the
applicants. Applicants understand that members of the public may address the
Commission on matters not on the public hearing agenda, as those comments should
be addressed during the public hearing process. When the governmental body
reserves a portion of the time on their agenda for"audience items not on the agenda",
then members of the public can express their concerns or complaints or anything else
as long as it is not a matter on the agenda and that the Commission cannot discuss nor
take any action on those concerns. It seems that the proper formalities and regulations
under the Ralph M. Brown Act were followed by the Commission on November 7, 2012.
Applicants have obtained a copy of the DVD of that meeting, as well as the meeting on
December 5, 2012, to verify that members of the public were permitted to address the
Commissioners on vacation rental units when that was reserved for the public hearing
process scheduled later on the agenda.
8. Applicants raise this issue not to criticize the Commission nor dissuade members of
the public from speaking on matters not on the agenda at the appropriate time but to
bring this matter to the attention of the City Council as those comments may and
probably did have a definite and maybe significant influence on the decision by the
Commission, which was deferred to December 5, 2012 almost a month later when the
public hearing was conducted on CUP 12-21 Applicants were not permitted to
comment nor respond to the audience comments made on November 7 until December
5. (We doubt whether the Commissioners could ignore and/or accurately recall the
comments made to them on November 7 when they considered the testimony and other
evidence submitted at the meeting on December 5. Applicants consider this a critical
issue bearing on the decision they were asked to make on CUP 12-21 on December 5,
2012). The minutes of the Planning Commission only state that they received the
evidence at the public hearing on December 5, 2012, but the transcript of the meeting
on November 7, 2012 reveals that they received evidence and testimony on applicants
CUP during the time reserved for "audience items not on the agenda".
7. Because of the Applicants not receiving nor having access to the Map requested for
the December 5, 2012 meeting, they were deprived of the ability to study the map, verify
its accuracy and conduct further investigation on what was or turned out to be a critical
component of the Commission's decision of December 5, 2012, when they overruled
the Staff's recommendation and denied the CUP.
8. During the public hearing on applicant's CUP 12-21, many members of the pubic
spoke in opposition, but to vacation rental units in general. Many of the speakers did
not identify themselves by name or the addresses. In response to Applicants Public
Record Request, the City Clerk responded that she was unable to retrieve this
information as speaker are not required to state their names or addresses. Applicants
consider this information extremely important because the subject unit, 247 17th Street
is the only licensed vacation rental unit on 17th street, north of the green belt and within
at least 2 blocks. A copy of the Map prepared by staff is attached for clarification. It is
therefore impossible for the applicant and the commission to evaluate the impact of our
unit on 17th street on those members that spoke in opposition. Some members
identified that they did not reside close to our unit, in fact many indicated that they were
north of the Pier and nowhere near our unit. So how can they be impacted by our unit,
the only licensed vacation rental unit on 17th street or in a several block radius.
9. During the public hearing, one commissioner, Mr. Galbreath, announced before
hearing any evidence that he was voting against granting any more vacation rental units
regardless of the directions by the City council, the ordinance and the findings for a
CUP. In other words, he had decided that no matter what evidence was presented, that
he would vote not on any CUP for a vacation rental unit. He kept his word and denied
all CUP requests.
Another Commissioner, Mr. Goldberg, stated that he felt that there was a concentration
of vacation rental units on the south end of Ocean Avenue, in an area he described as
"The Triangle". Therefore, he indicated that he would not grant a CUP to any future
otherwise licensed vacation rental units if they were in "the Triangle". He expressed
concern that there were too many in that area, which he stated was the reason he
would deny any more CUP's in that area because simply there were too many.
Despite his reasoning, he nonetheless denied CUP 12-21 even though it is not located
anywhere hear "The Triangle". He along with the other commissioners denied the CUP
stating that they felt that this area of the city, despite being in Old Towne District (per
the ordinance and direction of the City Council) was a residential zoned area and not for
a "business". A vacational rental unit is not a business in the true sense of the word,
any more than any other home or dwelling being rented. The area is zoned RHD-20
which permits multi-unit dwellings, like apartments, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes,
and single family homes being leased or rented. It is a permitted use in accordance
with the City's zoning. Less than 2 blocks north of our unit is a school, and two small
shopping centers which operate business. Applicants also made a Public Records
request for copies of all business licenses issued to businesses located in areas zone
residential, but the City Clerk responded that the city does not maintain records in a
fashion to honor such a request, and could not respond until January 3, 2013 as City
Hall was closed for the week of Christmas, December 23, not opening until January 2,
2013. Our request could not be honored until we provided more clarification, which
applicants intend to do when the City reopens for "business" after the holiday shutdown.
Of more significance is that the applicants bought the property as zoned and
constructed, with the streets designed and configured long ago. The city permits
parking on both sides of 17th street; the City determined the building minimal set-backs
(3 feet side yard setbacks the property line, thus only 6 feet between each building); the
applicants played no part in that process.
The Planning Commission used totally different criteria for denying some CUP's (too
many on The Triangle",) but used a different measuring device to deny CUP 12-21 on
the basis that it is not close to Ocean Avenue where the Commission felt that vacation
rental units should exist.
Staff and the applicants agree that 247 17th street, CUP 12-21 meets all of the criteria
for granting a CUP under the City's interim ordinance and California law, but the
Commission created different and conflicting criteria to deny CUP 12-21.
Even more troubling was the "testimony" from opponents who spoke against vacation
rental units in general but the Commission misinterpreted this information believing that
the opposition speakers were registering undocumented complaints about 247 17th
street. The minutes of the meeting of December 5 support this attack, as they state that
"the more residents that spoke in opposition to this CUP than any other:" (Emphasis
added).
The commissions "findings"were not support by competent and reliable evidence. with
this unit being the only vacation rental unit on 17th street, it could not possibly adversely
affect parking and circulation on a narrow street (40 ft right of way, which includes curbs
and gutters), which permits parking on both sides, many dwellings are small and
presently permitted non-conformity garages, many garages are not used for parking
vehicles, but are used for storage and other non-pemitted uses (business, car repairs
and customizing, storage of boats and other items), necessitating residents to limited
parking in their small garages, requiring them to park in the alley ways and burdening a
narrow street.
There was no testimony from anyone that 247 17th street was being used consistently
as a short term vacation rental unit. In fact, the applicant testified that the downstairs
unit, a 2 bedroom, 1 bath, was leased for the entire Major League Baseball Season,
including the playoffs in October, to a member of the Los Angeles Angels. Not a short
term vacation rental. There were no police reports found by staff relating to this unit.
The only complaint was from a couple that just recently purchased a SFR next door,
who stated that they contacted the police because they heard a couple having an
argument. Now whether you are a short term tenant, long term or permanent, couples
sometimes get into arguments; is this really the problem the City wants to regulate?
A The Resolution denying our CUP application was not approved until December 19,
2012. The reason for the delay was that the Staff Report recommended approval of our
CUP with conditions that would eliminate or mitigate the concerns Staff had about the
use of the property and the concerns raised by members of the public and the
Commissioners. Staff submitted a proposed Resolution granting the CUP with
conditions on November 7, 2012, but because the Commission disagreed with Staff's
recommendations, the Resolution required modification and was brought before the
Commission on December 19, 2012 for approval.
3. This Appeal is timely, based upon our conversation with Tina, who said that the City
Attorney at the meeting on December 19, 2012 stated that the appeal had to be filed by
January 2, 2013..
4. The basis of my appeal is that there was insufficient facts/evidence before the
Commission do support the findings required by California law and the Seal Beach
Municipal Code in order to deny our CUP application.
5. The Resolution, 12-34, denying our CUP states that use of my property as a short
term vacation rental is inconsistent with the General Plan solely on the testimony by
members of the public on vacation rental units in general, not on our unit. The "findings"
in Resolution 12-34 on inconsistent with the findings made by staff in their report
recommending approval. Thus the sole reason for the denial by the commission was
the inaccurate and unsupported testimony of members of the public which misled the
Commission to believe that the complaints related to our unit. And, the Commission
used criteria evaluating this unit than was used to evaluate other CUP applications. If
they had used consistent standards, applied the criteria used in evaluating other CUP's,
the alleged over concentration of units in the "Triangle", then this unit when measured
by this criteria should have resulted in approval. By applying different criteria to our unit
on 17th street and being influenced by members of the public who spoke against
vacation rental units in general, the Commission's decision should be reversed and the
Council should grant the CUP.
14. 1 respectfully request that the City Council overrule the Planning Commission and
grant/approve my CUP subject to the conditions recommended by Staff in their report to
the Planning Commission for the hearing on November 7, 2012.
t-2—,7,013
&,L-
Dated. By. aJ4,_
Robert W. Beck
Attachment B
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 12-34
r
RESOLUTION NUMBER 12-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 12-21 FOR A SHORT TERM
VACATION RENTAL AT 247 17th STREET,
SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On October 3, 2012, Robert and Nancy Beck ("the applicants")
submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community
Development for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 12-21 to allow a short term
vacation rental at 247 17th Street (the "subject property").
Section 2. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on November 7 and December 5, 2012 to consider the application
for Conditional Use Permit 12-21. At the Public Hearing, the Planning
Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and
oral, regarding the subject application. The record of the hearing includes the
following facts, which the Planning Commission finds to be true and correct:
a. The subject property is located in the Residential Low Density
(RHD-20) zone area of Old Town Seal Beach, which is characterized by narrow
residential lots with narrow setbacks, which means that homes are very close
together. Additionally, 17th Street is a single lane, one-way street, with parking
on both sides, and is narrower than most streets in Old Town. This makes the
parking and circulation problems in the neighborhood of the subject property
particularly acute.
b. The subject property is an approximately 2,500-square foot lot
approximately 25' by 100', and is presently developed with a two-story residential
duplex. The downstairs dwelling unit consists of three bedrooms and one
bathroom, and the upstairs dwelling unit consists of three bedrooms and two
bathrooms. The property is nonconforming on the a basis of: (1) density
because the Zoning Code permits only one dwelling unit on the subject property;
and (2) parking because the subject property has only one off-street parking spot
for each unit and the Zoning Code requires two spots for each unit.
C. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential
High Density (RHD-20) zone.
8
SOUTH: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential
High Density(RHD-20) zone.
EAST: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential
High Density (RHD-20) zone.
WEST: Single and multi-family residences in the Residential
High Density (RHD-20)zone.
d. The subject property is currently used for short-term vacation
rental, which has resulted in a regular turnover in short term residents and a
more intense level of use than that which typically occurs in residential
properties.
e. Neighboring residents have complained that the short term
residents of the subject property create excessive noise during their vacation
stays without regard to the concerns of neighboring long term residents, and that
the operation of multiple vacation units on the subject property negatively
impacts an already deficient parking and traffic circulation environment;
especially in light of the nonconforming status of the subject property.
Section 3. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including but not
limited to those stated in the preceding Section of this Resolution, and pursuant
to Chapter 11.5.20 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
a. Use of the subject property as a short term vacation rental is
inconsistent with the General Plan because the adverse noise, parking, and other
impacts from the use of the subject property as a short term vacation rental are
incompatible with the residential designation of the neighborhood.
b. The subject property is not physically adequate for the type, density
and intensity of use proposed because the neighboring residences are so close
that there can be no effective buffer for the sort of noise and other use impacts
created by short term occupancy of a nonconforming duplex and the street is so
narrow that the addition of multiple vehicles for vacation renters at a property that
is already nonconforming as to off-street parking will negatively impact an
already deficient situation.
C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use would not be compatible with and would adversely affect uses and
properties in the surrounding neighborhood because allowing vacation renters
increases the number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore
exacerbates noise, traffic and other land use impacts.
cl. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of a short term
vacation rental at the subject property is detrimental to the health, safety, or
welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the addition vacation renters
9
increases the number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore
exacerbates noise, traffic and other land use impacts.
Section 4. Based on the findings made in the preceding Section of this
Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit 12-
21, and further finds and declares it would have denied the application based on
any one of the four findings made in the preceding Section, each of which is
considered by the Planning Commission to be sufficient alternative grounds for
denying the CUP.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December,
2012, by the following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Mcs5, --Low;
NOES: Commissioners- A)o n t
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners 1 0 rX e"
Sandra Massa-Lavitt
Planning Commission Chairwoman
A
Jim Basharn
Ianning Commission Secretary
10
Attachment C
Planning Commission Minutes of
November 7, 2012
City of Seal Beach - Planning Commission
November 7, 2012
Chair Massa-Lavitt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and lead the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Massa-Lavitt;
Commissioners: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg
Staff Present: Greg Hastings, Interim Director of Community Development
Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney
Linda Devine, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Everson requested that the agenda be reordered to have item 7
be considered before item 6. With no objections, Chair Massa-Lavitt so ordered
the approval of the agenda as amended.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Massa-Lavitt opened oral communications. Speakers: Mike Buhbe,
Central Way, indicated the Triathlon special event was successful with minimal
impact on parking and expressed that summer rentals do have impacts on
parking in Old Town. There being no other speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt
declared oral communications closed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Cummings moved, second by Galbreath, to approve the recommended actions
on the consent calendar as presented except for item 3, pulled by Everson for
separate consideration.
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion Carried
1. Approved the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2012.
2. Received and filed the update of City Council action on Zone Text
Amendment No. 12-3 (Ordinance No. 1624 - establishment of new short-
term vacation rentals).
Page 2 — Planning Commission 11/07112
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "3" / RESOLUTION NO, 12-25 / DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP) 12-15
The Assistant City Attorney provided a brief background and clarification on the
findings in the resolution. Commissioners Everson and Goldberg recommended
the following amendments to the resolution: Section 3.b. The site is not
physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed,
including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints because
neighboring residences are so close that there can be no effective buffer for the
sort of noise and other land use impacts created by short term occupancy.-,-and
beoause there is inadequate e#street parking on the site to aGGOrnrnedate the
number of persons who may rent the herne at a given tirne.; and Section 2.e.
The owners have had a business license for short term vacation rentals at the
property since December 2010. SinGe then, Section 2.f. Planning staff and the
Seal Beach Police Department have received complaints about excessive noise
at the subject property on weekends and weeknights caused by people using the
pool and socializing in the backyard. The Seal Beach Police Department has also
responded to at least one complaint of excessive noise at the property within the
past 60 days.4-. Section 2.g. Neighboring residents have complained that people
using the house often stay out in the backyard at late hours any given day of the
week and that this is incompatible with the neighboring residential uses, which
are home to children and to adults who generally work during the week. They
have also complained that the intense use of the subject property by transient
visitors and guests has created negative on-street parking impacts for full-time
residents.
Goldberg moved, second by Everson, to adopt as amended Resolution No. 12-
25 denying Conditional Use Permit 12-15 for a short term vacation rental at 546
Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. (the public hearing was held on October 17, 2012)
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion Carried
The Assistant City Attorney advised that the approval of Resolution No. 12-25
denying Conditional Use Permit 12-15 is the final decision of the Planning
Commission. There is a 10-day appeal period to the City Council and the appeal
period begins tomorrow morning.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
4. Zone Text Amendment 12-2— Residential Roof Decks (Citywide)
The Interim Director of Community Development stated that Resolution No. 12-
26 was brought back at the request of the Planning Commission with the
recommended changes from the last meeting — Section 2.D. — increase the size
Page 3 - Planning Commission 11/07/12
from 100 square feet to 150 square feet; and include in the Municipal Code a
statement of intent to read as follows, "The purpose of this requirement is to
allow the placement of furniture, umbrellas, and other items on roof decks while
prohibiting the installation or maintenance of large canopies that would
unreasonably block light and views." Commissioner Goldberg recommended an
amendment to the statement of intent to address the creation of "mass" —
replacing the word "and" with "or' (block light an4 or views;) and adding the
language to the end of the statement "or increase the visual mass of the
residential structure."
Goldberg moved, second by Cummings, approving as amended Resolution No.
12-26 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zone
Text Amendment 12-2.
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion Carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Everson recused himself from agenda item "5" — Minor Use
Permit 12-5 and reordered agenda item "6" — Conditional Use Permit 12-21 due
to his residence being within 500 feet of both properties; and left the Council
Chambers at 7:54 p.m.
5. Minor Use Permit 1*2-5 Property: 213 15th Street
Applicants: Gerald and Melody Costello
Owner. Gerald A. Costello
Request For a Minor Use Permit (MUP) to construct a 1 7'x20'solid
roof patio cover within an existing, nonconforming single-
family property.
Recommendation: Approve MUP 12-5, subject to conditions.
The Senior Planner provided the staff report: stating the subject property is a
non-conforming multi-family (duplex) property not a single-family property; the
request is for a solid roof patio cover; and staff recommends the approval subject
to conditions.
Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. Speakers: Gerald and Melody
Costello, owner/applicant, provided the background on their request and their
contractor was present to provide the details of the structure. There were no
other speakers. Chair Massa-Lavitt closed the public hearing. The Planning
Commission received clarification from the owner and staff.
Cummings moved, second by Galbreath, to adopt Resolution No. 12-33
approving MUP 12-5 subject to conditions.
Page 4 — Planning Commission 11/07/12
AYES: Cummings, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Everson Motion Carried
The Assistant City Attorney advised that the approval of Resolution No. 12-33
approving Minor Use Permit 12-5 is the final decision of the Planning
Commission. There is a 10-day appeal period to the City Council and the appeal
period begins tomorrow morning,
6. Conditional Use Permit 12-21 Property: 247 '17th Street
Applicants: Robert and Nancy Beck
Owners: Robert and Nancy Beck
Request: For a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a short-term
vacation rental property within the Residential High Density
(RHD-20) zone at 247 17th Street.
Recommendation: Approve CUP 12-21, subject to conditions.
The Senior Planner provided the staff report: The subject property is a legal non-
conforming two-story duplex; 2 single car garages; downstairs dwelling unit
consists of 2 bedrooms and one bathroom; the upstairs dwelling consists of 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms; staff received 2 letters of opposition; and staff
recommends approval of the CUP subject to the conditions,
Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. Speakers: Robert and Nancy
Beck, owner/applicants, provided background information regarding the CUP and
expressed their opposition to the condition about occupancy limits (recommends
stating "reasonable" instead of a specific number) and the inconsistency with no
limits if renting longer than 29 days, and have a back-up property manager.
There were 12 speakers stating opposition and no speakers were present to
voice support. Commissioner Goldberg requested a recess and asked if staff
would provide the Commission a map that shows the locations of the approved
vacation rentals. Chair Massa-Lavitt stated her concern regarding the police call
reports not being accurate.
Goldberg moved, second by Galbreath, to continue the public hearing to
December Stn meeting and direct staff to provide a map showing all the vacation
rentals that have been approved and those applications still not agendized.
AYES: Cummings, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Everson Motion Carried
With no objections, Chair Massa-Lavitt called for a recess at 9:10 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Everson returned to the City
Council Chambers.
Page 5 - Planning Commission 11/07/12
7. Conditional Use Permit 12-20 Property: 1115 & 11151/2 Seal Way
Applicant. Alexander Yoffe
Owners. Harold B. Rothman
Request. For a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a short-term
vacation rental property within the Residential High Density
(RHD-20)zone at 1115 and 1115 Seal Way.
Recommendation: Approve CUP 12-20, subject to conditions.
The Senior Planner provided the staff report: The subject property is legal non-
conforming duplex property; both units consist of 3 bedrooms; one letter of
opposition was submitted; and staff recommends approval subject to conditions.
Chair Massa-Lavift opened the public hearing. Speakers: Alexander Yoffe,
applicant, was present to provide the background information on behalf of the
property owner and ensured the Commission that there is a full staff of people
that deal with this property. There were 5 speakers in opposition and no
speakers in favor of the CUP. Planning Commission received clarification from
the applicant.
Cummings moved, second by Everson, to continue the public hearing to
December Stn
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion Carried
8. Conditional Use Permit 12-22 Property: 1310 & 1310'/2 Ocean Ave
Applicants: Robert and Nancy Beck
Owners. Robert and Nancy Beck
Request. For a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a short-term
vacation rental property within the Residential High Density
(RHD-20) zone at 1310 and 1310Y Ocean Avenue.
Recommendation: Approve CUP 12-22, subject to conditions.
The Senior Planner provided the staff report: The subject property is legal non-
conforming single story duplex dwelling (2 units on the lot both have one
bedroom and one bathroom and a shared outdoor patio); detached 2 car garage
with off street space in the rear alley; and staff recommends approval subject to
conditions. Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. Speakers: No
speakers at this time.
Cummings moved, second by Goldberg, to continue the public hearing to
December 5th.
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion Carried
Page 6— Planning Commission 11107112
9. Conditional Use Permit 12-18 Property: 128 8th Street
Applicant. Pamela Edson
Owner: Pamela Edson
Request. For a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a short-term
vacation rental property within the Residential High Density
(RHD-20) zone at 128 8th Street.
Recommendation: Continue to Planning Commission meeting of December 5,
2012.
The Senior Planner announced that Conditional Use Permit 12-18 needs to be
continued. Goldberg moved, second by Galbreath, to continue the public hearing
to December 5th.
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion Carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
The Interim Director indicated that the Commission has received copies of the
2013 calendar of Commission Meeting dates for their review and stated that
there are applications for this year pending for Commission consideration. With
no objections, Chair Massa-Lavitt so ordered that the Planning Commission
schedule to meet on Wednesday, December 19th to consider the pending
applications/items. The new Director of Community Development is Jim Basham
and he will start December Std and the job description for an Assistant Planner
will be going for Council approval.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Goldberg inquired if the Commission can have a special meeting
other than on a Wednesday in order to hear the outstanding CUP applications —
changing the dates can be problematic for staff, noticing, and residents. Chair
Massa-Lavitt and Commissioners thanked and commended Greg Hastings,
Interim Director, for an outstanding job as an interim.
ADJOURNMENT
With no objections, Chair Massa-Lavitt adjourned the Planning Commission
meeting at 10:04 p.m.
City Clerk
Approved:
Chair
Attest:
City Clerk
Attachment D
Location Map
i
VP
dd
c
t _
V
N ;• y
t" tr i g IV
ti• r
4'
O
J
Attachment E
Written Correspondence
Greg Hastings
Subject: FW:CUP& Minor Use Permit 12-5
From: lana mabe <Ian amst(jz hotmail.com>
Date: October 27, 2012, 6:48:49 PM GMT+02:00
To: ellery DEATON<sealbeachdistrictl kgmail.com>
Subject: Re: CUP & Minor Use Permit 12-5
Dear Ellery,
After having thought that this CUP issue was kind of a done deal,we received a letter from the
city regarding property at247 17th St. For Robert and Nancy Beck! While we are not opposed to
long term rentals we are opposed to "new" short term vacation rentals. This is becoming out of
hand! As I have stated before,having lived her my entire life,vacations rentals are not new to
SB. For many years,the duplexes on Seal Way were often rented during the school term to
college students attending CSULB and then for the summer, vacation rentals which to my
knowledge were just customary but NOT all year long.
Our second issue is also the Minor Use Permit 12-5 for our neighbors Gerald and Melody
Costello at 213 15th St! They already along with many,many other in old town have a non
conforming single family property BUT along with many others have no garage and with their
many cars,park one that is covered in the alley and never driven which puts 3 other cars on the
street! Why would we want to start allowing more density on this lot when in reality they should
really convert the living quarters back into a garage. If that were done, we would have no
problem with the patio roof cover! Trust me, as soon as the patio cover is approved and written
off by the city,they will have walls built and now have a new room for living!!!!
The substandard off street parking is what they create with undriven cars parking behind the
unit. These people bought this property the way it is and are now complaining parking and
density!!!!
Who do they think creates this problem!
If the city continues to allow this to happen and hide behind the shield,we are just creating more
problems. The city, i.e., council members and city hall employees have an obligation to those of
us that DO have and use their garages for purposes intended! Why should those of us who have
conforming property allow this to keep happening???
We will be on vacation for the Nov.7th meeting but ask that this letter be presented as to our
disapproval of the proposed requests???
Sincerely,
Lana and Don Mahe
224 15th St.
Seal Beach, Ca.
Attachment F
Plans
247 17TH STREET, SEAL BEACH
WALK-IN
CLOSET
MASTER
BEDROOM
GARAGE GARAGE MASTER 111 X 13'10
BATH
8'10 X 19'10 8'11 X 19'10
_j
�70
0
BEDROOM cn
m
12'2X11'
BEDROOM
w
U)
ol 158 X 10'1
BEDROOM
0
12'2X11' r-
0
co
m
BEDROOM
0
12'2X11'
W
0
0
m
BATH
CL
CL
aTH KITCHEN
18'3 X 9'4
KITCHEN
18'3X8'7
LIVING ROOM
15'3 X 18'
0 . ........
cn
m
LIVING ROOM
18'3 X 18'8
ENTRY
`ENTRY
IV' BALCONY
............
LOWER UNIT"A"
UPPER UNIT"B"
FLOOR PLAN CREATED BY REST.:NFORMATDN DEEMED RELIABLE,BUT NOT GUARANTEED 310-346-8552