HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2013-02-25 #D AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Jim Basham, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-21, A REQUEST TO
ALLOW A SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL AT 247
17TH STREET
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Robert and Nancy Beck, the owners of the property located at 247 17th Street
(the "subject property"), have applied for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to
operate a short term vacation rental at the subject property.
After considering evidence at a continued public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-34 denying the
CUP application. The applicants appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission.
On February 11, 2013 the City Council held a public hearing regarding the
appeal of CUP 12-21. After the close of the hearing and deliberation, the City
Council voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the application for the
Conditional Use Permit with findings in support thereof based on the evidence
presented.
The draft resolution is attached for Council consideration.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Prior to 2010, the City's Zoning Code did not permit the business of short-term
vacation rentals or short-term rentals ("Vacation Rentals") as a permitted use for
residentially-zoned property.
In 2010, the City Council amended the Zoning Code to permit Vacation Rentals
(defined in the Code as rentals for the duration of less than 30 days) as a
conditionally permitted use. A property owner could apply for a CUP to rent a
Agenda Item D
residential unit for a term of less than 30 days. In addition, the City Council
determined that property owners who had obtained a business license prior to
January 1, 2010, and were paying the City's transient occupancy tax (TOT) for
short-term rentals could continue to operate without a CUP.
In 2012, the Council re-examined the issue of allowing such businesses in
residential zones. Based upon the negative impacts on neighboring properties
associated with Vacation Rentals—e.g., noise, accumulation of trash, loitering,
unsanitary conditions, overcrowding, demands on police services, traffic
congestion, excessive demand on scarce parking resources, etc.— the Council
adopted interim ordinances to allow the City time to study the issue.
The interim ordinances imposed interim regulations upon Vacation Rentals to
alleviate negative impacts during the pendency of the study. The ordinances
required the owners of Vacation Rentals to apply for a CUP so that the City could
conduct a public hearing and receive testimony and other evidence to determine
whether the use at a particular location is compatible with surrounding uses and
the neighborhood. The interim ordinances also allowed property owners who had
obtained a business license prior to January 1, 2010, and were paying the City's
transient occupancy tax (TOT) for short-term rentals, to apply for an exemption
from the CUP requirement. In general, the purpose of allowing a property owner
to request an exemption was to provide for a reasonable amortization period if
the applicant could show it was necessary to recoup any economic investment
made in establishing a vacation rental prior to the interim ordinances and the new
CUP requirement. In similar instances, cities will sometimes grant an exemption
where the owner has presented compelling evidence showing hardship or
substantial expenditures in reliance upon existing zoning.
The applicants in this case filed a request for an exemption. During preparation
for the hearing to consider the request, City staff discovered that -the applicants
were not entitled to an exemption because they had not obtained a business
license vacation rental prior to January 1, 2010, as required by then-applicable
Municipal Code Section 11.4.05.135.
Nevertheless, the City provided an opportunity for the applicants to provide
evidence showing hardship or substantial expenditures in reliance upon existing
zoning. On September 10, 2012, the City Council denied the request on a
number of grounds, including the fact that applicants had been unable to
establish any hardship or substantial expenditures in reliance upon existing
zoning. The City Council also directed the applicants to apply for a CUP if they
wanted to use the subject property as a Vacation Rental.
Accordingly, on October 3, 2012, applicants submitted an application for a CUP
(CUP 12-21) to allow a Vacation Rental at the subject property. On November
13, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1624, which prohibited the lease
or rental of any residential property, or any part thereof, for a term of 29 days or
less for any purpose. Ordinance 1624 provided, however, that any property
issued a CUP for a Vacation Rental under prior ordinances could continue as
Page 2
non-conforming uses and allowed for the consideration and approval of any CUP
application filed on or before October 22, 2012. Thus, although new Vacation
Rentals are no longer permitted in the City, this CUP application was timely Tiled
pursuant to the terms of the prior ordinances and thus the City Council's
consideration of the application was proper,
The Planning Commission considered the CLIP application at a continued public
hearing on November 7, 2012 and December 5, 2012. After the close of the
public hearing, at which evidence was received, the Planning Commission voted
5-0 to deny the application. Thereafter, the Planning Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-34 containing the findings and
determination of the Planning Commission. The applicants appealed the
decision of the Planning Commission.
On February 11, 2013; the City Council held a public hearing regarding the
appeal of CUP 12-21, After the close of the hearing and deliberation, the City
Council voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution disapproving the application
for the Conditional Use Permit with findings in support thereof based on the
evidence presented.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no Environmental Impact related to this item.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
No legal analysis is required for this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no Financial Impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6354 upholding the Planning
0 ommission's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit 12-21 for a short-term
cation rental at 247 17th Street, Seal Beach.
cation
a
m
ti
0
S WITTED BY: NOTED AX APPROVED:
'A QI 0 1
M
i m Basharn II Ingram, Ci-ty--h"er
Director Direcctor of Community Development
Attachments:
A. City Council Resolution No. 6354
Page 3
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6354
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-21 FOR A SHORT-TERM
VACATION RENTAL AT 247 17th STREET, SEAL BEACH (CUP
12-21)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On October 3, 2012, Robert and Nancy Beck ("the applicants")
submitted an application for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to allow a short-
term vacation rental at a non-conforming property located at 247 17th Street(the
"subject property„).
Section 2. The City may approve a CUP only if the City can make certain
findings that the use will be compatible with surrounding uses. SSMC Section
11.5.20.005(8) provides that an application for a CUP requires special
consideration to ensure that a use can be designed, located, and operated in a
manner that will be compatible with surrounding uses and not interfere with the
use and enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. SSMC Section 11.5.20.020(A)
provides that a CUP only can 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:
111. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and with any other
applicable plan adopted by the City Council;
"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;
"1 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
15. 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."
Section 3. The subject property is a 25-foot wide lot approximately 2500
square feet in area located in the City's Planning Area 1. It is zoned for
Residential High Density (RHD-20), and its current zoning permits only one unit
on the subject property. The subject property is developed with a non-
conforming duplex comprised of a unit with two bedrooms and one bathroom and
a unit with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The side yard setbacks are three
feet wide. There are only 2 on-site parking spaces; the Municipal Code requires
2 covered spaces per unit. Thus, the site does not conform to applicable City's
zoning standards because the property has: (a) inadequate off-street parking;
and (b)too many units on such a small lot. The City's General Plan designates
the property for high density residential uses. A goal and objective of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan for Planning Area 1 is to maintain the small
town character of the City. The Land Use Element states: "Although it is
recognized that the area will have businesses that serve residents and visitors,
the goal is to prevent the visitor-serving uses from overwhelming the area at the
expense of the small town character." The surrounding uses are single family
and multiple family residences. There are no legal vacation rentals in the vicinity.
Resolution Number 6354
Section 4. A duly noticed continued public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on November 7. 2012 and December 5. 2012 to consider the
application. At the public hearing. the Manning Commission received and
considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject
application. After the close of the public hearing,the Planning Commission voted
5'0 to deny the application. Thereafter, the Planning Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolution Na. 12-34 containing the findings and
determination of the Planning Commission in support of its decision to deny the
application. The applicants appealed the decision of the Planning Commission.
Section 5. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
February 11, 2013 to consider the appeal, The Council considered oral and
written evidence, including both testimony and written material submitted by the
applicants. Co-applicant Robert Beck spoke in favor of the CUP. Six Seal
Beach residents—including the family that lives next door to the subject property
and the owner uf another property in o|oua proximity ho the subject property—
spoke inopponiUontothe CUP. The record of the hearing includes the following
facts,which the City Council finds toba true and correct:
a. The subject property contains o non-confnnning, two-story
residential duplex. The property is nonconforming in the following respects:
(1)D@nsit : the Zoning Code permits only one dwelling unit on the subject
pvoperty, but it contains two units; and (2) : the
Zoning Code requires two covered parking spaces for each unit but the subject
property has only one on-site parking spot for each unit.
b. The subject property is located on 17m Exnmet in an area of Old
Town Seal Beach characterized by narrow naoidonOa| lots with narrow setbacks,
many of which are developed with non-conforming structures. The subject
property iasurrounded by residential maes, including single family home next
door. There are no other legal vacation rentals in the neighborhood. 17mStreet
is a single |ana, one-way street, with perking on both sides of the otmat, 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.
o. Co-applicant Robert Beck spoke on behalf ofthe applicants. He
oto8sd the applicants own two properties in Seal Beach that they rent
unnmaiona||y on a short-term basis, and that the Oih/ recently granted a CUP for
the other property. He stated that he typically rents the subject property for
longer terms during the winher, but rents it for short-term vacation rentals during
the summer. He represented that hm bought the property with an existing duplex
|n2000. However, short-term vacation rentals were not a permitted use in2UU8.
even with a CUP. Atnotime have the applicants provided any information that
the duplex was built as a short-term vacation rental buaineoa, or that they acted
in reliance upon any zoning that permitted rental of the duplex for periods less
than 30 days. He claimed that the applicants had spent a considerable amount
of money tailoring the property for short-term rentals (such as by providing
furnishings), but he also has admitted that, after making those improvements, the
subject property im often occupied by long-term tenants, He offered noevidence
aoVo how the impacts of the use on surrounding uses could ba mitigated tomake
such use compatible with surrounding residential uses.
d. Renting of the property on o mhod-b*nn basis has resulted in a
regular turnover in short-term renters and m more intense level of use than that
which typically occurs in residential properties.
e. Neighboring property owners and residents presented evidence
that:
(i) short-term renters of the subject property create excessive
noise during their vacation stays without regard to the concerns ofneighboring
long-term residents;
2
Resolution Number 6354
(ii) due to the very nature of a "vacation rental," renters are
usually on vacation and tend to participate in activities, such as loud parties, that
adversely affect neighbors;
(iii) the constant influx of strangers into the neighborhood
creates concern for the safety of children and families;
(iv) short-term renters of the units compete with day visitors for
extremely scarce parking spaces during the summer, the most congested period
for Seal Beach because of its beach;
(v) the operation of multiple vacation units on the subject
property negatively impacts an already deficient parking and traffic circulation
environment;
(vi) the operation of multiple vacation units on the subject
property,which is nonconforming because it is too dense and lacks adequate on-
site parking, exacerbates the density of the area and demand on scarce parking
resources;
(vii) adjacent property owners have to place prospective buyers
on notice of excessive noise and nuisance generated by the use of the subject
property as a vacation rental;
(viii) the operation of short-term vacation rentals on the subject
property depreciates the value of residential property in the neighborhood;
(ix) the frequent turnover of renters during the summers leads to
extreme traffic congestion on 17th Street, which is more narrow than current
Municipal Code requirements;
(x) residents have moved out of the area because of the lack of
available parking spaces, which is exacerbated by the turnover of short-term
renters;
(xi) short-term renting of the subject property has essentially
converted a residential lot that is already non-conforming because it is too dense
and lacks adequate parking into a commercial motel, but without the parking that
would be required of a motel; and
(xii) 17th Street has become virtually impassable during the
summer due to renters checking in and out and cleaning crews operating once or
twice a week at the subject property,who often double park on the narrow street,
thus creating a safety hazard.
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including but not limited
to those stated in this Resolution, and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the Seal
Beach Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings:
a. Use of the subject property as a short-term vacation rental is
inconsistent with the General Plan because the excessive noise, high demand on
scarce parking resources, and other adverse impacts from the use of the subject
property as a short-term vacation rental are incompatible with the residential
designation of the neighborhood. The City's General Plan designates the
property for residential uses. A goal and objective of the Land Use Element of
the General Plan for Planning Area 1 is to maintain the small town character of
the City. The Land Use Element states: "Although it is recognized that the area
will have businesses that serve residents and visitors, the goal is to prevent the
visitor-serving uses from overwhelming the area at the expense of the small town
character." If the applicants are permitted to operate a short term vacation rental
on the subject property, the additional vehicles and visitors that will frequent the
property will overwhelm the primarily single-family developed residential
-3-
Resolution Number 8354
neighborhood and create excessive vehicular traffic and noise. Thus, such o
use, at that |ncaton, is contrary to maintaining the small town character of the
City and will overwhelm the area at the expense of the Q0/'e small bmvn
character and its residents.
b. The applicants have provided no evidence that the property cannot
be used aye residence or long-term nanto| property. Even without aCLIP, the
applicants can rent the units for 30 days or |onger, as they have since they
purchased the subject property. Ukew|aa, the applicants have not met their
burden of showing that the use is compatible with surrounding uses, or that
conditions can be imposed 0o mitigate adverse impacts arising from a short term
vacation rental to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. For
instance, they did not offer noise mitigation plan or offer hn rent additional
parking spaces in the area toaccommodate their short-term rentals. Further,
due 0o the high density of the enmo, the narrow |cd and narrow stnee1, and
inadequate parking, many of the negative impacts simply cannot be mitigated.
C. The subject property iu not physically adequate for the type, density
and intensity of use proposed due tnphysical constraints. The property is non-
conforming because it is too small for two units. and lacks adequate on-site
parking. Evidence was presented that demonstrates that the constant turnover
of new renters increases density and p|moos an unacceptable burden upon
scarce street parking. The neighboring residences are soclose that there can be
no effective buffer for the sort of noise and other negative impacts created by
short-term occupancy of a nonconforming dup|ex, especially during aummer,
when windows are typically open. The e1nen1 is so narrow that the addition of
multiple vehicles for vacation nunhnro and cleaning crews at the subject property
exacerbates the demand on scarce parking resources in the area, because the
subject property cannot accommodate the cars of such visitors on-mi0a.
d. The |unabon, eizo, dosign, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use would not bn compatible with and would adversely affect uses and
properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Vacation renters will increase the
number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbate noisa,
traffic congestion and other adverse land use impacts. The subject property is
very close to the adjacent residences, including the single-family residence next
door. Noise from short-term renters disturbs the rights of such neighbors to
peacefully enjoy their own property. Testimony from the next door neighbor
testified that since they moved to the block in the spring of 2012, there have been
frequent noise disturbances from the short-term renters.
e. The operation ofo short-term vacation rental at the subject property
is detrimental to the hea|dh, aefety, and welfare of persons residing in the vicinity.
Vacation rentals increase the number and frequency of visitors and guests and
therefore exacerbate noiau, traffic and other land use impacts. A steady stream
of new renters could pose o threat to families and children. Vacation renters,
their guests, and cleaning crews will cause congestion on 17mStreet, thereby
creating o putando| safety hazard. The fire department and police department
may be hindered in responding bn fires and emergencies.
f. The applicants presented no evidence that the short-term nante| of
the property can be designed, |ooabud, and operated in a manner that will be
compatible with surrounding uses and not interfere with the use and enjoyment of
properties in the vicinity. Based upon the evidence presented by residents, the
current use of the property as a short-term rental has interfered with the use and
enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. Due to the physical conmtnainba, including
the property's nnn-onnfnnmiUoo, the narrow width of both the lot and the street,
and inadequate parking, the City cannot impose conditions that would ensure
such use would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
Section 7. Based upon the record of the heahng, including the tads stated in
Sections 1-0 above and the substantial evidence entered into the record, and
4
Resolution Number 6354
pursuant to State law and the City's Municipal Code, the City Council hereby
exercises its independent judgment and finds that the subject property is not an
appropriate site for short-term vacation nania|a. Based upon the foregoing, the
Qb/ Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to deny
the application for CUP 12`21 for short-term vacation on rental at 246 17 Street.
The Qb/ Council's decision is based upon each of the foregoing totally
independent and aeponab* groundo, each of which stands alone as e sufficient
basis for its decision.
Section 8. The Council's decision to deny the short-term nanhu| of the subject
property will not impair the applicants' ability to use the property aoa residence
oros rental property, consistent with the zoning uf the property. The decision will
not require the removal of any structures under any circumstances. The
applicants will edU be able to use the existing structure for the use for which it
was built: residential use. Ukewima, the applicants will adU be able to rent the
property for periods of30 days or longer,just aa they have done in the past.
Section 9. Section 1O94.6cf the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach
Municipal Code Section 1.20.015 govern the time within which judicial naview, if
available, of the Qty Council's decision must be sought, unless o shorter time is
provided by other applicable law.
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at o
regular meeting held on the_2{tl_doyuf_FebruaIy^2U13 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OFCALIFORNIA �
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH �
|. Linda Demine, City Clerk of the Qty of Seal Beouh, du hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6354 on file in
the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at
a regular meeting held on the_258l_day uf February . 2013.
City Clerk