Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2013-03-11 #C .-N It AGENDA STAFF REPORT I DATE: March 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: RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-15, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL AT 546 OCEAN AVENUE SUMMARY OF REQUEST Seal 546 LLC (the "Applicant" or "Owner"), has applied for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to operate a short term vacation rental at 546 Ocean Avenue (the "subject property"). After considering evidence at a continued public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-25 denying the CUP application. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission. On February 25, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the appeal of CUP 12-15. After the close of the hearing and deliberation, the City Council voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the application for the CUP 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 (the "2010 Amendment") 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 residential unit for a term of less than 30 days. In addition, the Agenda Item C 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. According to City records, the Applicant did not have a business license for a Vacation Rental as of January 1, 2010. Thus, pursuant to the 2010 Amendment, the Applicant was required to apply for and obtain a CUP before operating a Vacation Rental. However, Applicant did not apply for a CUP until 2012. In 2012, the Council re-examined the issue of allowing such businesses in residential zones. Based upon the negative irnpacts 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 all existing vacation rentals (including those owners who, unlike the Applicant, had a business license as of January 1, 2010) 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 Applicant did not file a request for an exemption. The subject property was not eligible for an exemption under the interim regulations because it was not issued a business license to operate as a vacation rental on or before January 1, 2010. As noted above, only properties for which a business license had been issued for vacation rentals prior to January 1, 2010 were eligible for an exemption under the then-applicable Municipal Code Section 11.4.05.135. On July 10, 2012, the Applicant submitted an application for a CUP (CUP 12-15) 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 non-conforrriing 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 Page 2 permitted in the City, this CUP application was timely filed pursuant to the terms of the prior ordinances and thus the City's consideration of the application was proper. The Planning Commission considered the CUP application at a public hearing on October 17, 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. 12-25 containing the findings and determination of the Planning Commission. The Applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission. On February 25, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the appeal of CUP 12-15. 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. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Environmental Impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no Financial Impact. RECOMMENDATION at the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6357 upholding the Planning I mmission decision to deny Conditional Use Permit 12-15 for a short-term t wa ation rental at 546 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. 4PU MITTE NOTED AND APPROVED: V Basham Jill R.aIngram, (fit M nager irector of Community Development Attachments: A. Resolution No 6357 Page 3 RESOLUTION NUMBER 6357 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-15 FOR A SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL AT 546 OCEAN AVENUE,SEAL BEACH THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On July 10, 2012, Seal 546, LLC ("the Applicant') submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to allow a short-term vacation rental at 546 Ocean Avenue(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. Seal Beach Municipal Code 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. In 2010, the City amended the Municipal Code to require a CUP for vacation rentals because without adequate conditions, such rentals negatively impact neighboring residential uses. These impacts include but are not limited to noise disturbances due to late night arrivals and parties with numerous guests and amplified music, excessive burden on parking resources, and unsanitary and unsightly trash accumulation. Moreover, because short-term occupants do not stay in the residence for longer periods, they and their guests have less personal incentive to moderate their behavior to avoid negatively impacting neighboring residents. Section 3. Seal Beach Municipal Code 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: "1. 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; 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." Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 17, 2012 to consider the application. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the application. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the CUP. Thereafter, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-25 containing the findings and determination of the Planning Commission in support Resolution Number 0357 of its decision to deny the CUP. The Applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission. Section 5. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council mn February 25. 2013 to consider the appeal. The Council considered oral and written evidence, including testimony and written material submitted by the Applicant. Robert Beck. Esq. and John L|mm, one of the partners of the entity that owns the subject pnoperty, spoke in favor of the CUP. Several Smm| Beach residents-4nduding the family that lives next door to the subject Anupady, a resident who lives in the next house, and several neighbors—spoke inopposition to the CUP. The record of the hearing includes the following facts,which the City Council finds tobe true and correct: a. The subject property in e |orge, single-family residentia||y-zoned lot located in Old Town(Planning Area 1). This area in commonly referred kzomthe City's Gold Coast and iacharacterized by large beachhnnt lots developed with single family residences. The subject property inabeachhnnt lot developed with a 1hree-|evo|, five-bedroom single-family dwelling. The surrounding uses are single family residences. There are no legal vacation rentals in the immediate vicinity and none on the Gold Coast. The area io heavily impacted by day visitors visiting the adjacent boach, who compete with residents for limited parking nusuunoas. b. On October 12. 2012. the Gold Coast Building Committee voted against avacation rental business on the subject property. In m letter dated October 12. 2012. the Gold Coast Homeowners AomooioUun states that the Association's agnemment (CC&Rn) provides: No noxious oroffensive trade or activity shall be carried on or upon any penx*|, nor shall anything be done there upon which may be, or may boouma, an annoyance or nuisance to the neiQhborhood, or which shall in any way interfere with the quiet enjoyment of each of the owners of his respective parcel.' It is our view that when residential neighborhoods are zoned for residential use then any commercial use is definitely prohibited." C. The City's General Plan designates the subject property for low density residential uses. A goal and objective of the Land Use Element ofthe General Plan for Planning Area 1 is to maintain the omm|| town character of the City. The Land Use Element states: "Although itis recognized that the area will have businesses that serve residents and visitors, the Quu| is to prevent the visitor-serving uses from overwhelming the area at the expense of the small town character." d. Mr. Beck and Mr. Lima stated that two of the business partners occupy the property intermittently andV)e1whenneitherofthemiaonnupyingNe property, they have made the property available for short-term use by business clients, charitable groups, and vacation renters. They stated that the owner only occasionally rents the subject property on a shurt'hunn basis However, the Applicant advertises the property on the web site for '"JaooUon Rentals By Owner' (hen*inaher ^VRBO^). The on-line property description states that the property ''m|eepm 12.^ The description mbabao: "Breathtaking ocean views and unforgettable sunsets set the stage for this mxuaphono| one-ofa-Nnd beachfront estate in prime Seal Beach location. This custom home in the pinnacle cfluxury and o(y|m, with a suite of premium amenities. The nmnoM-|ikn, spectacular backyard is sundnanuhad emoape, with a stunning 90-foot lap pool, soothing Jacuzzi, and outdoor bar and BBO. Marvelously appointed home offers 5 bedrooms and 3.5 baths. Bright airy and truly eanune apaoe, this remarkable estate features a unique and artful leaded glass entry door, premium stone and hardwood flooring,four beautiful fireplaces,elegant architecture details, recessed lighting,walls uf sea-view windows and doors, and m sleek gourmet kitchen. This im truly a home like noothec" The advertisement also states: 'Why the Owner Chose Seal Beach: VVealways believed that the beach would beanamazing place ko own a vacation home.^ The VRB[)web site states that the owner has a 2 Resolution Number 6357 second vacation rental in Sunset Beach, a coastal community immediately to the east of Seal Beach. e. Due to the large size of the dwelling (five bedrooms) and its beachfront location on the Gold Coast, the property is a uniquely attractive venue for events and large gatherings of visitors and guests. f. A number of large events, including charitable events and private parties, have operated on the subject property. Chapter 7.50 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code requires a special event permit for large special events. Neither the Applicant nor any of the short-term renters has ever applied for a special event permit for the events and parties on the subject property. g. The subject property is used much more intensely and by more persons than is typically the case with single-family residences. Such intense non-residential, commercial enterprise has disturbed neighbors. Neighbors have complained that people using the house often stay in the backyard and the Jacuzzi at late hours any given day of the week. They also complained that they cannot find street parking due to large number of transient visitors and guests visiting the property. 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 in the 60 days before the Planning Commission hearing regarding this CUP application. h. Excessive noise originating on the subject property is exacerbated by the topography of the Gold Coast. The residence on the subject property is built into a bluff overlooking the beach. Its backyard is located below the bluff, which allows sound generated by people in the backyard to be readily heard by neighboring residents even if not being particularly loud. i. Mr. Beck stated the Applicant has occasionally rented the subject property on a short-term basis, typically in the summer. However, the Applicant advertises the property as a vacation rental on at least two on-line publications. The VRBO calendar shows that the property is unavailable this year for the entire months of June, July and August, a week in March, a week in April, and two weeks in December 2013-January 2014. According to the VRBO website, the vacation rental advertisement has been posted since 2009. However, vacation rentals were illegal in Seal Beach in 2009. In 2010, the City Council amended the Code to allow vacation rentals as a conditionally permitted use. The Applicant did not apply for a CUP for such business, as required by the Code, however, until 2012. j. The short-term use and rental of the subject property has resulted in a regular turnover in short-term renters and guests and a more intense level of use than that which typically occurs in residential properties. Short-term renting and use of the subject property has essentially converted a residential property into a "resort-like" hotel and event venue, but without the noise buffers and parking that would be required for such uses. k. Vacation rentals can interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties in the vicinity as follows: (i) short-term renters and guests of the subject property create excessive noise during their vacation stays without regard to the concerns of neighboring long-term residents. Because short-term occupants do not stay in the residence for longer periods, they and their guests have less personal incentive to moderate their behavior to avoid negatively impacting neighboring residents; -3- Resolution Number 6357 (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) there is a constant influx of strangers and guests; (iv) short-term renters and guests of the property compete with residents and day visitors for scarce parking spaces; (v) the operation of a vacation unit creates excessive noise due to late night arrivals and parties with numerous guests and amplified music; and (vi) vacation rentals create unsanitary and unsightly trash accumulation. I. Based on the prior history of negative impacts generated by the short-term use of the subject property and the similarity between these impacts and those known to be generated by short-term vacation rentals, use of the subject property as a short-term vacation rental would likely result in negative impacts for the surrounding property. M. Mr. Beck and Mr. Lima did not offer sufficient evidence as to how the impacts of the use on surrounding uses could be mitigated to make such use compatible with surrounding residential uses. 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. The short-term renting of the subject property is inconsistent with the General Plan because such use causes excessive noise, high demand on scarce parking resources, and other adverse impacts that interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. 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 Applicant is 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 residential neighborhood and create excessive noise and vehicular traffic. Based upon the prior history of the short-term use of the subject property, the visitor-serving, commercial use has already overwhelmed the area. Thus, allowing a vacation rental at the subject property is contrary to maintaining the small town character of the City and will overwhelm the area at the expense of the City's small town character and its residents. b. The Applicant has provided no evidence that the property cannot be used as a permanent residence or long-term rental property. Even without a CUP, the Applicant can rent the property for 30 days or longer, as it has occasionally since it purchased the subject property. Likewise, the Applicant has not met its burden of showing that the use is compatible with surrounding uses, or that conditions can be imposed to mitigate adverse impacts arising from a short-term vacation rental to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. For instance, the Applicant did not offer a noise mitigation plan. Rather, its attorney suggested that the City should rely on its noise ordinance to combat excessive noise. C. The subject property is not physically adequate for the type, density, and intensity of use proposed due to physical constraints. Evidence was presented that demonstrates that the constant turnover of new renters would 4 Resolution Number 0357 increase density and moime, and place an unacceptable burden upon moarom street parking. The proximity of neighboring xamidmnney and topographical conditions of the Gold Coast are such that there can bono effective buffer for the sort ofnoise and other negative impacts created by short-term occupancy of such a |arge vacation rental pnoporty, especially during mummer, when windows are typically open. Furthar, due to the uniquely a8nsnUve nature of the subject property's size and location on the Gold Coomt, many of the negative impacts of its use ama shod-term rental cannot be mitigated. For instance, in that the subject property contains one single-family home, (hono cannot be an on-site manager who lives ai the property. An on-site manager might bm able tocontrol the behavior of renters and guemto, and take immediate corrective ombmn to eliminate excessive noise and other disturbances. d. The |onoVon, mize, daoign, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would not be compatible with and would adversely affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Vacation renters will increase the number and frequency mf visitors and guests and therefore exacerbate noise, traffic congestion and other adverse land use |mpodo on a property that is already not used for typical residential purposes. The subject property is very close to the ud]uoant nuoidanoeo. including the single-family residences on three sides. Noise from short-term renters disturbs the rights of such neighbors to peacefully enjoy their own property. Next door neighbors testified that there have been frequent noise disturbances from the short-term renters. e. The operation ofe short-term vacation rental ot the subject property is detrimental to the hea|th, aofety, and welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. Vacation rentals increase the number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbate noise,tnaffinand other land use impacts. [ The Applicant presented no evidence that the short-term nanbm| of the property can be designed, |onaVed, and operated in o 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 on a short-term basis has interfered with the use and enjoyment mfproperties in the vicinity. Due to the physical constraints, including the property's unique |000Uon, oize, and current use by the owner as on entertainment venue, the City cannot impose conditions that would ensure such use would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Section 7. Based upon the roound of the heering, including the facts stated in Sections 1-6 above and the oubobyndo| evidence entered into the reoonj, and 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 uihe for a short-term vacation rental. Based upon the foregoing, the City Cnunnil hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application for CUP 12-15 for a short-term vacation nants| at 546 Ocean Avenue. The City Council's decision |n based upon each of the foregoing totally independent and separate gnounda, each of which obunda alone as e sufficient basis for its decision. Section 8. The Council's decision to deny the short-term nanbo| of the subject property will not impair the Applicant's ability to use the property as a residence mraa rental property, consistent with the zoning of the property. The decision will not require the removal of any structures under any circumstances, The Applicant will still be able to use the existing structure for the use for which it was built: residential use. Likewise, the Applicant will oUU be able to rent the property for periods of3O days orlonger. SecbIylQ. Section 1OA4.8of the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 1.20D15 govern the time within which judicial revew, if ovo||ob|e. of the City Council's decision must be aought, unless o shorter time is provided by other applicable law. -5- � Resolution Number 0357 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Smo| Beach City Council at e regular meeting held on the 11lh_dayof March\2013bydhefoUmwingvote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members' ABSTAIN: Council Members: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OFORANGE ) SS CITY OFSEAL BEACH ) |. Linda Devine, Qh/ Clerk of the City ofSeal Bmauh, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6357 on file in the offima of the City C|erk, paeoad, opproved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council ota regular meeting held onthe MjtLdayof_1 March 1_, 2O13. City Clerk 6