HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 6357 2013-03-11 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(B) 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 6357
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 on
• 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 Lima, one of the partners of the entity
that owns the subject property, spoke in favor of the CUP. Several Seal Beach
• residents—including the family that lives next door to the subject property, a
resident who lives in the next house, and several neighbors—spoke in opposition
to the CUP. The record of the hearing includes the following facts, which the City
Council finds to be true and correct:
a. The subject property is a large, single-family residentially-zoned lot
located in Old Town (Planning Area 1). This area is commonly referred to as the
City's Gold Coast and is characterized by large beachfront lots developed with
single family residences. The subject property is a beachfront lot developed with
a three-level, 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 is heavily impacted by day visitors
visiting the adjacent beach, who compete with residents for limited parking
resources.
b. On October 12, 2012, the Gold Coast Building Committee voted
against a vacation rental business on the subject property. In a letter dated
October 12, 2012, the Gold Coast Homeowners Association states that the
Association's agreement (CC&Rs) provides: "'No noxious or offensive trade or
activity shall be carried on or upon any parcel, nor shall anything be done there
upon which may be, or may become, an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood, 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 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."
d. Mr. Beck and Mr. Lima stated that two of the business partners
occupy the property intermittently and that when neither of them is occupying the
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 short-term basis. However, the
Applicant advertises the property on the web site for "Vacation Rentals By
Owner" (hereinafter "VRBO"). The on-line property description states that the
property "sleeps 12." The description states: "Breathtaking ocean views and
unforgettable sunsets set the stage for this exceptional one-of-a-kind beachfront
estate in prime Seal Beach location. This custom home is the pinnacle of luxury
and style, with a suite of premium amenities. The resort-like, spectacular
backyard is sundrenched escape, with a stunning 90-foot lap pool, soothing
Jacuzzi, and outdoor bar and BBQ. Marvelously appointed home offers 5
bedrooms and 3.5 baths. Bright airy and truly a serene space, 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 of sea-view windows and doors, and a sleek gourmet kitchen. This
is truly a home like no other." The advertisement also states: "Why the Owner
Chose Seal Beach: We always believed that the beach would be an amazing
place to own a vacation home." The VRBO 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.
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
(v)) vacation rentals create unsanitary and unsightly trash
accumulation.
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 6357
increase density and noise, and place an unacceptable burden upon scarce
street parking. The proximity of neighboring residences and topographical
conditions of the Gold Coast are such that there can be no effective buffer for the
sort of noise and other negative impacts created by short-term occupancy of
such a large vacation rental property, especially during summer, when windows
are typically open. Further, due to the uniquely attractive nature of the subject
property's size and location on the Gold Coast, many of the negative impacts of
its use as a short-term rental cannot be mitigated. For instance, in that the
subject property contains one single-family home, there cannot be an on-site
manager who lives at the property. An on-site manager might be able to control
the behavior of renters and guests, and take immediate corrective action to
eliminate excessive noise and other disturbances.
d. 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. Vacation renters will increase the
number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbate noise,
traffic congestion and other adverse land use impacts on a property that is
already not used for typical residential purposes. The subject property is very
close to the adjacent residences, inckidirig the single.family residences on three
sides. Noise from short-term renters 'disturbs the tights 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 of a short-term vacation rental at the subject property
is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing in the vicinity.
Vacation rentals increase the number and frequency of visitors and guests and
therefore exacerbate noise, traffic and other land use impacts.
f. The Applicant presented no evidence that the short-term rental of
the property 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. 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 of properties in the vicinity. Due to the physical constraints, including
the property's unique location, size, and current use by the owner as an
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 record of the hearing, including the facts stated in
Sections 1-6 above and the substantial evidence entered into the record, 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 site for a short-term vacation rental. Based upon the foregoing, the
City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to deny
the application for CUP 12-15 for a short-term vacation rental at 546 Ocean
Avenue. The City Council's decision is based upon each of the foregoing totally
independent and separate grounds, each of which stands alone as a sufficient
basis for its decision.
Section 8. The Council's decision to deny the short-term rental of the subject
property will not impair the Applicant's ability to use the property as a residence
or as 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 still be able to rent the property
•
for periods of 30 days or longer.
•
Section 9. Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach
Municipal Code Section 1.20.015 govern the time within which judicial review, if
available, of the City Council's decision must be sought, unless a shorter time is
provided by other applicable law.
-5-
Resolution Number 6357
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 11th day of March 2013 by the following vote:
■
AYES: Council Members: ' /f.',9j , . , Aids_ 40j,
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members: 84,711
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
(7(dtilk
SE Mayor
pE A.
.\N�pacoaer�F9�y'%
ATTEST: %*
%
• S.'
5 y.•V%
�.i �! ..� ,,cF1,.,q , , _ ��o_:
"Ci Clerk ''�c°LINTY kpS'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6357 on file in
the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach
City Council at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of March , 2013.
Cit Clerk
-6-