Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Parking Standards for Condo ConversionsG, ^tesr'i y'_Fl1J • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 21 September 27, 2005 TO: - HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport - beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code related to minimum parking standards for the conversion of a duplex to condominiums (PA 2005 -168). RECOMMENDATION 1101 Staff recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005- amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum number of parking spaces required for the conversion of a duplex to comply with current standards. DISCUSSION Background On November 9, 2004, the Planning Department presented a report to the City Council highlighting the evolution of condominium conversion standards over time, with an emphasis on the parking standards. At that meeting, the Council had determined that several of the original goals of the 1994 update to the condominium conversion standards (to promote homeownership and encourage maintenance and enhancements) were not fully achieved. The Council directed staff to return with potential changes to the minimum parking standards for condominium conversions. On June 28, 2005, several options were considered. The City Council approved Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 increasing the parking requirements for residential condominium conversions for conversions of three or more units. The previous parking regulations for condominium conversions required a project to • maintain the number of spaces required at the time of original construction, so long as a minimum of 1 covered space per unit was provided. The adopted ordinance amended Condominium Conversion Parking Requirements ' September 27, 2005 Page 2 • the condominium conversion regulations to require projects consisting of 3 or more units to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by the parking standards in effect at the time of conversion (current requirement). The effective date of the ordinance is October 24, 2005. All future condominium conversion projects consisting of 3 or more units will require parking as if newly constructed. The City Council did not apply the same standard to duplexes due to a concern with the current parking standards not being consistent citywide. The Council suggested that the parking requirements be made consistent and staff prepared Code Amendment No. 2005 -010 that appears as a separate item on this agenda. On August 4, 2005, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of increasing the minimum parking requirement for the conversion of a duplex to current standards (2 spaces per unit assuming the companion amendment is approved). The Planning Commission believed that the conversion of a duplex should be held to the same standards as conversion projects consisting of 3 units or more. The Commission commented that by permitting the conversion of duplexes which are nonconforming due to parking, the City is perpetuating the preservation of older, nonconforming structures, which will incrementally erode the quality of life in the community. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council allow 6 months for the amendment to Title 19 to take effect in order to provide sufficient time for property • owners to prepare and submit their applications, and requested staff to individually notice each of the owners of R -2 (Two - Family Residential) zoned properties to inform them of the proposed amendment. Analysis For the purposes of determining the potential impacts of amending the parking standards for the conversion of duplexes into condominiums, it is important to understand the history in parking standards for duplexes throughout the years. Since at least 1943, duplexes have been required to provide a minimum of 1 space per unit. In 1980, the minimum parking standards for duplexes increased to 1.5 spaces per unit. However, after the adoption of the California Coastal Act of 1976, duplexes constructed within the coastal zone were required to provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit in order to avoid Coastal Commission review. In 1990, the parking standards for R -2 zoned properties located within the area delineated as Old Corona del Mar was increased from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2 spaces per unit. And, as part of the 1997 reorganization of the of the Zoning Code, the requirement to provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit for R -2 zoned properties within the coastal zone was finally codified to reflect the California Coastal Commission requirement. As mentioned, Code Amendment No. 2005 -010, if approved, will standardize the parking requirement for all new duplexes at 2 spaces per unit. Condominium Conversion Parking Requirements September 27, 2005 Page 3 • The conversion of duplexes constructed prior to the previously mentioned changes in R- 2 parking standards will become difficult, if not impossible unless they meet current parking requirements. The proposed change will have no impact to those duplex owners that provide parking in a complying fashion. However, those duplex owners who desire to create condominiums that do not provide 2 parking spaces per unit will need to provide additional complying parking through physical modification of the existing buildings or they will need to completely redevelop the property. Environmental Review The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the local Daily Pilot newspaper and the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Additionally, as recommended by the Planning Commission, a notice was . directly mailed to the 3,515 property owners of R -2 (Two - Fami(y Residential) zoned properties within the City that may be affected by this proposed amendment. Prepared by: Jaime Murillo Associate Planner Attachments: Submitted by: Patricia T mple Planning Director 1. Draft Ordinance No. 2005- _ 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -1675 3. August 4, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 4. June 28, 2005 City Council Staff Report 5. June 28, 2005 City Council Minutes 6. Correspondence • 0 CJ ATTACHMENT 1 • Draft Ordinance No. 4 ORDINANCE 2005- • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 19.64.070 OF TITLE 19 (SUBDIVISON CODE) RELATED TO THE MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS FOR THE CONVERSION OF A DUPLEX TO CONDOMINIUMS (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -008). WHEREAS, in 1994, the City adopted amendments to condominium conversion standards to promote home ownership in an effort to facilitate a revitalization of the West Newport area; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2005 the City Council determined that the desired effects of the 1994 condominium conversion amendments were not being achieved as home ownership in West Newport was not increased significantly; and WHEREAS, by maintaining a minimum parking standard for the conversion of duplexes that is less than current standards (2 spaces per unit with 1 being covered), the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and constructed to older building code standards; and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on August 4, 2005, held noticed public meeting regarding increasing the minimum parking required for the conversion of a duplex to condominiums, and at the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of an amendment to Title 19 to increase the minimum parking for duplex conversions to 2 spaces per unit with one being covered; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 27, 2005, held noticed public meeting regarding this Code Amendment; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds converting multi - family housing, including duplexes, that does not provide parking identical to that required of new construction effectively preserves older nonconforming housing stock that is more reliant upon street parking. Preserving older nonconforming housing stock in this fashion is not in the long term best interest of the community; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). • i 5 Ordinance No. 2005- • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 19.64.070.A as follows: "A. Off - Street Parking Requirements Residential Conversions. The minimum number, and the design and location of, off - street parking spaces shall be provided in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off- -Street Parking and Loading Regulations) in effect at the time of approval of the conversion. 2. Nonresidential Conversions. The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off- -Street Parking and Loading Regulations)." 0 All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective one - hundred eighty (180) days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3: Any condominium conversion application for the conversion of a duplex deemed complete by the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be subject to this amendment. is 0 Ordinance No. 2005- • This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on September 27, 2005, and adopted on the _day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: MAYOR 0 ATTEST: CITY CLERK U NOES: ABSENT: I ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -1675 • 0 I 0 RESOLUTION NO. 1675 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -008 RELATED TO PARKING STANDARDS FOR DUPLEXES AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS (PA 2005 -168). WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted amendments to the condominium conversions standards of Title 19 in an effort to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable ownership units, and while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the condominium conversion standards were anticipated to increase home ownership which eventually would improve the visual character of the area by providing a greater sense of pride in ownership and a vested interest in the maintenance of the property; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2005 the City Council determined that the desired effects of the original objectives of the 1994 Code Amendment may not have been achieved and • introduced Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the parking requirements for residential conversion projects consisting of 3 or more units to provide the number of off - street parking spaces in conformance with current parking standards; and WHEREAS, Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code currently requires properties within the R -2 zoning district to provide a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, with the exception of R -2 properties located with the Coastal Zone or within the area of Old Corona del Mar, where a minimum of 2 spaces per unit must be provided; and WHEREAS, at the June 28, 2005 City Council meeting, the Council directed the Planning Commission to review potential amendments to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to establish a consistent parking requirement for all duplexes and evaluate the condominium conversion parking regulations of Title 19 applicable to duplexes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on August 4, 2005, held duly noticed public hearing regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, by simplifying the parking standards of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to require that all R -2 zoned properties provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit, an equitable and consistent application of parking standards for R -2 properties will be achieved; and I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the current condominium conversion regulations of Title 19 (Section 19.64.070.A) allow the conversion of a duplex to comply with the minimum number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction, provided there is a minimum of 1 covered space per dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, by maintaining the current minimum parking regulations for the conversions of duplexes, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and constructed to older building code standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 20.66.030 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required), specifically related to the minimum parking requirements for Two - Family Residential uses as follows: Off -Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required Use Classification Off -Street Parking Spaces Off -Street Loading Spaces RESIDENTIAL TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R -1.5 District: 2 per unit with a minimum of 2 enclosed per site. All other districts: 2 per unit, including 1- covered. All other provisions of Chapter 20.66 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 19.64.070.A as follows: "A. Off - Street Parking Requirements Residential Conversions. The minimum number, and the design and • location of, off - street parking spaces shall be provided in conformance 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ • Page 3 of 3 with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) in effect at the time of approval of the conversion. 2. Nonresidential Conversions. The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction shall be provided. on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations)." All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 3: Should the City Council adopt the amendment to Title 19 (Subdivision Code), the effective date of the ordinance should be 6 months from the date of adoption and that any condominium conversion application of a duplex deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance should not be subject to the amendment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005. • AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, BY: Michael To® , Chaiiman L J Tucker, McDaniel and Henn NOES: ABSENT: ATTACHMENT 3 August 4, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 0 0 Id- CJ • Planning Commission Minutes 08(04(2005 EGT: HarKing standards for aupiexes Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 (PA2005 -168) • Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal • to increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not ted within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 Spaces Unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal e (Subdivisions) related to minimum parking standards for the /ersion of a duplex to condominiums (PA 2005 -168). Murillo, gave a brief overview of the staff report noting: • At the June 28th meeting, the City Council adopted condo conversion regulations for projects three units or more to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by the parking standards in effect at the time of conversion. • In addition to the public comments received on the issue, the Council indicated the concern of the current parking standards for duplexes not being consistent and suggested that the parking standards be amended. • Therefore, two unit projects were excluded from the ordinance and Council directed staff to prepare the subsequent amendment for the Planning Commission to evaluate. • The Code amendment proposed tonight is intended to address the Council's concern and consists of two components: first, staff recommends amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for all R -2 zone properties to two spaces per unit minimum in order to establish citywide consistent parking requirements; second, staff recommends amending the condo conversion regulations of Title 19 to increase the minimum parking requirement for the conversion of a duplex consistent with the requirements for larger projects. • The amendment will simply require the conversion of a duplex to require parking and conformance with the current parking standards which in effect will reduce the preservation of older non - conforming structures. . A detail analysis of these amendments are provided in the staff report. imissioner Tucker asked if this was adopted by the City Council, when Id it be effective? r. Harp answered it would be effective 30 days after the second reading. Ms. Temple added that in the prior action on the condominium of three units or more, the Council adopted a fairly substantial period before which • he ordinance would become effective and that any application received and deemed complete prior to the time frame would be allowed to move forward under the rules in existence today. I would expect that the Council would take a similar action on this. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us(PInAgendas /mn08- 04- OS.htm Pagel of 8 ITEM NO. 5 PA2005 -188 for approval 08(29(2005 13 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 2 of 8 he Commission would make recommendations to the City Council on mendments to the Zoning Code and in this case they ask also for your :view of this particular amendment to the Subdivision Code, which does of require your consideration. Normally, we would consider the effective ate of the ordinance to be something that the Council establishes as a latter of policy and that would come forward with similar suggested action Then the ordinance is introduced at the City Council level. However, if the stablishment of a similar grace period is important for your consideration nd recommendation of this change, then you should ask staff to add that i as an additional section in the resolution. ommissioner Tucker noted it is important for him as there are people out sere who have some desire to convert and maybe this is last call. If we ,ere to do that, the language that was in the Council's resolution, an pplication was deemed complete by a specific date. Could you tell us ,hat deemed complete means, if we are going to include that language as ,ell? Is. Temple explained that'deemed complete' is a technical identification f a step contained within the California Permit Streamlining Act. Usually, hen we receive an application from an applicant, there may be questions iat staff has, or requests for additional information. Staff is required to rovide the applicant within the minimum period of thirty days the specific ems which need to be added in order for the application to be considered complete application. Once that process is concluded, the application is eemed complete' and thus it would start the timeframes of action ;quirement pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. However, we often se that step as an identifier for times when we think an application is ufficiently complete in order for staff to analyze it and bring it forward for ommission and /or Council consideration. ommissioner Tucker asked if you need it deemed complete for the CEOA art of an application? The deemed complete part of this, unless someone es an application that didn't require any additional information, so there is timeframe beyond filing the application. Is. Temple answered if a project also required an environmental etermination and information was needed in order to make that etermination such as it was a larger project needing an initial study or an IR, then we would deem it complete when we had all the information we eeded to proceed with the study as well. It is very specific wording in Late planning law. ommissioner Tucker asked if we adopted this and someone came along nd had an application that was deemed complete and therefore qualified rider the prior law, how long would they have under that permit to actually enclude that conversion? How long do they have once they have the ght to convert in which to complete the conversion before the conversion ght lapses? httn: / /w�vw.citv.newnort- beach. ca.us /PlnAeendas /mn08- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 • 0 0 14 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Ms. Temple answered that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the City tc take final action at whatever body level is required within a period of 180 days. The Subdivision Map Act has a three year horizon for an approval. She added that our Code allows for extensions of not only maps but all ou discretionary applications beyond the 24 months that are specified. ssioner Tucker asked if an extension was requested would the nt have to comply with the all then parking requirements? In other your approval would no longer comply, am I wrong on that? answered they would have to check that. missioner Tucker noted this would be of interest because typically king when I come up against one of those type of issues, the fear I is the new requirements that are out there. One of the findings for ision is that the approval complies with all the requirements. r. Harp noted our Code does not have any findings for an extension. s. Temple added that we have always considered our extension ovisions to allow the extension of the approval as approved originally lows a total of 5 years and then there are no further extensions. . IMr. Harp noted that typically ordinances are effective 30 days after the second reading so if you are going to make modifications it would have to be expressed in the enabling ordinance. missioner Hawkins noted in connection to the change to the off street ng and loading spaces required, the proposal is to change from 1.5 t( iat is the effect of the current code requirement of 1.5? Do you get 2 in the 1.5, a big car in 1.5, or more storage? i. Temple answered that in those areas that still carry the zoning which ally limited in town that if someone chose to implement their project in it fashion, you would end up with one 2 -car garage that would serve or the units and one 1 -car garage or carport serving the other. imissioner Cole stated his understanding there are R2 properties that not in the Coastal Zone, is that all we are in effect dealing with just e units outside of the Coastal Zone? Murillo answered yes, for this part of the amendment. Chairperson Toerge noted there is another part of the amendment being considered too a change to Title 19 of the Municipal Code which would require that condominium conversions be required to have current code parking at the time they are converted whatever that current code is. comment was opened. Page 3 of 8 15 htto: / /wwNv.citv.newt)ort- beach. ca.us /PlnAQendas /mnO8- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Johnson, resident, noted: If the ordinance that was approved in 1994 allowing people to conve their properties should you now decide to change the ordinance and make the conversions all comply to 2 car, she requested that notification be sent to the 3,000+ property owners of that change. When the ordinance was first adopted in 1994, the momentum did not pick up until 5 -7 years later. Most of the conversions were for new construction so a lot of the figures are for new units that do comply. It took years for the older units to want to convert, split the properties. All the property owners need to be notified otherwise we are doing a dis- service to the community. eannette Davis, duplex owner in Corona del Mar, noted: • The change will effect her property and now it will be improper for her to do what I want to do to her property. • It is not fair. • She stated notices should be sent to all property owners. h Coles noted: • This is a significant issue for duplex owners and you need to allow enough time for people to make their applications or allow them to speak their objections. • Property duplexes options would be limited. blic comment was closed. ssioner Tucker asked if it is feasible to notify everybody with an R -2 property? ;. Temple noted that we did direct notice all property owners whose rking requirements are actually being changed, about 186. It would take me time but we can develop a list for ones that are solely affected by the mmissioner Tucker noted it is important that we have notice put out re. I don't want it to be a legal requirement of this, I just think as a itical matter everyone ought to have a chance to weigh in on this and >w what is going on. The reason I don't want the legal part of this I don't nt to hear people showing up saying they didn't get noticed. Temple noted she will work with Mr. Harp on the form of the notice ause amendments to the Subdivision Code do not require noticing. It be considered a community outreach. ommissioner Hawkins asked that the notice for this hearing complied htto : / /www.city.newport- beach.ca. us(P1nAgendas /mnO8- 04 -05. htm Page 4 of 8 08/29/2005 0 • • c° 1�1 0 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 law and our own Code, correct? Harp answered yes. iscussion followed on MFR and R -1.5 properties, the mailing will be sent R -2 property owners. Tucker noted: 'deemed complete'- I would look at something on the order of 6 months after the ordinance is adopted to get an application in and have it deemed complete. At that point it still would have to go through the process and get approved. There are three years to implement those approvals with the potential of extending it another two years. I think if we do a reasonable job of giving notice, those with duplexes, almost everybody is going to know there is an issue out there. It will create a rush to get these things done, but I think it is fair to give people the warning. Our goal is to get things to conform and I support what staff has prepared. I would suggest to the Council that six months or some timeframe other than the normal course of 30 days after the second reading, I think that is too short a period of time. ner McDaniel asked how long it takes an applicant to get an deemed complete? Ar. Campbell answered that typically an application comes in and we eview it within two weeks and it might take a couple of days or a couple of ninutes to review the application. An application with additional submittal nom and applicant can range anywhere from two weeks to sixty days iepending upon the complexity of the application. For a condo conversion, >tate law requires a 60 day prior notice of the tenants that you are Mending to convert. So people need to understand that if they are going o rush in and bring an application, they need to provide notice to the enants 60 days in advance of filing the application. nmissioner McDaniel noted that 6 months is ample time yet no matter i long we give, I agree, there will be problems. We have done the best can and I support 6 months. Chairperson Toerge noted that the current Code that was amended in 1994 essentially preserves older, non - conforming structures with under - supplied parking. I don't know anybody that feels a condominium today whether existing or not existing should have only one car parking. It . doesn't make sense. I am baffled on the inequity our Code places on new construction when in fact it allows a conversion to have just one parking space. I am in favor of this modification. He then noted that other coastal cities in our vicinity all require with a condo conversion that it be httn:// w ww.citv.newnort- beach.ca.us/P1nA eendas /mnOR- 04- 05.htm Page 5 of 8 OR/29/90M (1 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 ;companied with current code parking. Ours is the only coastal city in range County where this is allowed. It was created in 1994 to correct a oblem which was largely identified to be in West Newport but yet the eatest bulk (75% roughly) of the conversions have appeared in Corona 4 Mar. I respect the speakers tonight because those people who have ade an investment in their real estate with the expectation of employing e codes we have should be a part of the process and should be down ;re and involved in protecting their investments. The Newport Heights ea that represents only about 4% of the current duplexes in the city, I see ) reason why they should not be two per unit. As for the effective date, I Iree that no matter how much time is given, there is going to be a )ttleneck at the end of that period of time. I think that six months might more than I was going, I was thinking more of 90 or 120 days to give ,erybody the opportunity to go through the process. I support this dinance primarily due to the incremental erosion of the quality of life that iy one of these projects tends to impose on the community. We are Dking at the overall impact of this across the entire city and on that basis at I am more concerned with the quality of our environment and the living inditions in our community. ommissioner Eaton noted his agreement with the Chairman. He noted e need for the conversions to have two car garages. Re -doing a project to a condominium is perpetuating the existing problem present in many iplex areas and that is insufficient parking. The concern I have is of ;rpetuating the nonconforming buildings. It will be impossible for two vners to agree on when to rebuild and how to rebuild and how to allocate e costs. It is going to make it difficult to assume those buildings ever get built and become conforming. Finally, if you are talking about the vnership of low cost housing, a small unit of less than 800 square feet ;e we had in front of us tonight, at $700,000 and the building was almost ) years old starting out with only a one car garage, that is not moderate )st housing in my opinion. I endorse this ordinance. Considering the eemed complete' requires a month or so at the end and the prior >tification requires two months in the beginning, six months probably is !asonable. ;ommissioner Hawkins noted this will increase the parking requirements )r a condo conversion, but I think the parking situation and the parking upply in the city will be quickly exhausted if we stay with the current code :quirements. I do believe that our recommendation in connection with thi,, rdinance is important and will preserve and enhance the parking supply. m sympathetic with the burden it will impose upon property owners both i Corona del Mar, Newport Heights as well as West Newport, but as the hairman said, we need to look out for the entire City and the City's :sources. I will favor this recommendation. The timing issue focuses on ie end point, when an application is deemed complete. There may be nother way to calculate the timing and that is when the application is led. Is there a difference in work load if we do it on the day the pplication is filed, does that alleviate staff of some work compression that ras addressed earlier. Page 6 of 8 httn: / /\Vw-,v. city. newnort- heach. ca.ua/P1nAeendas /mn08- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 U 40 • �o Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Ms. Temple answered the real answer depends on the knowledge and • diligence of the applicant and how interested he is in achieving short term solution. I can foresee that someone just files a piece of paper to say he has filed an application, with virtually no supporting requirements. It may sit and embark on an every 30 day correspondence of what is needed, or, he application will die after a period of time. I don't know if It makes much difference. If we get a lot of applications in right before the timeframe all it does is make the compression a little further out. There is no time savings plus the Council has already adopted an ordinance that specifies a complete application and I would not want to have two different requirements. The difference between the two unit condos and the other condos related to the general sophistication of the applicants is in fact different. You will see more of an individual mom or pop, not one of those specialized people, who are just converting their own home. Those people ill find the process a little more confusing and will need more time. mmissioner Hawkins noted there was an approved action in connection h larger condominium projects. I believe the Council set a date certain which applications needed to be deemed complete. Is it feasible to re a recommendation to have that particular date, not matter what it is? Mr. Campbell answered they could look at that as a possibility. He is concerned that about the time this gets to the Council and it may be • contentious that 60 day prior notice period might get a little tough so it may need to be effective after the effective date of the prior amendment of the Council adopted. We will take a look at that too. clarified that the noticing is to be done prior to the City Council Aon was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend approval of Code nendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes from 1.5 space: r unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal )de related to minimum parking standards for the conversion of a duplex condominiums (PA2005 -168) with the proviso that the effective date be months after the second reading and date of adoption by the City nissioner Tucker asked if we need to do anything for the non - :rsion aspect of this, is six months too much? We really have two to this. Ms. Temple noted that we do not have to break apart your resolution of recommendation.. However, that is a good point and we will likely forward to the Council two separate ordinances so that one would be effective in days and one would be effective six months from the date of the second reading. followed regarding people applying for condominium Page 7 of 8 11 htty: //www.citv.newnort- beach. ca.us /PinAeendas /mn08- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 >nversions having the 6 months and the difference from someone coming for a building permit for new construction or a major remodel to one of e existing buildings and the plan review requiring two spaces per unit ommissioner Eaton noted the motion is the amendment to Title 19 would ave the effective date of 6 months for applications deemed complete. maker of the motion agreed. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, sent: None stain: None Tucker and NUMEW httv: / /www,city.newl)ort- beach. ca.us(P]nAr4endas /mnO8- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 • 0 �O E ATTACHMENT 4 June 28, 2005 City Council Staff Report �I COUNCIL AGENDA r♦ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH wi CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT b /z�/L5 Agenda Item No. 24 June 14, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3209 jmuriilo @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code Related to Parking Standards for Condominium Conversions (PA 2005 -015) RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005- amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standards to: 1. Current standards OR 2. Two spaces per unit. Additionally, staff recommends that the effective date of the ordinance be 60 days after the date of its adoption, and that any condominium conversion application deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment. DISCUSSION This project was continued from the May 10, 2005 City Council meeting due to the unexpected long length of the meeting. Additionally, after the staff report was prepared for the May 10, 2005 City Council meeting, staff realized an oversight in that the proposed ordinance options did not include a grandfather clause delaying the effective date of the amendment to • accommodate condominium conversion applications which may currently be under preparation. The condominium conversion regulations of Title 19 and the State Subdivision law, both require applicants of condominium conversions to • Condominium Conversion Parking Standards June 14, 2005 Page 2 notify existing and prospective rental tenants of their intent to convert a property at least 60 days prior to filling an application with the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council make the effective date of the ordinance 60 days after the second reading and date of its adoption, to provide adequate time for prospective applicants to complete their notification requirements prior to submitting their application with the City. The attached May 10, 2005 City Council staff report provides an analysis of each of the 4 proposed amendment options, along with a historical description of the parking requirements throughout the years. Based on the analysis described in the report, and to reduce the risk of preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking, staff is recommending that the City Council amend the parking requirements for condominium conversions by adopting either Option 1 or Option 2. Environmental Review The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Although notice is not required for amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code, public notice for the June 14, 2005 City Council meeting was posted at the public counter and published in the local Daily Pilot newspaper. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Jaime Murillo Assistant Planner Submitted by: Patricia Temple Planning Director Exhibits Al. Draft Ordinance No. A2. _ Draft Ordinance No. @. _ Correspondence C. May 10, 2005 Staff Report (Recycled) F:1USEft51PLt�SharedWAs}PAS - 2DDSPA2D05 -015WCDS1005rptlrehsed).doc • • • �3 11 0 EXHIBIT Al CURRENT STANDARDS DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. a `� ORDINANCE 2005- • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1 NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 19.64.070 OF TITLE 19 (SUBDIVISION CODE) RELATED TO THE PARKING STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS. [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005-0011 WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted amendments to the condominium conversions standards of Title 19 in an effort to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable ownership units, and while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the condominium conversion standards were anticipated to increase home ownership which eventually would improve the visual character of the area by providing a greater sense of pride in ownership and a vested interest in the maintenance of the property; and WHEREAS, per the request of the City Council, on November 9, 2004, the Planning Department presented a status report on condominium conversions and the effects that the 1994 changes had on structures throughout the City; and • WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the desired effects of the original objectives of the 1994 Code Amendment were not being met; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Planning Department to prepare a study analyzing various amendment options to Section 19.64.070 (Standards for Condominium Conversions) of Title 19 specifically related to the minimum off - street parking standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 10, 2005, held duly noticed public hearings regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, by maintaining the 1 space per unit minimum for condominium conversions, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and built to older building code standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). 0 • A5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS . FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 19.64.070.A as follows: A. The number of off - street parking spaces shall be provided in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) in effect at the time of conversion. All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective sixty (60) days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3: Any condominium conversion application deemed complete by the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be subject to this amendment. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on June 14, 2005, and adopted on the 28th day of June 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS i ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: CITY CLERK u MAYOR • aG EXHIBIT A2 TWO SPACES PER UNIT DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. • • ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 19.64.070 OF TITLE 19 (SUBDIVISON CODE) RELATED TO THE PARKING STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS. [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005-0011 WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted amendments to the condominium conversions standards of Title 19 in an effort to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable ownership units, and while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the condominium conversion standards were anticipated to increase home ownership which eventually would improve the visual character of the area by providing a greater sense of pride in ownership and a vested interest in the maintenance of the property; and WHEREAS, per the request of the City Council, on November 9, 2004, the Planning Department presented a status reporton condominium conversions and the effects that the 1994 changes had on structures throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the desired effects of the original objectives of the 1994 Code Amendment were not being met; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Planning Department to prepare a study analyzing various amendment options to Section 19.64.070 (Standards for Condominium Conversions) of Title 19 specifically related to the minimum off - street parking standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 10, 2005, held duly noticed public hearings regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, by maintaining the 1 space per unit minimum for condominium conversions, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and built to older building code standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). u • M THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS • FOLLOWS: • I SECTION 1: Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 19.64.070.A as follows: A. The number of off-street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location ofsuch parking shall - be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Under no circumstance shall there be less than two parking spaces per dwelling unit including one covered. All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective sixty (60) days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3: Any condominium conversion application deemed complete by the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be subject to this amendment. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on June 14, 2005, and adopted on the 28th day of June 2005, by the following vote, to wit: ATTEST: CITY CLERK CJ AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR W K T5 AA -7 P2,31 THE SAYWnZ COMPANY 4740 V(ri KANMAN, Surrf 100 • NEwi oitT BEACH, C_A 92660 •949• wl1J5 (6'C_-F/4'9gi7 `, ftJj June 7. 2005 City of Newport Beach City Council Planning Department F.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: Condominium Conversion Regulation Amendment - Code Amendment #2005 -001 Amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code Related to Parking Standards for Condominium Conversions (PA2005 -015) Clear Planning Commissioners and Esteemed Members of the City Council: I wanted to write to you with regards to the above referenced amendment, which will be ciscussed, and I assume voted on, at the June 14'0 City Council meeting, concerning the proposed parking standard modifications for the condominium conversion within the city. My name is Barry Saywitz. and I own a commercial real estate company. headquartered in Newport Beach. 1 have been a Newport Beach resident for the past thirteen years, and have operated. our company's headquarters in Newport Beach for the past seven years. We are active members of lie Chamber of Commerce. and I personally own numerous properties throughout the city. I began converting existing duplex structures on the Newport Beach Peninsula. Into two separate condos in 2001. and since that point have completed ten condo conversions. I currently have six condo conversions in West Newport, which have recently been approved. and are currently under construction. I am in the process of submitting applications for condo conversion on an additional eight units, four of which are In West Newport. and the other four are on the Peninsula as wefl. As part of the condo conversion process. I have incorporated a complete renovation, and remodel of the existing structure. to Incorporate all new flooring, drywall. insulation, hardware, appliances. roof. landscaping, etc. The finished product is comparable to that of completely new construction. I have focused my efforts. from a development standpoint, on converting existing structures. which provided for larger square footage. and a functional floor plan for 3 or 4 bedroom condos. and providing the same finish quality as new construction. I understand the City's strong sentiment to modify the existing parking requirements, to preclude older less functional properties from being converted, and in an effort to reduce the parking strain in doing so. However. I do have two major concerns with regards to this modification. First. I have reviewed the Staff Report on the subject. In item #3 on page 22 of the Staff Report, Senior Planner. Campbell reports that since 1994. 24 units have been converted In West Newport, and sixteen on the Peninsula. All eight of my conversions have taken place on the Peninsula, and I em aware of a minimum of eight others from other developers, that have been converted on the Peninsula as well. I find it hard to believe that these figures are accurate. and would suggest that additional research be performed to confirm these figures. 1 also would suggest that due diligence be performed as to the existing condo conversion projects. which are currently in progress, or have been approved, since these figures were compiled, as 1 believe that tnose numbers wilt change significantly. *j6 ()cA�c.r ('M%M • SAN rxANCtv-u • SAN DIEt'tr • lie. II • SSIKiN VAW V • SA[fIAMi.NTn • A1YIx1UEWU[ • AnnN�A • AIrSrIN F:' 411 ` 1' _ 11 "Wx,: • 90siu4 • aursAID • CILUM M • CwcAeo • QsnNNAn • DAUAS • MtAl RE • DFN • Drinar • HAam)Rn .. i Irwin 111: • H(l N . 1NMgNA(0IE • KANSAS CITY • MIAMI • M1NNrntCxlS • NASIMDF • NM 1oscy • NM Yore • Dx"pw NETWORK PARTNER I1111AMAUA -1)K IX Prr M1U 44- NTnANO•a/.II,Y .SMA.\10h'q• S'_AT11F.• StLnus. TAW,. TNSA• W&%a mD.C. • p City of Newport Beach City Council Planning Department Page Two June 6, 2005 It appears that many of the comments are directed at the fact that the intent of the condo conversion standards were to encourage ownership, rather than rentals, and that by relaxing the parking standards originally, it was the City's hope that not only would the parking become reduced, but that it would encourage ownership. I would again ask the City to perform additional due diligence as to how and why it believes that these two Incentives were not accomplished by the projects that have been completed. There is no information in the Staff Report, which correlates the actual projects, which were converted, and any Information as to whether they are owner occupants, or rentals, other than a general opinion, and no study was performed as to how the parking may have been increased or decreased, as a result of the condo conversion itself. Attached is a summary of the projects that 1 have either completed, or are currently under construction, and an analysis of the car count prior to conversion, while the property was utilized as a rental, as well as the head count of occupants in each unit, along with whether those properties are currently occupied by renters or owners. I believe that you will find this information extremely helpful, and contrary to the belief that the parking and ownership incentives were not taken advantage of. I would suggest that the City further analyze the other projects, to confirm or deny whether the Information, which is provided below, is indicative of the other projects that have been completed over the years. Please see the attached "Exhibit A` for your review. 1 understand that the condo conversion issues apply city -wide, which would Include Corona Del is Mar, as well as the Peninsula and the Islands. In the event that the City Council sees fit to modify the existing parking requirements at all, I would strongly suggest to them to consider a 1.5 car ratio per unit, rather than a 2 car ratio per unit. At least a 1.5 ratio would allow for newer existing structures to still be converted, and would preclude the older properties, which have more deferred maintenance and sub - standard parking going forward. This would still allow for the City to justify an increase in the requirement, but at the same time, not completely eliminate the conversion to condo of any existing structures. In the event that the City was to increase the parking requirements to two cars per 1,000, only existing structures with a four car garage would be allowed to be converted. The ratio of existing structures, certainly on the Peninsula with four car garages to those who do not, is a very small fraction of the total number of properties. While I would like not to see any increase in the parking requirements, I understand the City's philosophy, and would strongly recommend a 1.5 parking ratio versus two car unit ratio in the event that there is ultimately a change. My second issue with the Staff Report is that the recommendation on page 12, section 2, is that in the event that the provision Is approved for a modification, that the ordinance will become effective thirty days after the date of its adoption. While I am not an expert in the laws of the Cfty and how they apply, it is my understanding that this modification will require not only an approval, but a second reading by the City Council at a following meeting. Additionally, the recommendation by staff does not specify whether the thirty days is from the date of the original approval, or whether it is from the date of the second reading, or any other specific deadline. There is no reference of any grandfathering of any existing projects, which either have been submitted or in the process of being submitted for condo conversion. While I am sure that this issue affects other individuals, it significantly Impacts my business, as I am in the process of submitting several other condo conversion projects, at this time. L I 31 City of Newport Beach City Council Planning Department Page Three June 6. 2005 As I am sure you are aware. the condo conversion process requires a completed application before the Planning Department will accept it as being submitted. This application Includes the preparation of architectural drawings. a tentative condo map. information about the project and the existing structure. as well as a sixty day notification to any existing tenants of the owners intent to perform a condo conversion. The application cannot be submitted until the sixty day notification period to the tenants has lapsed. Once the application is submitted. it Is my understanding from the Planning Department, a requires another thirty days for the application to be deemed approved by the department. and a hearing is then set within thirty days from that point. In order to allow existing property owners wno have intentions of submitting for a condo conversion or. who are in the process of preparing their due diligence information in order to be able to submit an application, I strongly believe the City Council should consider a reasonable and fair grace period. to allow them to do so. I would suggest a ninety day grace period from the date of the second reading of any modification. This time frame would allow any property owners ample time to prepare their applications and notify their existing tenants, and for the Planning Department to be able to approve any submitted application. Another suggestion would be, to provide a thirty day grace period, and require any property owners who intended on submitting an application for condo conversion, to submit a letter to the city notifying them of their intent to do so, and then providing an additional sixty days beyond that time frame to be able to submit the application itself. I understand that there may be a concern of an increased number of condo conversion applications. which would be submitted during the grace period: however. 1 would suggest to the City Council to have the Planning Department review how many condo conversion applications have been submitted over the past several months. and compare that to the overall number of condo conversions that they have averaged over the past several years. I am sure that they will find that there has not been a significant amount of increase in submittals. if there are. it may warrant further review. I do believe a fair and reasonable time frame is warranted In this instance. and would appreciate strong consideration of incorporating this into any vote or modification. which would be made. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this information, and I hope that you will take it into consideration when formalizing a plan of action. Should you have any additional questions or require any further clarification from me. I would be happy to discuss the issue with you. I can be reached directly at (949) 930.7502. Sincerely. Barry aywilz a lacf atlac enl •6 • 3a • 0 • L J Exhibit W Summary of Condo Conversion Before and After Statistics June 6. 2005 Address Size No. of No. of Owner No. of Cars No. of Cars People People Occupied Before After Before After Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion 1625 E. 3 bd / 3 2 Yes 3 2 Balboa 3 bath 1527 E. 3 bd 1 4 2 Yes 4 2 Balboa 3 bath 1629 E. 3 bd / 3 1 Family Yes 4 1 Balboa 3 bath 2 Adults 1 Child 1631 E. 3 bd / 4 1 Family Yes 4 1 Balboa 3 bath 2 Adults 1 Child 213 28 A 3 bd / 3 2 Yes 3 2 2 bath 213 28 B 4 bd / 4 2 Yes 5 3 4 bath 4915 River 3 bd / 5 1 Yes 4 1 3 bath 4917 River 3 bd / 5 1 Yes 4 1 3 bath Projects Under Construction Assumes 2 people and 2 cars per unit 5005 River 3 bd / 4 2 N/A 2 2 Downstairs 2 bath 5005 River 3 bd / 3 2 N/A 3 2 U stairs 2 bath 203 30 3 bd / 5 2 N/A 5 2 St. #1 3 bath 203 30 —3 bd / 5 2 N/A 4 2 St. #2 3 bath 4819 River 3 bd / 4 2 N/A 4 2 Downstairs bath 4819 River 4 bd / 4 2 N/A 4 2 U stairs 2 bath z aA1Arrr4nM.Je. A C. r��mw�MU�e 33 Exhibit "A` Summary of Condo Conversion Before and After Statistics June 6,2005 Continued Address Size No. of No. of Owner No. of Cars No. of Cars People People Occupied Before After Before After Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion 5009 River 3 bd / 3 2 N/A 3 2 Downstairs 2 bath 5009 River 3 bd / 4 2 N/A 4 2 Upstairs 2 bath 211 Cotton 7otais 63 32 60 29 • 1 • 3q • • TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITYr6g&&CiV E. 7 FROM: SCOTT M DALTON, RESIDENT OF CORONA DEDS ARy 17 P258 (949) 566 -0121 scottmdalton @hotmaii.com OFFICEE OF rHE CITY CLERK Subject: Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 amending Title 19W CNEWPORTBEACH Municipal Code Related to Parking Standards for Condominium Conversions (PA 2005 -015) Argument Against Amendment I have personally converted three duplexes in Corona del Mar into condominiums and am starting on my fourth. I have purchased run down, neglected duplexes and I have renovated and improved them Into two condo units that are more desirable, affordable and attractive to homeowners. This process increases the number of owners in our community and encourages pride of ownership. From my experience the conversion of existing duplexes results in units that are safer and in most cases, more aesthetically pleasing than prior to conversion. Furthermore, all the units I have converted have resulted in fewer . occupants per unit, therefore, fewer drivers in the household, which of course means fewer cars parked on the street. This occurs because owners take pride in their homes and tend to be more affluent then renters that sometimes fill homes to capacity in order to afford the monthly rent. Yr. Total # of occupants: For example: Address Built prior to conversion After conversion 607 & 607 1/2 Iris Ave 1965 6 3 407 & 407 1/2 Jasmine Ave 1964 6 4 510 & 5101/2 Jasmine Ave 1979 4 3 609 & 6091/2 Iris Ave 1965 7 4 (Neighbors conversion) Requiring two parking spaces per unit on existing buildings would be impractical and the costs would be prohibitive. Changing the cities policies regarding the r7 amount of parking Oat p g per unit would discourage conversion of existing duplexes, leave more properties in disrepair and would negatively affect the quality of our Conies sent To: neighborhood. �yor • '_19- 10uncil member There is no need to change the existing condo conversion policies.. -019" Scott M Dalton rpey off. —�� 35 Page 1 oft Murillo, Jaime From: Craig [craigmorissette @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:58 PM To: Ridgeway, Tod Cc: don2webb @earthlink.net; Heffernan, John; Rosansky, Steven; Bromberg, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Nichols, Dick; Murillo, Jaime Subject: Urgent. Change of Condo Conversion Parking Requirements Councilman Ridgeway: While I will make every attempt to be at tonights council meeting, if for some reason I don't make it in time, would you please share my views that follow on Condo Conversion Parking Requirements with the other council members. I have two concerns about changing the parking requtrements.1) will imposing this requirement on existing I buildings really help the parking situation on the peninsula, and 2) have property owners been given sufficient notice of an impending change? Encouraging owner occupied units is the best way to combat the seasonal rental "Party houses" that continue to be a problem on the peninsula. In the specific case of existing duplexes, discouraging condo conversion won't provide an incentive for most owners to replace their buildings. New or old, a long narrow box Is a box is a box.. Most likely the old buildings wilt remain in service and continue to be rented. What will be lost is the opportunity to fill the buildings with owner occupied and potentially quieter residents. For new structures the higher parking requirement makes logical sense, but for existing structures It does not! Secondly, currentDmpeM( owners shoAd_be fully_i0formed and be given time to read. should the council decide •� that a change Is best for the community. As you can see by the email below, I have been into the building and planning departments several times since the beginning of the year to make sure that changes being designed into a remodel of a property I own were code compliant. Not once while talking with the planning or building department did anyone mention that there was an impending deadline –most likely because they simply hadn't been informed. The point is that existing property owners should not be blindslded by this change. Several neighbors purchased their buildings so they could selloff parts of their home as financial needs in their lives change. Most are currently retired or approaching retirement. A decision today could have serious unforseen consequences on an untold number of retirement plansl Jaime Murillo returned my call and I asked him if it would be possible to submit an application today for a condo conversion. His answer, understandably, was not if you haven't complied with the state mandated 50 day notice to any current tenants. In conclusion, I hope you see, as I do, that increasing the parking requirement on existing structures will do little for the parking problem, and only discourage owner occupied residency. Most important, giving current property owners time to react to an Impending change is the right thing to do. Your implementation plan must include months after a decision is made, not days, for existing property owners to react! Tod, thank you for sharing my views with your fellow Council Members. Cordially, Craig Morissette -- Original Message — From: Crain To: jgarcia city pewport -beach ca us Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:50 PM • Subject: Urgent. Change of Condo Conversion Parking Regulations . 06/07/2005 3� • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT W Agenda Item No. 13 May 10, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3209 jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code Related to Parking Standards for Condominium Conversions (PA 2005 -015) ISSUE • Should the City Council increase the minimum parking requirements for condominium conversion projects? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005- amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standards to: a) Current standards OR b) Two spaces per unit. DISCUSSION Background Per the request of the City Council, the Planning Department presented a report to the City Council on November 9, 2004, regarding condominium conversion regulations (Exhibit 2). Staff highlighted the evolution of condominium conversion standards over time since conversions were first allowed in 1978. The focus of • the discussion and presentation was related to parking standards. • 31 Condominium Conversion Parking Standards May 10. 2005 Page 2 With the intent to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable ownership units, and while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities, the City Council in 1994 removed what was believed to be unnecessary and untimely review procedures for condominium conversions. For the purposes of this discussion, the most relevant change to the conversion procedures was to change the minimum required number of parking spaces to those requirements which were in effect at the time of the original construction, provided that a minimum of 1 space per unit was provided. The effects of the changes made in 1994 to the conversion procedures were also reviewed at the November 9, 2004 Council meeting. Of the 151+ units approved for conversion since the 1994 changes, 73.5% occurred within the Corona del Mar area. The area of West Newport was originally anticipated to see a large increase in the number of conversions and an increase in home ownership, an effect which was anticipated to improve the character of the area by providing a greater sense of pride in ownership and a vested interest in the maintenance of the property. However, the reality was that only 24 units were converted in that area, and only a few had significant exterior enhancements. The area of Corona del Mar has experienced a large increase in the number of rental units being converted into condominiums. This has become a concern of many residents because of the effects that the minimum parking requirement of only one parking space per unit has on the already impacted streets of the area. Another emerging concern is that the relaxed parking standards have provided an incentive to convert nonconforming buildings as opposed to the demolition of older units with the reconstruction of new housing stock. Additionally, with the multiple ownerships that conversions create, significant redevelopment of sites becomes nearly impossible, and older non - conforming buildings are preserved. Since the 1994 update to the condominium conversion standards has not had the desired effect of promoting home ownership in the West Newport area, the Council decided that staff should return with changes to the parking standards for condominium conversions. Analysis Parking History For the purposes of determining the potential impacts of amending the parking standards for condominium conversions, it is important to understand the history and evolution of the general parking standards throughout the years. Depending on the minimum parking requirement Council chooses to adopt, approval of condominium conversions may prove to be difficult for structures built prior to the year in which the increase in parking standards took place. •. Condominium Conversion Parking Standards May 10, 2005 Page 3 • In July of 1980, a significant change in the minimum parking standards occurred when the City Council adopted an ordinance pertaining to the parking requirements within residential districts. The minimum parking requirements were increased to 1.5 spaces per unit for residentially zoned properties throughout the City. 40 0 In November of 1989, the new Multi - Family Residential (MFR) zoning district was incorporated into the City's Zoning Code, which increased the minimum parking standards. Soon after, the City began phasing out R -3 and R-4 properties by rezoning these districts to the new MFR zoning district. Additionally in 1990, the City amended the R -2 district parking regulations to require a minimum of 2 spaces per unit within the Corona del Mar area. The tables below provide a breakdown of the changes in parking standards and a comparison of the minimum parking spaces a project would be required to have: Parking Standards Comparison Project Comparison Using Minimum Parkinn StaneinrAe 1936U 1943' 1980 , ,1969 1990'_ ' ' 1997 ; spy _•. ter.: 1_° Current. _SFR:.= No Min. 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 06plex''. : No Min. 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 (2 per 4 CDM 4 per unit per unit per unit (CDM 2 unit within 7 7 =0 4=PIez 0 4 per unit ) CDM and 10 10 5- Plez >:" 0 5 8 7.5 areas of i# 1 12.5 coastal zone >..Triplez 2 No Min. 1 1.5 7 spaces 7 spaces 7 spaces s. per unit per unit (2 per unit (2 per unit (2 per unit t . + 1 guest) + 1 uest + 1 guest) A- -- Units` No Min. 1 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 per unit per unit per unit per unit per unit Project Comparison Using Minimum Parkinn StaneinrAe 39 0943 198Q. X1989 i s "1991997 TV 1_° .Current^ 'SFR•. 0 1 2(1.5) 2(1.5) 20.5) 2 CO lei 0. 2 3 3 4 CDM 4 =Tijiblex t ry 0 3 5(4.5) 7 7 7 =0 4=PIez 0 4 6 10 10 10 5- Plez >:" 0 5 8 7.5 12.5 12.5 1 12.5 39 Condominium Conversion Parking Standards May 10, 2005 Page 4 Based on the 2000 Census data, the average household size in the City of Newport Beach was 2.25 persons per household, from which one can make a reasonable assumption that each household has a minimum of two cars. Amendment Options Section 19.64.070(A) of Title 19 currently reads as follows: "The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Under no circumstance shall there be less than one covered parking space per dwelling unit." Staff is proposing several amendment options to Section 19.64.070(A): Option 1 — Increase Parking for Conversions to Current Standards i "The number of off - street parking spaces shall be provided in • conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations) in effect at the time of conversion." This option will result in the conversion of rental units constructed before 1989 to become increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, as projects constructed prior to 1989 do not typically meet current standards. Since very few apartments have been constructed since 1989, future conversions will be limited to duplexes and other small projects that were designed to exceed standards in effect at the time of construction. The resulting effect will be that conforming buildings will remain relatively easy to convert to condominiums; however, older non - conforming buildings will be required to be redeveloped with conforming structures in order to be subdivided into condominiums. Option 2 — Increase Minimum Parking to 2 Spaces per Unit "The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Under no circumstance shall there be less than two parking spaces per dwelling unit, including one covered." 0 q6 • . Condominium Conversion Parking Standards May 10, 2005 Page 5 This option would allow the conversion of rental units to condominiums if the project provides a minimum of 2 spaces per unit. This proposal would have almost the same effect as Option 1; however it would allow the conversion of buildings which supply 2 spaces per unit but do not provide any guest parking. Therefore, this option would allow some apartment buildings to convert to condominiums. As noted in the effects of Option 1, this proposal would effectively prevent the conversion of units built prior to 1989 if the building was constructed consistent with the minimum parking standards. Option 3 — Increase Minimum Parking to 1.5 Spaces per Unit "The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Under no circumstance shall there be less than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, including one covered." As a third alternative, a minimum of 1.5 spaces per unit can be required. This, in effect, would potentially allow for the conversions of rental units that were constructed after 1980. The parking standards adopted in 1980 were significantly • higher than previous parking standards; however, not as demanding as the current standards derived from the 1989 update. Option 4 — No Change in Minimum Parking The City Council may wish to maintain the current standards for condominium conversions which are to require the number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction, so long as a minimum of 1 space per unit is provided. Summary By maintaining the 1 space per unit minimum, or adopting the 1.5 space per unit amendment option for condominium conversions, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and built to older Building Code standards. Adopting the higher standards currently in effect (Option 1) will still allow the conversion of duplexes and triplexes, which typically meet the current parking standards. However, it would nearly eliminate conversion opportunities for apartments as few have been built since 1989 and few provide more than 2 spaces per unit. Discouraging the conversion of apartments would be consistent with Housing Element goals and policies to provide a variety of housing types I • qr Condominium Conversion Parking Standards May 10, 2D05 Page 6 and maintain rental opportunities. On the other hand, facilitating the conversion • of apartments by allowing conversions when 2 parking spaces per unit are — provided (Option 2) might provide opportunities for first -time buyers. This option also would support the Housing Element goal to provide a variety of housing types. Environmental Review The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Notice is not required for amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. However, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: acme Muriilo Batty Tempie Assistant Planner �f Planning Director Exhibits 1A. Draft Ordinance No. 1 B. Draft Ordinance No. 2. November 9, 2004 Staff Report 3. November 9, 2004 City Council Minutes 4. November 9, 2004 PowerPoint Presentation FAUSEMPLNGSharedlPNsWAs - 20051PA2005- 0151PC051005rpt.doc 1• E • qa i 64 0 I I Exhibit 1A Current Standards Draft Ordinance No. U i ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 19.64.070 OF TITLE 19 (SUBDIVISON CODE) RELATED TO THE PARKING STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS. [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -0011 WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted amendments to the condominium conversions standards of Title 19 in an effort to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable ownership units, and while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the condominium conversion standards were anticipated to increase home ownership which eventually would improve the visual character of the area by providing a greater sense of pride in ownership and a vested interest in the maintenance of the property; and WHEREAS, per the request of the City Council, on November 9, 2004, the Planning Department presented a status report on condominium conversions and the effects that the 1994 changes had on structures throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the desired effects of the original 0� objectives of the 1994 Code Amendment were not being met; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Planning Department to prepare a study analyzing various amendment options to Section 19.64.070 (Standards for Condominium Conversions) of Title 19 specifically related to the minimum off - street parking standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 10, 2005, held duly noticed public hearings regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, by maintaining the 1 space per unit minimum for condominium conversions, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and built to older building code standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because It involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). E • Pl *! is 0 • • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 19.64.070.A as follows: A. The number of off - street parking spaces shall be provided in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) in effect at the time of conversion All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Cityof Newport Beach held on May, 10 2005, and adopted on the 24th day of May 2005, by the following vote, to wit: ATTEST: CITY CLERK AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR q5 Exhibit 'I B 2 Parking Spaces Per Unit Draft Ordinance No. *0 0 • q6 • • ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 19.64.070 OF TITLE 19 (SUBDIVISON CODE) RELATED TO THE PARKING STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS. (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005-0011 WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted amendments to the condominium conversions standards of Title 19 in an effort to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable ownership units, and while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the condominium conversion standards were anticipated to increase home ownership which eventually would improve the visual character of the area by providing a greater sense of pride in ownership and a vested interest in the maintenance of the property; and WHEREAS, per the request of the City Council, on November 9, 2004, the Planning Department presented a status report on condominium conversions and the effects that the 1994 changes had on structures throughout the City; and • WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the desired effects of the original objectives of the 1994 Code Amendment were not being met; and /* • WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Planning Department to prepare a study analyzing various amendment options to Section 19.64.070 (Standards for Condominium Conversions) of Title 19 specifically related to the minimum off - street parking standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 10, 2005, held duly noticed public hearings regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, by maintaining the 1 space per unit minimum for condominium conversions, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and built to older building code standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). i� THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 19.64.070.A as follows: A. The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Under no circumstance shall there be less than two parking spaces per dwelling unit, including one covered. All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on May, 10 2005, and adopted on the 24th day of May 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK .M • L _� L • • Exhibit 2 November 9, 2004 Staff Report 49 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: ss3 November 9, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, 949 -W -3210, icamabell (a)city.newoort- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Review of current condominium conversion regulations RECOMMENDATION Provide direction staff on whether changes to the condominium conversion regulations are desired. DISCUSSION . Standards and permit procedures for the conversion of apartments to condominiums were first adopted by the City in 1978. The minimum requirement at that time for the conversion of an existing apartment project was that the buildings needed to be in 'basic compliance' with the current Building Code and only one parking space per unit must be provided. The Planning Commission was empowered to waive or modify requirements of the Building Code R that would be no more detrimental to adjacent properties than would be it strict compliance were required. In 1979, the City amended the conversion process by requiring a Use Permit and a Tentative Map. Compliance with Building ,ard Zoning regulations was also required (including parking) and the standards were those applicable at the time of approval of the conversion. Residential conversions were not permitted on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet and the modification or waiver of Building and Zoning standards was changed to require a 4l5 vote of the Planning Commission. Conformance with the General Plan was necessary and a vacancy rate standard was applied for all requests. The parking standards at that time were 1 garage space per unit, except for projects with more than 4 units where 2 spaces were required for each unit above 4. The parking standard was changed in 1980 to require 1.5 spaces per unit. in 1989, the standard was increased again where 2 spaces per unit were required for duplexes, 7 total spaces for triplex and 2.5 spaces per unit for larger projects. As the standards were changed to require more parking, conversions became less likely because the newer parking . requirements were difficult to meet on developed properties. E CJ • 0 56 • • Condominium Conversions November 9, 2004 Page 2 The City substantially updated the conversion process in 1994. First. the requirement for a tentative map was eliminated and the Use Permit was replaced with a Condominium Conversion permit. Second, the prohibition of conversions on lots less than 5.000 square feet was eliminated. Third. the number of parking spaces required was changed to the number of spaces required at the time of the rental project's original construction, provided that a minimum of 1 space per unit was provided. Next, the -vacancy rate test was made applicable only to projects with 15 or more units. The City also introduced the requirement to separate and underground utilities. The net effect of these changes made it possible for the conversion of smaller projects, primarily consisting of duplexes and triplexes. The stated purpose of the 1994 changes to the process was 'to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable units while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities' Additionally, the Council desired "to remove unnecessary and timely review procedures for condominium conversions. while at the same time insuring that converted units maintain minimum standards of development which will provide a safe and efficient living environment.' Another goal was to improve home ownership rates. Of the conversion applications reviewed since 1995, the vast majority have been duplexes with several triplexes and a handful of mixed use buildings. Only one project • larger than a triplex has been evaluated and is currently pending review by the City Council and is scheduled for November 23, 2004. The goal to facilitate the conversion of smaller projects has definitely been realized as none of the projects considered would have been eligible prior to the 1994 amendment and all have been smaller in size. Staff has also completed a review of conversions since 1995 and it is estimated that 60% of converted units are owner- occupled today. These 90 units are not necessarily the net increase in owner - occupied units as it is not known how many owners occupied the units prior to the conversions. The owner - occupied rate of all condominiums within the City is approximately 68% by comparison. Given today's housing values. most of the converted units would not be considered affordable in the traditional sense, but the units are more affordable than other ownership opportunities within Newport Beach. It can also be said that the process has led to some reinvestment in older properties with upgrades to utility connections. reconstruction of public improvements and 'interior improvements voluntarily undertaken by project applicants. Updated Subdivision Code E In 2001, the City adopted a comprehensive update of the Subdivision Code that required the approval of tentative parcel or tract maps for condominium conversions. The current standards are attached. The requirement for a tentative map allows the City to require the construction or reconstruction of missing. damaged or nonconforming • public improvements (i.e. sidewalks, streets, curb and gutter, etc.) abutting the property • i 61 r , Condominium Conversions November 9, 2004 Page 3 • under consideration of a condominium conversion. No other substantive changes were made. However, there is a recently discovered (and unintended) ambiguity in the language added related to the applicability of current Zoning standards as opposed to the Zoning standards in effect at the time of the original construction, which was clearly the standard before the 2001 code amendments. Staff will be forwarding an amendment to the Subdivision Code to clarify the Issue along with several other minor Yxes' as is typically necessary after most comprehensive updates. Environmental Review This is a discussion item and is not subject to environmental review. Public Notice Notice of this study session item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable requirements. Altematives 1 • i The City Council may take several actions: • 1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment changing condominium conversion standards. • 2. Provide direction to the Planning Commission to guide further consideration of the matter. 3. Direct staff to make no changes other than clarification of language in the Subdivision Code. Prepared by: Submitted by: W James Campb II, Senbo Planner Patricia Temple, Planning birector Attachments A. Chapter 19.64 — Conversion of Rental Units to Ownership - So2 19.64.010 •• Chapter 19.64 CONVERSION OF RENTAL UN1TS TO OWNERS11 P Sections: (66427.1,66452.8, 66452.9). 19.64.010 Purpose and Intent. 19.64.020 Definitions. 19.64.030 General Requircrneum 19.64.040 Tenant Notification 00 19.64,090 19.64.100 19.64.110 Conversion Standards. Condominium Conversion Fees. Esemptioas. Agreement to Retain Rental Housing (6645250). 19.64.010 Purpose and Intent A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Regulate Conversions. Provide standards and criteria for regulating the conversion of rental units to condominium, community apartment or stock cooperative types of ownership and for determining when such conversions are appropriate; and 2. Mitigate Hardships. Mitigate any hardships to tenants caused by their displacement. B. Intent. The intent ofthis chapter is as follows: 1. Residential Conversions. The C'tty Council finds that residential condominiums, community' apartment and stock cooperative types of ownership, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code. differ from rental apartments with respect to design: type of construction and maintenance controls, and therefore that the development standards in this chapter are necessary for the protection of the community, exlsting rental tenants and the purchasers of the converted units. It is also the intent of these •regulations to maintain a balanced mix between 1. (Nr+smaracd sin) ownership and rental housing in order to assure the development of a variety of housing types to serve the needs of the community. 2. Nonresidential Conversion.TheCityCouncil also finds that nonresidential condominiums, community apartment and stock cooperative types of ownership, as damned in Sectjon 1351 of the Civil Code, differ from retilal units with respect to design. Type of construction and maintenance controls, and therefore that the development standards in this chapter are necessary for the protection of the community, existing rental tenants and the purchasers of the converted units. C. Applicability of Sections. All sections in this chapter apply to the conversion of residential units. All sections except 19.64.040, 19.64.050 and 19.64.110 apply to the conversion of nonresidential units. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001) 19.64.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter and this title, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: A. Condominium, Community Apartments and Stork Cooperatives. The term `condominium" shall encompass condominium projects, community apartment projects and stock cooperatives. as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code. B. Organizational Documents. The term "organizational documents" means the declaration of restrictions, articles of incorporation. by-laws and any contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of all or any part of a project C. Project. The term "project" means the entire parcel of real property proposed to be used or divided, as land or airspace, intotwo or mom units as a condominium. D. Unit. The term 'unit^ means the particular area of land or airspace that is designed, intended or used foi exclusive possession or control ofindividual owners or occupier. E. Vacancy Rate. Ile term "vacancy rate* means the number of vacant multiple dwellings being offered for rent or lease in the City ofNewport Beach shown as a percentage of the total number of multiple dwellings offered for or under rental or lease 674 -6 53 (66427.1,66452.8, 66452.9). 19.64.050 Tenant Purchase Option (66427.1). 19.64.060 Review Procedures (66427.1, 66427.2). 19.64.070 Standards for Condominium Conversions. 19.64.080 Modification or Waiver of 00 19.64,090 19.64.100 19.64.110 Conversion Standards. Condominium Conversion Fees. Esemptioas. Agreement to Retain Rental Housing (6645250). 19.64.010 Purpose and Intent A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Regulate Conversions. Provide standards and criteria for regulating the conversion of rental units to condominium, community apartment or stock cooperative types of ownership and for determining when such conversions are appropriate; and 2. Mitigate Hardships. Mitigate any hardships to tenants caused by their displacement. B. Intent. The intent ofthis chapter is as follows: 1. Residential Conversions. The C'tty Council finds that residential condominiums, community' apartment and stock cooperative types of ownership, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code. differ from rental apartments with respect to design: type of construction and maintenance controls, and therefore that the development standards in this chapter are necessary for the protection of the community, exlsting rental tenants and the purchasers of the converted units. It is also the intent of these •regulations to maintain a balanced mix between 1. (Nr+smaracd sin) ownership and rental housing in order to assure the development of a variety of housing types to serve the needs of the community. 2. Nonresidential Conversion.TheCityCouncil also finds that nonresidential condominiums, community apartment and stock cooperative types of ownership, as damned in Sectjon 1351 of the Civil Code, differ from retilal units with respect to design. Type of construction and maintenance controls, and therefore that the development standards in this chapter are necessary for the protection of the community, existing rental tenants and the purchasers of the converted units. C. Applicability of Sections. All sections in this chapter apply to the conversion of residential units. All sections except 19.64.040, 19.64.050 and 19.64.110 apply to the conversion of nonresidential units. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001) 19.64.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter and this title, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: A. Condominium, Community Apartments and Stork Cooperatives. The term `condominium" shall encompass condominium projects, community apartment projects and stock cooperatives. as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code. B. Organizational Documents. The term "organizational documents" means the declaration of restrictions, articles of incorporation. by-laws and any contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of all or any part of a project C. Project. The term "project" means the entire parcel of real property proposed to be used or divided, as land or airspace, intotwo or mom units as a condominium. D. Unit. The term 'unit^ means the particular area of land or airspace that is designed, intended or used foi exclusive possession or control ofindividual owners or occupier. E. Vacancy Rate. Ile term "vacancy rate* means the number of vacant multiple dwellings being offered for rent or lease in the City ofNewport Beach shown as a percentage of the total number of multiple dwellings offered for or under rental or lease 674 -6 53 agreement in the City. Said vacancy rate shall be as established once each year. in April. by survey of fifteen () 5) percent of the City's rental units. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -I) (part). 2001) 19.64.030 General Requirements - A. Where Permitted. If approved under the provisions of this chapter and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), residential condominium conversions may be allowed in any district in which residential uses are permitted, inchiding planned communities, except within the R -1S District (Balboa Island). Nonresidential condominium conversions may be allowed in any district in which such uses are permitted. B. Subdivision Required. All condominium conversions subject to this chapter shall require approval of tentative and fowl subdivision maps. C. Review Responsibilities. Condominium, conversions containing five or more units shall be approved by the Planning Commission via a tentative tract map. Condominium projects or conversions containing four or less units shall be approved by the Modifications Committee via a tentative parcel map. D. Applicable Standards. Condominium conversion projects shall conform to: (1) The applicable standards and requirements of the zoning district in which the project is located at the time of approval Per Title 20 (Planning and Zoning); and (2) the applicable provisions of this Subdivision Code. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001) 19.64.040 Tenant Notification (66427.1, 66452.8,66452.9). Applicants for conversion projects shall be responsible for notifying existing and prospective rental tenants as follows: A. Existing Tenants. At least sixty (60) days prior to the filing of an application for conversion oftental or lease property. the applicant or the applicant's agent shall give notice of such filing in the form set forth in Section 66452.9 of the Subdivision MapAct to each tenant of the subject property. Further, if the conversion project is approved. the applicant shall give all tenants a minimum of one hundred eighty t 19.64.020 (180) days advance notice of the termination of their tenancy. B. Prospective Tenants. At least sixty (60) days t prior to the filing of an application for conversion of rental or lease property, the applicant or the applicam's agent shall give notice of such filing in the form set forth in Section 66452.8 of the Subdivision Map Act to each person applying after such date for rental or leaw of a unit of the subject property. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, failure of an applicant to provide such notice shall not be grounds to deny the conversion but shall make the applicant subject to the penalties specified in Section 66452.8 of the SMA. C. Evidence of Tenant Notification Each application for conversion shall include evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the notification requirements specified in subsoctions(A) and (B) ofthis Section have been or will be satisfied. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001) 1 19.64.050 Tenant Purchase Option (66427.1). The property owner shall provide tenants with an exclusive right to purchase his or her respective unit upon the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit will be initially offered to the general public. Such right shall run for a period of not less than ninety (90) days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professions Code. unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his or her intention not to exercise the right. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001) 19.64.060 Review Procedures (66427.1, 66427.2). A. List of Tenants. In addition to the standard application requirements for ttntative maps; the applicant shall submit a complete mailing list of all tenants occupying the subject property and two corresponding sets of stamped addressed envelopes. The Director shall mail a public hearing notice for the tentative map hearing to each tenant on the • 74-7 trx�y,namsor) - 51 r 1 L J • w 19.64.060 mailing list in accordance with the procedures of Chapter 19.12. B. Tentative Map Review. Tentative maps shall be approved or denied by the tentative map decision making body. Decisions on the conversion of existing buildings into condominiums or stock cooperatives shall be governed by the provisions and limitations of Section 664272 of the Subdivision Map Act C. Council Findings forResidentiall Conversions For residential conversions, no final map for a condominium conversion shall be approved unless the City Council makes all of the findings set forth in Section 66427.1 of the Subdivision Map Act iregarding tenant notification, right to purchase and other requirements. D. Disapproval Based on Vacancy Rate. lu accordance with General Plan policies, where it is proposed to convert an existing. - residential development containing fifteen (15) or more units to condominium units, the decision making body shall disapprove, without prejudice, any application for condominium conversion if the rental dwelling unit vacancy rate in the City at the time of the public hearing is equal to or less than five percent. Notwithstanding the preceding, the decision making body may approve a condominium conversion if it determines that either of the following overriding considerations exist: 1. The project will minimize the effect on dwelling unit vacancy rate, and otherwise substantially comply with the intent of this chapter, or 2. Evidence has been submitted that at least two - thirds of the existing tenants have voted to recommend approval of the conversion. (Ord. 2001- 1 g § 2 (Exh. ZA -I) (part), 2001) 19.64.070 Standards for Cond'ominluin Conversions. Condominium conversion projects shall conform to the following requirements and the decision making body shall make specific findings as to such conformance in anyaction approvinga condominium • conversion; • (Newpmi BC A 5 -0r) A. The number of off -street parking spaces that were required at the time of the original construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 (Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Under no circumstance shall there be less than one covered parking space per dwelling unit B. Each dwelling unit within a building shall have a separate sewer connection to the City sewer. C. Each sewer lateral shall be retrofrttedlfitted with a cleanout at the property line. D. Each unit shall maintain a separate water meter and water meter connection. E. The electrical service connection SWI comply with the requirements of Chapter 1532 of the Municipal Code. F: -The applicant fora condominium conversion shall request a special inspection from the Building Department for the purpose of identifying any building safety violations. The applicant shall correct all identified safety violations prior to approval of a final map for the condominium conversion. G. Permanent lot stakes and tags shall be installed at all lot corners by a licensed surveyor or civil enginecr unless otherwise required by the City Engineer, H.. For residential conversions, the project shall be consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to the balance and dispersion of housing types within the City. I. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for shall riot, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. (Ord. 2001-18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -I) (part), 200 1) 674 -9 55 19.64.080 MoMcatiom or Waiver of Conversion Standardr- A. Parking. The decision making body may modify or waive the parking requirements of subsection 20.64.070(A) in accordance with the waiver procedures of Chapter 20.66 of the Zoning Code. B. Sewer Connections. The decision making body may modify or waive the requirement for separate sewer connections per subsection 20.64.070(8) if it finds that the modification or waiver will not be materially detrimental to the residents or tenants of the property or surrounding properties, norto publicbealth or safety. (Ord.2001- 18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001) 19.64.090 Condominium Conversion Fees. In addition to other required fees, condominium conversion applications shall be accompanied -by a special Building Department inspection fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for the purpose of identifying building safety violations within the project. (Ord. 2001.18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -I) (part), 2001) 19.64.100 Exemptions. A, Park Fccs. For residential developments, the conversion of existing rental housing to a condominium project shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1952 (Park Dedications and Fees) if, on the date of eonversion, the rental units arc at least five years of age and no additional dwelling units are: to be added as part of the conversion. B. Trafric Phasing Ordinance. 71v conversion of existing rental units to a condominium project shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 15.40 (Tratrte Phasing Ordinance) if the proposed conversion will not add more than ten dwelling units to a residential development or will not add more than tea thousand (10,000) square feet ofgmss floor area to a nonresidential development. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (W. ZA-I) (Part), 2001) , 19.64.080 19.64.110 Agreement to Retain Rental Housing (66452S0). In addition to the provisions in this eapter regarding condominium conversions, the City may, in connection with the approval ofa tentative or ftml map for a new residential condominium project requiring approval of a tentative or final map pursuant to this Code, enter into a binding,agreement with the subdivider mandating that the units be first made available for rental housing for a period of not less than ten years from the date a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the units within the development subject to the provisions of Section 6645250 of the Subdivision Map Act (Ord.2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA-I) (part), 2001) t • 674-9 M� yonaQs tm> • a 56 • 0 E Exhibit 3 November 9, 2004 City Council Minutes 51 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes November 9, 2004 3. � A,aooS -at5 QAao05 -Got INDEX instructors using City facilities. Director Knight stated that the City's municipal cbde.pLohibits the use of public property for commercial gain. Council Member Nichols at such instructors could rent City facilities. Director Knight responded in thew ma �ve and explained that a fee would be charged according to the rate schedule that is m ] for all of the City's facilities and parks. She added that the fees vary by use, from o rofit to commercial. In response to Council Member Nichols' question, Director Kru lained that a permit is required for groups of more than 150 people and is suggeste ups that want to guarantee exclusive use of an area. REVIEW OF CURRENT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION REGULATIONS. Senior Planner Campbell stated that the item is being addressed at the current meeting at the request of Mayor Ridgeway. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he stated that the regulations for condominium conversions were enacted in 1978, and amended in 1979. The City's parking standards increased over time to 1989 when 2 spaces were required per unit for duplexes, 7 spaces for triplexes and 2.5 spaces per unit for projects in excess of three units. He stated that these parking requirements in association with condominium conversion requirements made it more difficult to convert projects to condominiums if the required parking couldn't be provided. The condominium conversion standards were changed significantly in 1994 and continue to be the requirements in place today. Senior Planner Campbell stated that an intent of the changes in 1994 was to promote the conversion of smaller projects, which was expected to preserve the rental/ownership balance and promote home ownership, especially in the West Newport area. Another intent of the changes was to remove and eliminate any unnecessary or untimely review processes, while still maintaining suitable living environments. Senior Planner Campbell reported that since 1994, 151 units have been approved for conversion. Nearly all of the conversions have been for duplexes and most are within the coastal zone. He displayed a map, which showed that 73.5% of the conversions have occurred in the Corona del Mar area. Only 24 units have been converted in West Newport, 2 on Lido Isle, 2 on Balboa Island and 16 on the peninsula. He stated that his observation of the conversions on the peninsula is that these buildings appear to be in better condition than the units adjacent to them, but only a few have had significant exterior enhancements. Senior Planner Campbell stated that staff is looking for direction from the City Council, and noted that requests for larger projects are being received. He asked if the current standards are appropriate for the larger projects, and if enhancements to the exterior and interior are expected. Council Member Webb confirmed that 2.5 parking spaces are currently required per unit for new condominium projects. The parking requirements for condominium conversions are those that were in place at the time of the original construction, or a minimum of 1 space per unit. Council Member Nichols asked if condominium projects that are not sub - dividable have legal documents, such as covenants. Senior Planner Campbell stated that some do and some don't. New projects are required to have Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's). Planning Director Temple stated that the basic minimum requirement is a Department of Real Estate (DRE) report, which is a Volume 56 - Page 1306 (100.2004) i i �0 •s City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes November 9, 2004 report that is made to the State regulating agency for real estate. Projects of five or more units are required to develop and record CC &R's. She added that the DRE report provides the legal description as to what each unit is comprised of and is recorded with the County assessor. Council Member Nic%ols asked if the City should require that any legal documents be provided. Acting City Attorney Clawson stated that the City's only requirements are related to the City's own planning and zoning laws. The City does not get involved with State requirements. Council Member Daigle asked what the benefits of the more relaxed standards are. Senior Planner Campbell stated that additional conversions might result in structures that are nonconforming being brought up to current code. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the intent of the new standards was to create home ownership in West Newport, but that any standards have to be applied Citywide. He asked Planning Director Temple for her opinion on the relaxing of the condominium conversion standards. Planning Director Temple stated that, at the time, she was not in favor of relaxing the standards as it related to compliance with certain development standards and, particularly, parking. She explained that with spot ownership, both entities have to agree to any significant redevelopment and that this, essentially, preserves buildings that might have been torn down and redeveloped with a conforming building in an earlier timeframe. She additionally noted that the effect in West Newport has been limited. • Council Member Webb asked if a substantial number of the conversions in Corona del Mar were new units. Planning Director Temple responded in the negative, and stated that even projects that are started with a duplex building permit that convert during the construction process are considered new condominiums, not conversions. To be considered a conversion, the project would have to be totally finished and achieve the final building permit prior to the application for a condominium. Council Member Nichols asked if the conversions in Corona del Mar are predominantly those that were deficient in parking. Planning Director Temple stated that it depends on the age of the unit, but that not requiring more parking spaces does provide an incentive to convert a building as opposed to tearing it down and building a new condominium. Council Member Nichols noted that the streets in Corona del Mar are getting more crowded. Mayor Ridgeway asked Planning Director Temple if relaxing the parking standard encourages condominium conversions. She stated that it provides an incentive to retain the nonconforming building by utilizing the conversion process. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the parking element of the condominium conversion regulations needs to be revisited. Council Member Webb stated that in the conversion process, it doesn't appear that the opportunity to solve any parking problems is being offered. Council Member Rosanrky stated that the intent was to promote home ownership, . which he felt was to provide greater pride in ownership and a vested interest in maintaining the property, particularly in West Newport. He asked if the • Volume 66 - Page 1307 INDEX ... -. . 59 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes November 9, 2004 �M pym differences noted on the peninsula were significant. Senior Planner Campbell responded in the negative and explained that although some did have significant exterior enhancements, the majority of the improvements were only noticeable. Council Member Rosansky noted that the objective of relaxing the standards doesn't appear to have been met and agreed that the issue should be revisited. Acting City Attorney Clauson noted that the improvement of properties wasn't the only objective, it was also to encourage people to live in the homes that they bought. She explained that this was expected to decrease rentals and the party atmosphere that exists in West Newport. Additionally, she stated that enough time hasn't passed to know if the converted properties will be kept up. Council Member Nichols stated that the condominiums that have been converted are not as nice as the condominiums that have been rebuilt to the new standards. Senior Planner Campbell agreed and explained that the converted units are built at a lesser standard. Council Member Nichols stated that the older converted units also appear to have more vehicles. Additionally, he noted that the commercial properties that qualified not to provide parking have more desirable and valuable properties. Mayor Ridgeway noted that some conversions did occur in the Dover area, but he didn't see them on the map that was shown earlier. Planning Director Temple explained that they were converted before there was an expressed code on conversions, so were dealt with as tract maps. As far as direction to staff, Mayor Ridgeway stated that he'd like a reevaluation of the parking issues. Additionally, he noted that the intent of the changes in 1994 have not occurred. Council Member Webb stated that the new standards have been given ten years to work. He asked Public Works Director Badum, a resident in West Newport, if he noticed any significant changes in the area. Public Works Director Badum stated that at the time the new standards were being looked at, he was also concerned that the properties would never be redeveloped again. This was the same concern shared by the Planning Director. He stated that he has not seen any significant changes in his neighborhood and agreed that it might be time to revisit the issue. Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg agreed with Mayor Ridgeway that the parking component of the condominium conversion standards should be looked at. He didn't know if it would necessarily need to be changed, but agreed that it should at least be looked at. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he would hope to receive more public input when the issue is revisited. Council Member Daigle stated that part of the success of the condominium conversions in Corona del Mar is due to that fact that the area has a lot to offer young professionals and condominiums provide first time home ownership opportunities for these people. Mayor Ridgeway stated that these young professionals own two cars. Council Member Rosansky stated that since the objectives aren't being met, the issue should be revisited. He stated that it hasn't necessarily had a negative impact in West Newport, but that it might elsewhere in the City. Volume 66 - Page 1308 1 .0 • i f • • 11 0 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes November 9, 2004 H i LI W:m Planning Director Temple stated that staff will return to the City Council with a recommendation for a code amendment. She stated that in addition to the existing regulations, two alternatives would be offered. One would change the minimum parking requirement to 1.5 spaces per unit and another would use the code in effect at the time of the original construction. She stated that an analysis of the alternatives would also be provided and the information should provide a' good forum for discussion. Council Member Nichols stated that there are problems with the conversions in Corona del Mar, and that commercial parking competes with residential parking. - None. - at 5:50 p.m. to Closed Session. t tt +rt+�tttttttttttttrtxtttttt + +t The agenda for the StuaySession was posted on November 3, 2004, at 2:35 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Bb r3,_d located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Mayor Volume 56 -Page 1309 Exhibit 4 November 9, 2004 PowerPoint Presentation 00 0 0 �J U C O U O O � O U C � O" OL) Q O (n ~ T CF) O O Q) o rn m U O cv O � O � O V C C _ C C m Q N O) O- :3 D O O � Q CO L E 4= U Q co V o C C '� LO O U -O O O CO C 12 Q) QO +. to+. O O O r_ U) L iB C -p C U U Q C Q +r U Qd-E �.� CL O E O M O C c O U > L •u E - anCQ)o� (B C= O E C C U co o i l l I I I i l �5 O ai L Ca C -0 O U E 4- _2 0 .c .E .2 O > O U e 0• I] i0 • U N .O N � N N X U Q N N N N 0 0 U � N ca a� (n O O N Ca "= O 4O '� } U C X (6 C: N N ca. N O N N `� �- co Q a Q U co O C O Q co 00 00 U m M m IT-- e- T- e 0• I] i0 • 00 E O .L L O U � O � U bS � c CU o c o Q- O o > U) 0 0 4 c o cu O O c > > cu � O Q E c c € m cu O Q C C •� ` �' cu C2 � O C � - Q cu � > 'p C cn oU) Q U o 0 0 T E N Fn 4? cB Q E E x 'C E cu C U .Q 0 1- L Q -Op '� 'C (ID bS O nom, -��� W � U 4-4 L- �_ O "II N Ory U cz U T O N a) O Q L a C CU m E y--• N O � c O •L � > o U O O n O CL— L �CD o L � ,> L � _� 4D 7 c 0 a cu c cu E N GE •G c � c > c6 0 NO L.J.. r- 0 z U) cu �U Q. O E O O L... n 1 I i • • I m C] c O 'N N L (j) C: 70 U 9 p .O '> O A U A cu U d' 0) l� T O U W O c LM 'o n is L c � � � L ca E ca � (0 Q O O N v 2 O v- C C �C � "� N -v O 0) =3 ca ~• E >, ca o L L > U a) o LO L1 OL > = O Ch U 5 x =3 C C (n +� 0 X O �• L I E Q I L O 4 O I p J I ` Y Y �� �:_, �__. �,;:� � �% io;i /�i� .41 ��� `���1 ,. ,, �. s; �"� TG 1�� f.T' �1 �!]�: S" tom. :�' �A;r '��• '> -��: i_ S; ti, i r A E O .L L (a C U M 4— p .E .� O > O� U N C O •L O c O U N C_ C O C O :� u L r� V 0• L E 0 Woj O L C N 0. X U •U• O ,( C p C L C Q y'C., i U .0 >, C � O O O to O O X O Q- O Q O L- 0 O L Q 0i (� � C 0 0 N C U O Z a — N X o UQcl 4 ^C CCW ^C W U C C O O O O 3 (D X C (� C C (p c (D U N E EC cu a O N O L N N E LE Q N O N Ch > C 3 0 -C :3 U `m 0 C Q N -C :3 > _ °' N " > O U C O . 0• L E 0 Woj O L C N 0. X U •U• O ,( C p C L C Q y'C., i U .0 >, C � O O O to O O X O Q- O Q O L- 0 O L Q 0i (� � C 0 0 N C U O Z a — N X o UQcl 4 MEMORANDUM June 14, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport - beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Item No. 24: Code Amendment related to Parking Standards for Condominium Conversion (PA 2005 -015) In response to letter received by Mr. Barry Saywitz, dated June 7, 2005, specifically related to his concern that the report and analysis presented at the November 9, 2004 City Council meeting may be inaccurate, staff has reviewed the research to confirm the data. At the November 9, 2004 City Council meeting, staff reported that since the changes in condominium conversion regulations took place in 1994, 111 of the conversions have occurred in Corona del Mar, and that only 24 units have been converted in West Newport, 2 on Lido Isle, 2 on Balboa Island, and 16 on the Balboa Peninsula. After reviewing the data for accuracy, staff concluded that the data is in fact accurate. However, the analysis only showed converted units that have completed the conversion process and are recognized by the County Tax Assessor as a "condominium" unit. Units that were approved by the City for conversion, but not yet recognized by the County Assessor as a condominium, were not included in the analysis. Therefore, to address Mr. Saywitz's comments, staff performed a similar analysis and mapped out the geographical locations of all condominium conversion applications that have been submitted to the City since 1995. We found that that the geographical distribution of conversion applications is similar to that of the prior analysis. It is Important to note that the most recent analysis of conversion applications includes applications submitted through May 31, 2005. Additionally, a majority of the applications submitted from November 2004 through May 2005 have been in the West Newport area, as delineated from the Balboa Peninsula at 32nd Street. A comparison of the two analyses', as well as the maps illustrating the geographical distribution of converted units and applications, has been attached for reference. Attachments: . 1. Comparative Analysis 2. Map of Converted Units (November 2004) 3. Map of Conversion Applications (June 2005) • 76 00, 0 • Condominium Conversion Applications January 1995 — Mav 2005 November 2004 Analysis Units recognized by County Tax Assessor as Condominiums January 1995 — October 2004 0 ih d7! Yv6s ew 24 16% Jl 10% ZL a-rglip 12 6 30 19% 12 N e ill 72% Total 155 18 9 0 27 17% 0 2 0 2 1% sl'eW 1 0 a 1 1% 2 2 ::C.br M , ell, 50 40 3 93 60% E6st:.BWN'S 0 1 1 2 1% Total 157 November 2004 Analysis Units recognized by County Tax Assessor as Condominiums January 1995 — October 2004 V Unit: Yv6s ew 24 16% 16 10% ZL a-rglip 2 1% - Balboa clan T Y 2 1% .Corot a''d61 M-a r i • �c - !a ill 72% Total 155 V I, I � X11 ��•'�� f�! \\ \\\\ � -��! - y oo.• 1 Wfl IP ••) . . CD CI� �. "RECEIy D !'TER AGENDA Page lrof Harkiess, LaVonne PRINTED:" FJ&- DwallNpt @cs.com Monday, June 13, 2005 5:13 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: June 14 meeting lust to let you know as a long time resident 1 completely agree with the planning department and the city council in limiting condo :onversions to properties that have 2 covered parking spaces per unit. Please convey this at the meeting tomorrow. Keep up the lood work! Donna Wall E E • 6/14/2005 � Y Harkless, LaVonne • From: Sjyou @aol.com Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 12:37 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: condo conversions /parking Hello, "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA Page 1 of' PRINTED:" ---Zg, Just wanted to check and see how the city council meeting re: condo conversions and 2 covered parking spaces per unit results turned out? I do want to convey that as a 40 year resident of CDM, I completely agree with the planning department and city council on this matter. Thank you, Sue Young �J J )6/27/2005 15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Alyssa Pisano, RESIDENT OF CORONA DEL MAR (949) 721 -8074 Subject: Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code Related to Parking Standards for Condominium Conversions (PA 2005 -015) April 15, 2005 I have owned my cottage in CDM for over ten years. Obviously, many changes have taken place within this time, with both positives and negatives to the widespread development in our town. I feel the conversion of existing duplexes to condominiums has far more positives than negatives when compared to the alternatives of leaving them unconverted or rebuilding to provide more parking. Following are my observations: PARKING: Street parking is actually impacted positively, not negatively, by duplex conversion. Think about it: Unlike the Peninsula and Balboa Island, CDM has year -round renters in existing duplexes. Most duplex owners with two parking spaces do not provide parking for their tenants. (In fact, most duplex as well as condo owners with two spaces use at least one of them for storage, workshop or gym, and not for parking.) On my street there are ten rental properties including two "bootleg" units that currently house over 22 tenants. In general, the renters in two and three - bedroom units are young and have one or more roommates, all of whom have cars, trucks or SW's. None of them have parking, so they park on the street. If these units were converted to condos, it would substantially reduce the number of occupants. The majority of homeowners in CDM are single or couples without children of driving age. Each converted unit would then have at least one space designated for parking, fewer occupants to park on the street, and thereby improve the parking. AESTHETICS: Duplex to condo conversions improve the aesthetics of our town and coincide with CDM's Vision 2004 in the following ways: In most cases, conversions preserve the charm and architecture of our original town by remodeling a cottage or older structure, creating improvements in curb appeal, "pride of ownership" benefits, and higher property values without increasing density. Conversions do this without the annoyance of lengthy construction or the need for another out -of -scale Mediterranean monolith that beats little resemblance to our charming cottage community. SAFETY & REVENUE: In addition, duplex to condo conversions upgrade the safety codes in older structures if necessary, and generate substantial revenue for the City with their increased tax base and permit fees. • As a footnote on summer parking issues south of Coast Highway, please consider the following solution: Issue CDM residents parking and guest parking permits, and limit the time that non - residents can park on the street to one hour. Encouraging non- residents to utilize the public parking facilities would decrease summer parking problems as well as crime, and ticketing violators would raise additional City revenue. Thank you for considering my thoughts and observations. . Sincerely, Alyssa Pisano, pisanoftnichemarket. net , (949) 721 -8074 �0 • 0 ATTACHMENT 5 June 28, 2005 City Council Minutes V 0 n L� City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Nichols N. CONTLN_UED BUSINESS [continued] 25. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -001 AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARKING STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS (PA 2005 -015) (contd. from 5110105 & 6114105). City Clerk Harkless clarified that the ordinance will be passed to second reading at the next meeting. Council Member Rosansky recused himself because he owns several properties that may be affected. Council Member Ridgeway recused himself because of a possible conflict of interest. Associate Planner Murillo reviewed the staff report, stating that it was determined at the November 9, 2004 Council meeting that the desired effects of the 1994 update to the condominium conversion standards may not have been achieved and Council directed staff to return with potential changes to the minimum parking standards. He reported that Option 1 increases the minimum parking standards for condo conversions to conform to today's current standards, Option 2 increases the minimum parking standards to two spaces per unit, Option 3 increases the minimum parking standards to 1.5 spaces per unit, and Option 4 maintains the current standards which allows the same number of spaces that were required at the time of original construction, as long as a minimum of one space. per unit is provided. He stated that, based on the analysis and to reduce the risk of preserving the older non - conforming housing stock, staff is recommending that Council either adopt Option 1 or Option 2. He indicated that either option will prevent the conversion of units built prior to 1989 if the structures were constructed with the minimum parking standards in effect at that time. However, Option 1 still allows the conversion of smaller projects (duplexes and triplexes) which may meet the current parking standards today, but nearly eliminates the conversion opportunities for larger apartments since few have been built since 1989 and few provide more than 2 spaces per unit. He noted that Option 2 will facilitate the conversion of larger apartments by allowing conversions when at least a minimum of two spaces per unit are provided. Associate Planner Murillo reported that the original proposed ordinance did not include a grandfather clause delaying the effective date of the ordinance to accommodate applications which may currently be under preparation, so staff recommends that the effective date of the adopted ordinance be 60 days after the date of second reading and that any application deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing rules in effect prior to the amendment. Associate Planner Murillo stated that staff received three letters and comments from the public related to this amendment. He indicated that Volume 57 - Page 331 (100 -2005) I I LJ is Ll City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 local developer. Barry Saywitz, expressed concern that the data in the November staff report was inaccurate regarding the number of units that were approved for conversion since 1995. He reported that they reviewed the data for accuracy and concluded that it is accurate; however, confusion could've occurred because the data only showed converted units that completed the conversion process and are recognized by the County Tax Assessor as a condominium unit- He stated that, in an effort to provide a different approach to the analysis, staff tallied and mapped the geographical locations of all condo conversion applications that were submitted to the City since 1995. He indicated that staff concluded that the geographical distribution of conversion applications is similar to the prior analysis. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Webb's questions, Associate Planner Murillo confirmed that the current standard is 1.5 spaces per unit unless in Corona del Mar or the Coastal Zone. However, triplexes and larger apartment buildings have guest parking requirements. He stated that this ordinance would apply only to conversions. Council Member Selich reported that the Planning Commission did not review condo conversions for duplexes because those went through the Modifications Committee and only came before the Commission if they were appealed. He stated that the project that brought this to light was a seven unit condo conversion on Bayside and Marguerite because the Commission was concerned about only providing seven parking spaces and its impact on street parking. He indicated that they brought this to Council's attention and Council elected to initiate this code amendment. He noted that he contacted all the coastal cities in the County to see how they handle this situation, and reported that all the cities have small lots and similar ages of housing stock. He stated that all of the cities require that condo conversions meet the parking standards in effect at the time of conversion. He pointed out that the zoning code has a large section about non - conforming uses and one of the goals of the zoning code is to eventually bring non - conforming uses into conformance. He noted that the duplexes that are under - parked are non - conforming uses and, if the City allows condo conversions without requiring that they meet current parking standards. then it is perpetuating the continuation of non- conforming uses. Council Member Daigle stated that the City doesn't know if the standards in other communities are relaxed. She expressed concern about affordability and that going to two spaces means they'd have to clear a lot. She stated that she doesn't advocate two spaces, but could probably support 1.5 spaces. She indicated that the City needs to be sensitive to the people with projects already in the pipe. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City originally eased up the requirements on condo conversions in the hopes of providing more homeownership opportunities. Associate Planner Murillo stated that they looked at converted units that are recognized by the County as a condominium and used the assumption that, if the site address matches the owner's mailing address, it's an owner - occupied unit, otherwise it's a rental unit. He reported that staff concluded that, of the converted units Volume 57 - Page 882 INDEX 0 77 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 since 1995, 61% are owner - occupied and 39% are renter - occupied. He stated that they compared that to the owner - occupancy rate for all duplexes throughout the City and found that 43% are owner - occupied. Regarding the affordability issue, Council Member Selich noted that the converted units are selling for $800,000 to $1 million. He stated that there are different ways of measuring affordability, but he's not sure if this provides more affordable housing than if it stayed a rental unit. He noted that it may be easier for someone to qualify for a $2,000 or $2,500 rental unit rather than qualify to buy an $800,000+ piece of property. Council Member Daigle stated that affordability means creating ownership opportunities and believed that this was part of the original intent of this. Mayor Heffernan indicated that rents haven't skyrocketed and this is why rental affordability is more reachable than ownership. Joy Brenner stated that she has two charming duplexes in Corona del Mar, has three people in each of them, one unit has two spaces, and the other has four spaces. She believed that more people might live there if they were sold as condos and possibly even more if she bulldozed them and built them to the maximum. However, she would like the option to leave them as is and do a slight conversion to maintain their character. She noted that she doesn't object to bulldozing properties if they're dilapidated, but she doesnt want the City to do anything that's going to encourage people to bulldoze and build to the maximum so old Corona del Mar isn't lost any faster than it has to be. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that, if a property doesn't meet the property standard that Council sets, the property owner would have the option to retain it as a duplex and rent out one unit, or they would need to redevelop the property if they wanted a condominium if there was no way to provide the additional parking. Barry Saywitz took issue with staffs analysis, believing that it doesn't mean someone doesn't live at a location just because the mailing address doesn't match the title on the home since the person could have a second home or mail their bills to their work. He stated that almost all the properties he has converted into condos have been owner- occupied and are currently owner - occupied. He agreed that the prices for the condos have gone up over the years and it doesn't pencil out to make them rentals and lose money. He stated that his letter notes that there was a 50% reduction in the number of people in the units when it was a rental versus when it was converted to a condo, and added that there was also a reduction in the number of cars. He believed that this amendment precludes some of the mid -aged properties with existing two car garages from ever being converted to anything other than its present use. Scott Dalton presented a letter from a Corona del Mar resident who is in favor of keeping things as it is, offers solutions to the parking issues, and doesn't want this amendment passed. He noted that condo conversions were initially allowed to encourage ownership in West Newport and, initially there were more conversions in Corona del Mar than West Newport; however, that has shifted and now the City's policies are working. He indicated that the seven unit building is an anomaly and Volume 57 - Page 383 INDEX 9 6.9 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 suggested limiting the larger buildings. He agreed that there are less occupants in the units after the conversion. Further, the aesthetics has improved and the buildings have been brought up to code. He asked whether the 111 units that have been converted to condos are considered new construction or remodels. He requested more time and studies before the policies are changed. Laura Curran stated that she does not believe that this proposal will change the level of street parking by residents or visitors in neighborhoods i that have single family or multi - family units. She indicated that there was still ample parking this morning even when 40 can were parked on a flower street and 20 to 30 cars were parked on the school streets. She believed that staff needs to look at parking policies and how they affect parking behavior. She agreed that owner - occupied or converted condos have fewer residents. She believed that, if owners cannot convert their existing units to condos, they're more likely to keep them as rentals. Further, a permit parking policy might encourage landlords to rent to fewer people. She asked how many parking spaces would be added to each area if all rental units were rebuilt as conforming spaces. She stated that this policy also changes the value of duplexes that could be converted. She requested that existing owners have the opportunity to be grandfathered with the current policy until the property is sold or allow them one year to submit a conversion application. She encouraged staff to put out more notice about this because she only found out about it by reading the minutes. r 1 L J Marilyn Gill indicated that she found out about this issue when she called to get a condo conversion package and believed there should've been a mailing to everyone in Corona del Mar. She stated that she was planning to fund her retirement by converting her property to a condo and then selling one unit. She requested an extension of the effective date from 60 to 90 days from the date of adoption of the ordinance. BJ Johnson expressed concern that notices weren't sent to Corona del Mar since this would affect their pocket book and a lot of people are planning to convert their properties. She stated that this would change the aesthetics of their village and suggested that this be postponed. She reported that, of the 37 condo sales that were done on the flower streets since December, five of those would not meet the proposed requirements. Jim Hildreth believed that this amendment tells people that their property is worthless to be resold as is. He noted that there are parking issues on Balboa Island and the Peninsula, but isn't sure if there are complaints in Corona del Mar. He stated that there may be a reason to have allowances for certain areas in Newport Beach in the interim. He recommended grandfathering these in but not allow them to do any type of remodel down the road unless they conform to the new standards. Alexander Bronna expressed his opposition to the amendment and believed that the parking issues in Corona del Mar have little to do with homeownership. He stated that there is a midrange of properties that could be cost effectively converted to preserve some of the character of the area, rather than tearing them down. He believed that the amendment is Volume 57 - Page 834 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 • counterproductive and ineffective in terms of dealing with parking issues. Further, he believed that condo conversions and the individual sale of R•1 properties after the conversions will reduce the density and population in Corona del Mar. Council Member Selich stated that there are a lot of people who purchase these duplexes with certain expectations. He indicated that he could support having this go into effect after one year and that he is in favor of Option 1. Associate Planner Murillo reported that the current standard for duplexes is 1.5 spaces per unit everywhere except in Corona del Mar and the Coastal Zone. He noted that these duplexes make up about 95% of the duplexes in the City. Council Member Selich indicated that there is a problem with the parking standards not being equitable and believed that the parking standards in the zoning code should be amended. He added that the condo conversion standards should be consistent with the parking standards. Council Member Daigle stated that the data concludes that conversions mean less people and cars, but noted that there is no data on parking and how much will be generated. Further, its questionable if this will put a dent in the parking problem. She stated that she sees this ordinance as a tear down ordinance which will change the community aesthetics and make them larger as they get developed. She believed that this is a good ordinance to spur discussions about parking issues, but not be a . mechanism to resolve them. She indicated that she could possibly support 1.5 spaces per unit, but not 2 spaces. City Attorney Clauson clarified that the proposed 60 day period extension relates to any application that is in process. She received confirmation from Council Member Selich that the one year extension means that a condo conversion permit would have to be issued within the year. She reported that pursuant to the City's Charter, in order to enact an ordinance, four votes are needed. Motion—hy Council Member Selich to approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005.12 amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standard to the current standards with an effective date of the ordinance to be one year after the date of its adoption, and that any condominium conversion applications deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment; and pass to second reading on July 26, 2005. Mayor Pro Tern Webb asked, if the City changed the parking requirement for condominiums to two spaces per unit, does this ordinance need to be modified. City Attorney Clauson indicated that, since the ordinance references current standards, that is what they would follow. Further, this action clarifies the existing code because they've just been using the standard that was in effect when the building was built. • Council Member Daigle suggested that there be 1.5 spaces per unit across the board. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City is able to do Volume 57 - Page 335 INDEX b� i • LJ City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 condo conversions without meeting the current parking standards and that only new construction is required to meet the higher number. She confirmed that a condo conversion does not qualify as new construction, so the City's existing ordinance which allows a lower number of parking spaces is used. Mayor Pro Tem Webb emphasized that the vote today is to make the standards for new construction and condo conversions the same. Council Member Selich stated that the concerns that the Commission had were related to the larger buildings and offered as a compromise to have this ordinance only apply to triplexes or larger units. He indicated that the duplexes can stay as they are and possibly have the Commission look at the parking standards so there is rationality as to how it's applied. Council Member Selich amended his motion to approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standard to the current standards for projects that are three units or larger with an effective date of the ordinance to be one year after the date of its adoption, and that any condominium conversion applications deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment; and pass to second reading on July 26, 2005. CgRZWI Member Selich amended hiLmotion to change the effective date of the ordinance to be 90 days after the date of its adoption to have any condominium conversion application deemed complete. Council Member Selich explained that most of the comments he has received are from duplex owners. He said that there aren't that many triplexes and four- plexes. Mayor Pro Tem Webb added that the unit that was approved because there was no other way to handle it should've provided 17 parking spaces instead of 7. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Selich, Webb, Daigle, Mayor Heffernan Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Nichols Council Member Selich suggested sending the issue of duplexes back to the Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked if consistency between the Coastal Zone and Corona del Mar areas and the rest of the City can be looked at so there is one parking requirement for duplexes and condo conversions. He indicated that this can be included in the Zoning Code Update. 26. NAMING OF PARK LOCATED BEHIND THE NEWPORT BEACH CENTRAL LIBRARY ( contd. from 6114105). Recreation and Senior Services Knight reported that they received 425 suggestions for the name of this park which were forwarded to the Parks Volume 57 - Page 888 INDEX (100 -2005) �3 Message Murillo, Jaime • From: William Smirl [w.smirl @gte.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:15 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: Duplex to Condo Conversions as related to proposed Title 19 Amendment William N. Smirl 1527 Sandcastle Dr. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949- 640 -9408 September 20, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 • Re: Duplex to Condo Conversions- -Keep Existing Parking Requirement- - Do Not Amend Title 19 Page 1 of 1 As an R -2 property owner, 1 respectively request your support for keeping the existing parking requirement for duplex to condo conversions intact. To amend this requirement to two spaces per unit would have the following adverse effects: 1. Rental property values will go down, and existing duplex rentals may well deteriorate because they cannot be condo - converted cost effectively, if at all, if the amendment to Title 19 is approved. 2. Affordable housing for hopeful buyers will no longer exist in Newport Beach and Corona del Mar. As an example, a remodeled front unit that has been condo converted currently sells in the area of 81.3 million. Conversely, a new front condo unit that has been built on a tear -down lot, sells at 81.8 and up. This is a significant 8500,000 price differential. Many potential buyers would be priced out of this beautiful community and forced to buy elsewhere. 3. The condo conversions of existing duplexes helps to keep the history and charm of Corona del Mar and the Newport Beach community. Let's keep the city charm, avoid deterioration, and make properties as affordable as possible to prospective buyers. To that end, please consider vetoing the proposed amendment to Title 19. • Respectfully submitted, William N. Smirl P 09/20/2005