HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Amendment-Parking Standards for Duplexes (PA2005-168)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 5
August 4, 2005
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3209 jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the
Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for
duplexes from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and
amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code related to minimum
parking standards for the conversion of a duplex to condominiums
(PA 2005 -168).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No.
2005 -008 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION
Background
At the June 28, 2005 City Council meeting, the City Council unanimously
approved Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 and introduced Ordinance No. 2005-
12 amending the parking requirements for residential condominium conversions.
The ordinance was adopted at the July 26, 2005 City Council meeting. 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 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).
At the meeting, several members of the public who own, convert, or plan to
convert duplexes, provided comments on how the proposed change to the
parking standards for conversions would negatively affect them economically.
Parking Standards Related to Duplexes and Condo Conversions
August 4, 2005
Page 2
Additionally, the Council indicated their concern with the current parking
standards for duplexes not being consistent citywide and suggested that the
parking standards in the Zoning Code be amended to increase the minimum
requirement to 2 spaces per unit for all R -2 properties. Therefore, conversion
projects consisting of 2 units on a lot were excluded from the adopted ordinance
and the Council directed staff to prepare this subsequent amendment for the
Planning Commission to evaluate.
Chapter 20.66 - Off - Street Parkina Reaulations
Chapter 20.66 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Municipal
Code establishes the minimum parking standards for new land uses and for
major alterations and additions to existing uses. The chapter 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 within the Coastal
Zone or within the area of Old Corona del Mar, where a minimum of 2 spaces per
unit must be provided.
The differing parking standards for R -2 zoned properties evolved over time,
beginning with the enactment of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Properties
located within the coastal zone created by the California Coastal Act were then
required to provide a minimum of 2 parking 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 then
increased from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2 spaces per unit. And as part of the 1997
reorganization 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 Coastal Commission requirement. To date, R -2 zoned
properties not located within the coastal zone or within the area of Old Corona
del Mar, require only 1.5 spaces per unit.
There are 3,622 R -2 zoned properties within the City and only 136 of those
properties (3.8 %) are located outside the coastal zone and outside of the area of
Old Corona del Mar. These properties are all located within the Newport Heights
Area, Statistical Division H of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (See
Exhibit 2 — Map of Affected R -2 Properties).
The intent of the proposed change is to provide a consistent parking standard for
all R -2 zoned properties at 2 parking spaces per unit, with 1 space being
covered.
Title 19 — Parking Standards for Condominium Conversions
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
Parking Standards Related to Duplexes and Condo Conversions
August 4, 2005
Page 3
had determined that the original effects of the 1994 update to the condominium
conversion standards (to promote homeownership and encourage maintenance
and enhancements) have not been fully achieved. The Council directed staff to
return with potential changes to the minimum parking standards for condominium
conversions. Staff returned to the City Council on June 28, 2005 with various
amendment options to change the condominium conversion parking regulations.
The City Council approved Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing
Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of
Title 19 of the M unicipal Code as noted previously. The effective d ate of the
ordinance will be 90 days from July 26, 2005. All future condominium
conversions will require parking as if newly constructed.
As mentioned previously, the Council did not apply the same standard to
duplexes due to the inconsistency in the application of the current parking
standards for R -2 properties and directed the Planning Commission to examine
the issue with the idea to make duplexes subject to current parking standards.
The subject amendment would simply require the conversion of a duplex to
provide parking in conformance with current parking standards. The conversion
of duplexes constructed prior to the previously mentioned changes in R -2 parking
standards will become difficult, if not impossible, without adding more parking or
redeveloping the properties, since duplexes constructed prior to those years
typically do not meet current standards. This proposed amendment to the
condominium conversion regulations affects duplexes in the same way as the
ordinance adopted by the City Council on July 26, 2005 affects projects
consisting of 3 units or more.
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the condominium
conversion parking standards for projects consisting of 3 or more units in an
effort to preclude the preservation of older, nonconforming structures which do
not provide sufficient parking and are more reliant on street parking. The
attached June 28, 2005 City Council staff report and meeting minutes provide the
background and analysis of the issue (Exhibit 3 & 4).
Staff believes that if it is necessary to increase the minimum parking requirement
for the conversion of projects with 3 or more units, then the same standard
should apply to the conversion of duplexes.
Summary
The amendment to Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to change the minimum
parking requirement for the few R -2 properties outside the coastal zone and the
area of Old Corona del Mar will make the parking requirement for all duplexes
within the City consistent.
Parking Standards Related to Duplexes and Condo Conversions
August 4, 2005
Page 4
The amendment to the condominium conversion standards of Title 19 will affect
all duplex owners throughout the City, should they elect to convert the two units
to condominiums, and will make the minimum parking requirement for the
conversion of a duplex consistent with that required for larger projects. It will also
have the effect of reducing the preservation of non - conforming housing stock that
is more reliant on street parking.
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
mailed to the 136 property owners affected by the proposed change to the R -2
parking amendment. 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
Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Patricia Temple I
Planning Director
Exhibits
1. Draft Resolution No. _
2. Map of Affected R -2 Properties
3. June 28, 2005 City Council Staff Report
4. June 28, 2005 City Council Minutes
FIUSERS\PLN1Shared4PXs%PAs - 20051PA2005- 1681PC080405rpt.doc
EXHIBIT 1
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
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 2004 -235)
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
r
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 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
RESIDENTIAL
Off - Street Parking Spaces Off - Street
Loading Spaces
TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R -1.5 District: 2 per unit with a - --
minimum of 2 enclosed per site.
All other districts: 2 13' per
unit, including 1 covered.
s. _
1.....11.1....,.,..; ......_.._._.....�. _.,_....,.._..
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:
I
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paae 3 of 3
"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)."
All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005.
BY:
Michael Toerge, Chairman
ftu
Barry Eaton, Secretary
AYES:
NOES:
a
EXHIBIT 3
June 28, 2005 City Council Staff Report
q
COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t; -CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT bla$/U,-
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 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)
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
10
Condominium Conversion Parking standards
June14,2005
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 parting, staff is recommending that the City
Council amend the parking requirements for cdndominium 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 webske.
Prepared by:
Jaime Murillo
Assistant Planner
Submitted by:
pa'-44
Patricia Temple
Planning Director
Exhibits
Al.
Draft Ordinance No.
A2.
Draft Ordinance No.
B.
Correspondence
C.
May 10, 2005 Staff Report (Recycled)
F:1U3£RSTLN%SharedlPXs1PAs - 200S PA2005 -015%PC05100Srpkrevisedi.doc
0
9
•
0
0
EXHIBIT Al
CURRENT STANDARDS
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
l a-
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. 2005-00111
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).
A
?3
9
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 shalt 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:
0
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
r1
U
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
9 `i
EXHIBIT A2
TWO SPACES PER UNIT
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
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
i� 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).
E
N
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS: W
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
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
A
D� ,NUJ —7 P231
THE SAYW13Z COMPANY
4710 VoN !CARMAN, SUITS 100 • NFWPM BEACH, CA 92660 . 949• :Fj '94R1� A�
June 7, 2005 POI!
City of Newport Beach
City Council
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: Condominium Conversion Regulation Amendment —Code Amendment #2005 -ODi
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
discussed, and I assume voted on, at the June 14'R 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. I 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 •
t-ie 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. 1 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 well.
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 standpotrtt, on converting existing structures.
which provided for larger square footage, and a functional floor plan for 3 or 4 bedroom condos,
and providing the some finish quality as new construction.
I understand the City's strong sentiment to modify the existing parking requirements, to prelude
Oder less functional properties from being converted, and M 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 piece on the
Peninsula, and I am 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
Mose numbers will change significantly.
( 7R+, �tA(t+.++n�•SANt?AMKID 'SAN DWI- trio A'1GWS- SnxsTa VAeuv.'SACRAMEKTo• AUAJMQUC• An 7& -AusnN
2:..` W_ i� BA[.rb 1pRI: • 9osroN . auwaU • <unxumc . <KICnGO • Cnzxa+nn . OnuAS • DEUWAEE .Deaver • ihaROU • HAXrRxrO
-*: •c t' "< tN��rxui �; • Hcxsmv . [NOU,v anus • KAW a Gm . Mrnw • hkvrvwttxa • Wamue • New ISM • NEW YORx • ORLANDD ;
NETWORK PARTNER mmAnru.on•ljx ,. rhrE , CK• I4 )MAND•RALM'K•SANA\nenao•SS.mF. STADUS•TAW%- TWSA• WANIWGnOND.C.
1V
0
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 Citys hope that not only would the parking become
reduced, but that R 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 I 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 X for your review.
i understand that the condo conversion issues apply city -wide, which would Include Corona Del
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 Citys
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 CRY
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 specfic 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 1 am sure that this
issue effects other individuals, it significantly impacts my business, as I am in the process of
submitting several other condo conversion projects, at this time.
11
`Q
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 applicatlon
before the Planning Department will accept It as baing submitted. This application includes the
preparation of architecture! 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 DepartmeM, it
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
who 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 properly 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, I 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 wan arded 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 formalAng a plan of action. Should you have any additional
questions or require any further clarification from ma. I would be happy to discuss the Issue with
you. I can be reached directly at (949) 930 -7502.
Sincerely.
Barry aywilz
SRSS�cf
ent
it
•`
..... .... _..... .. �z v
i
i
•
Exhibit W
Summary of Condo Conversion
Before and After Stafistics
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
1627 E.
3 bd /
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 2e B
4bd/
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
Upstairs
2 bath
203 30
3 bd /
5
2
N/A
5
2
St. #1
3 bath
203 30
3 bd /
5
2
NIA
4
2
St. #2
3 bath
4819 River
3 bd /
4
2
NIA
4
2
Downstairs
bath
4819 River
4 bd /
4
2
N/A
4
2
Upstairs
2 bath
LSM0.Fhpny W.ACm C.mmoF. Ul
P- I
Exhibit "A"
Summary of Condo Conversion
Before and After Statistics
June B, 2005
Continued
Address
size
No. of
No. of
Owner
No. of Cars
No. of Cars
People
People
Occupied
Before
After
Sefore
After
Conversion
Conversion
Conversion
Conversion
5009 River
3 bd !
3
2
NIA
3
2
Downstairs
2 bath
5009 River
3 bd 1
4
2
N/A
4
2
Upstairs
2 bath
211 Colton
Totals f
32
80 29
CI
n
U
W
• TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITYt�g&fd] , E D
FROM: SCOTT M DALTON, RESIDENT OF CORONA DEL%My 17 P2 :58
(949) 566 -0121 scottmdalton @hobnail.com
OF�F1�EOF rHE CITY CLERK
Subject: Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 amending Title I9CbYQ NEWPORT BEACH
Municipal Code Related to Parking Standards for Condominium
Conversions (PA 2005 -015)
Argument A¢sinst 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 conversio n
607 & 6071/2 Iris Ave 1965 6 3
407 & 4071/2 Jasmine Ave 1%4 6 4
510 & 5101/2 Jasmine Ave 1979 4 3
609 & 609 1/2 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
amount of parking per unit would discourage conversion of existing duplexes, Da
leave more properties in disrepair and would negatively affect the quality of our Copies sent TO:
neighborhood. /EJ-Wapof
. 1.9- Gouncil Member
There is no need to change the existing condo conversion policies. — a "ager
Scott M Dalton
O
13
93
Page I oft
Murillo, Jaime
From: Craig [craigmorissette @hotma!I.coml
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:58 PM
To: Ridgeway, Tod
Cc: don2webb @earthlink.net; Heileman, John; Rosansky, Steven; Bromberg, Steven; Daigle, Leslie;
Nichols, Dkdc; 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 parting requirements: 1) will imposing this requirement on existing
buildings really help the parking situation on the peninsula, and 2) have property owners been given sufficient
notice of an impending change?
t cn_o_graoina 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 will 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 nod
Secondly, current property owners should be fully informed anti be given time to react should the council decide
that a change Is best for the community. As you can see by the email below, t 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 blindsided by this change. Several
neighbors purchased their buildings so they could sell -off 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 60 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 properly owners to react!
Tod, thank you for sharing my views with your fellow Council Members.
Cordially, Craig Morlssette
— Original Message —
From: Qmig
To: iearcia city newoort beach eayb
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 200512:50 PM
Subject: Urgent. Change of Condo Conversion Parking Regulations
06f07f2005
•v
11
is
124
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Wll! �
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 imuriilo@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.
�5
Condominium Conversion Parking Standards
May 10, 2005
Page 2
With the intent to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential 1
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. •,
a
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.
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:
Parkina Standards Comnarison
;�
W
A1936
� 9°
7498W
1989
X99 � ,
199V—
AY ,, :L
,
'ek1SV
31, �4fF
ter' _
Current
SF# ',`, 4
No Min.
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
T,;vt�'z
a:
+'D.iiplet
No Min.
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5 (2 per
per unit
per unit
per unit
(CDM 2
unit within
'2
per unit)
CDM and
areas of
coastal
_
zone
No Min.
1
1.5
7 spaces
7 spaces
7 spaces
per unit
per unit
(2 per unit
(2 per unit
(2 per unit
+ 1 uest )
1 uest )
+ 1 guest)
'
1
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
per unit
per unit
per unit
per unit
per unit
Project Comparison Using Minimum Parking Standards
a-1
�kmV7�.h -Yp.
�yg
i.i' kri. �.(,s -.f
in *i.. :n'F
�,
e.. ..,4 YL'
r {- .::.•.
.f,J,.S,,._
a-1
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 19.84.070(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 shag 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
"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 wilt 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 shalt be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of
the Municipal Code (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations). Under
no circumstance shalt there be less than two parking spaces per
dwelling unit including one covered"
Condominium Conversion Parking Standards
May 10, 2405
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 shalt 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
dwetting 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
a�
Condominium Conversion Parking Standards
May 10, 2005
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 tOption 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 R vvi?w
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:
Time Murillo Batty Temple
Assistant Planner d- Planning Director
Exhibits
1A. Draft Ordinance No.
113, Draft Ordinance No.
2. November 9, 2004 Staff Report
3. November 9, 2004 City Council Minutes
4. November 9, 2004 PowerPoint Presentation
F1USERStPLMSharedVXzIPAs - 20051PA2005 -015WC051005rpt.doc
0
56
n
L�
U
Exhibit 1A
Current Standards
Draft Ordinance No.
31
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 Calrfomia
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
'3a
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 City of
Newport Beach held on May, 10 2005, and adopted on the 24th day of May 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
I AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
0 NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
IuL1Ye7N
93
Exhibit 1B
2 Parking Spaces Per Unit
Draft Ordinance No.
W
0
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
PARSING 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).
1*
35
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS: .
1
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). tinder 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 shalt sign and the City Clerk shalt 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:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
r1
u
J
3(p
0
0
.Exhibit 2
November 9, 2004 Staff Report
3�
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: sss
November 9, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Deparhnent
James Campbell, 949- 644 - 3210, icamobel liMcity.newoort-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Review of current condominium conversion regulations
RECi2MMENDATION
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 it that would be no more detrimental to adjacem
properties than would be 9 strict compliance were required.
In '1979, the City amended the conversion process by requiring a Use Permit and a
Tentative Map. Compliance with Building gnd 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 415 vote of ft 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 paMM
• requirements were dif mit to meet on developed properties.
W
*'
LU
KAJ
Condominium Conversions 4
November 9, 2004
Page 2 �
The City substantially updated the conversion process in 1994. First, the requirement r
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 opportunfties' 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 tdplexes and a handful of mixed use buildings. Only one project
. larger than a bipla* has been evaluated and is currently pending review by the City
Council and is scheduled for November 23, 2004. The goal to facTi date 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- occupied today. These 90 units are not necessarily
the not increase to 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 SubdAdsian Code
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
J79Y
r�
A
0
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 Twee as is
typically necessary after most comprehensive updates.
Emhvnmental 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.
Alternatives
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.
I Direct staff to make no changes other than clarification of language in the
Subdivision Code.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
� 6- ti
James Campbell, San Planner Patricia Temple, Planning lVirector
Attachments
A. Chapter 19.64 — Conversion of Rental Units to Ownership
N
_ q6
u
i • 1
19.64.010
Chapter 19.64
CONVERSION OFRETITALUNIMSTO
OWIMSEV
Sections:
19.64.010
19.64.020
19.64.030
19.64.040
19.64.050
19.64.060
19.64.070
19.64.080
19.64.090
19.64.100
19.64.110
Purpose and Intent.
Definitions.
General Requirements
Tenant Notification
(66427.1,66452.8, 66452.9).
Tenant Purchase Option
(66427.1}
Review Procedures (66427.1,
664272).
Standards for Condominium
Conversions.
Modification or Waiver of
Conversion Standards.
Condominium Conversion Fees.
ExeMpteoas.
Agreement to Retain Rental
Housing (6645250).
19.64.010 Purpose and Iuteut.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to:
L Regulate Conversions. Provide standards and
criteria for regu lating the conversion ofrental units to
condominium, community apartment or stock
cooperative types of ownership and for determining
when such conversions are appropriate; and
2. MitigateRardships .Mitigateauyhwdshipsto
tenants caused by their displacement.
B. Intent, The intent ofthis chapter is as follows:
L Residential Conversions, The City Council
finds that residential condominiums, community
apartment and stock cooperative types orownership,
as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, differ
from rental apartments with respeettodesigei "of
construction and maintenance controls, and therefom
that the development standards in this chapter are
necessary for the protection of the communi
existing rental
converted uni
•regulations to
1. MewpMR0e6544
tenants and the ty.
purehas�s of the
L It is also the intent of these
maintain a balanced mix between
ownership and cratel housing in order to assure the
development of a variety of housing types to serve
Abe needs of the community.
2. Nonresidentia lCmwasions.TheCityCouncil
also finds that nonresidential cwrdominitmts,
community apartment and stock000perative types of
owmship, as ddined in Section 1351 of the Civil
Code, differ from rental units with respeetto 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 -I8 § 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
Stock Cooperatives. Ile term "condominium" shall
encompass condominium pmjec% community
aparunentprojects and stackceop= ives,as defined
in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code.
B. Organizational Documents. The term
"organizational documents meanstbedeclamionof
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 more units as
a condominium.
D.. Unit. The term "unit7 means the particular
area of land or airspace that is designed, intended or
used for exclusive possession orbontrol ofindividual
owners or occupier.
E_ Vacancy Rate. The term "vacancy rate"rams
the number of vacant multiple dwellings being
offered for rent or ]ease in the City ofNewport Beach
shown as a percentage of the total number of
multiple dwellings offered for orimder rental or lease
674-6
`C
agreement in the City. Said vacancy rate shall be as
established once each year, in April, by survey of
fifteen (15) percent of the City's rental units. (Ord.
2001-18 § 2 (Exb. ZA -1) (part), 2001)
19.64.030 General Requirements.
A. Where Permitted. If approved under the
provisions ofthischapter andT'itle20 (Plantlingand
Zoning), residential condominium conversions may
be allowed in any district in which residential uses
are permitted, including planned communities,
except within the R-1.5 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
cohversiom 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 M& ZA -1) (part), 2001)
19."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 of rental
or least 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 Map Act
to each tenant of the subject property. Further, if the
conversion project is approved, the applicant shag
give all tenants a minimum of one hundred eighty
19.64.020
(180) days advance notice of the termination of their l
tenancy.
B. Prospective Tenants. At Least sixty (60) days
Prior to the filing ofan application for conversion of
rental or lease property, the applicant or the
applicant's agent shall give notice of such filing in
the form set forth in Section 66452.8 of the
Subdivision Map Aet to eah person applying gift
such date for rental or teeso of a unit of the subject
Property . Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act,
faitme 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 subsections (A)
and (B) of this Section have been or will be satisfied.
(Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (P,xh. ZA -1) (part), 2001)
19.64A50 Tenant Purchase Option (66427.1).
The property owner shall provide tenants with an
exclusive right to purchase his or her respective
upon the same or more favorable tams and
conditions them those on which such unit will be
initially offered to the general public. Such rightsball
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 bar intention not to exercise
the right. (Ord. 2001 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1)
2001)
19.64.060 Review Procedures (66427.1,
66427.2).
A. List of Tenants. In addition to the standard
application requirements for tentative 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 shalt mail a public bearing notice for
the tentative, map hearing to each tenant on the
674-7
•
Qk" -Duch sat) .
a-
19.64.060
mailing list in accordance with the procedures of
c . 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 Soction 664272 of the Subclivision
Map Act.
C. Council FindingsforResidentia ]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 66427.3 of the Subdivision Map Act
j regarding tenant notification, right to purchase and
1 other requirements.
D. Disapproval Based on Vacancy Rate. In
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 peroent.
Notwiihstandingtbe preceding,tbe decisloa making
body may approve a condominium conversion if 3t
determines that either of the following overriding
considerations exist:
I. The projeu 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 ]east two.
thirds of the exis*& tenants have voted to
revommend approval oftbe conversion. (Ond.200)-
18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001)
19.64.070 Standards for Coudismininhi '
Conversions.
Condominium conversion pmjects shall conform
to the following requirements and the decision
making body shall make specific findings as to such
conformance in anyaction approving acondominium
. conversion:
is,Bexb M
A. The number of off - street parking spaces that
wererequired at the time oftheoriginal 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 shalt 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 retrofitted/fitted
with a cleariout at the property line.
D. Each unit shall maintain a separate water
meter and water meter connection.
E. The electrical service connection shall comply
with the requirements of Chapter 1532 of the
Municipal Code.
F: -The applicant for a condominium conversion
shall request a special inspection from the Building
Department for the purpose of identifying any
building safety violations, The applicant shall coned
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 ail tot corners by a iktnsed surveyor or
civil engineer unless otherwise required by the City
Engineer.
li. 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.
J. The establishment, maintenance or operation
ofthe use or building applied for shall tot, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, peace, cordon 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. 2003 -18 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 200 1)
674 -9
i,
43
19.64.080 Modification or Waiver of
Conversion Standards.
A. Parking. The decision making body may
modify or waive the parking requuements of
subsection 20.64.070(A) in accordance with the
waiver procedures of Chapter 20.66 of the Zoning
code.
B. Sewer Cammctioas. The decision making
body may modify or waive the requirement for
separate sewer connections per subsection
20A4.070(B) if it finds that the modification or
waiver will not be materially detrimental to the
residents or tenants of the property of surrounding
properties, norto public health or safety. (Ord.2001-
I8 § 2 (Exh. ZA -1) (part), 2001)
19.64.090 Condominium Conversion Fees.
I in addition to other required fees, condominium
- conversion applications shall be accompanied by a
special Building Department inspection fee,
emblrshed by resolution of the City Council, for the
purpose of identifying building safety violations
within the project. (Ord. 2001 -I8 § 2 (Exh. ZA -I)
(part), 2001)
19.64.100 Exemptions.
A. park Fees. For residential developmeu% the
conversion of existing n!md housing to a
condominium project shall be exempt ftm the
requircmentsofChaptet 19.52 (Park Dedications and
Fees) if, on the date of conversion. the rental wits
i are at leas[ five years of age and no additional
dwelling units am to be added as part of the
conversion.
B. Trafiicnasia gOrdimance.71mmwersionof
existing rental wits to a condominium project shall
be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 15.40
(Tragic Phasing Ordinance) if the proposed
conversion will riot add more than ten dwelling wits
to a residential development or vtiq not add shore
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of gross floor
area to a nonresidential development. (Ord. 2001 -18
12 (Exh. ZA -1) (part). 2001)
19,64.080 I
19.64.110 Agreement to Retain Rental
Homing (664524%). } `
In addition to the provisions in this chapter
regarding condominium conversions, the City ray, I
in connection with the approval ofatrntative orfmal
map for a now residential condominium project
requiring approval of a tentative or final map
pursuant to this Code, cow into a binding agreement
with the subdivider mandating that the wits be fitst
made available for rental housing fora period of sot
less than ten years from the date a cerdficate of
occupancy has been issued for the traits within the
development subject to the provisions of Section
66452.50 of the Subdivision Map Ad. (OA 2001 -18
§ 2 (Exh. 7AA -1) (part). 2001)
•
674 -9 rea roea.&M)
ql
0
0
November 9, 2004 City xhibit 3
tY Council Minutes
45
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
November 9, 2004
3.
Q RaoWs -,at5
Q AaoaS -not
instructors using City facilities. Director Knight stated that the City's municipal
code glOh'bits the use of public property for commercial gain. Council Member
Nichols a such instructors could rent City facilities. Director Knight
responded in the Uve and explained that a fee would be charged according
to the rate schedule that ism i for all of the City's facilities and parks. She
added that the fees vary by use, from rafit to commercial. In response to
Council Member Nichols' question, Director Km T�amed that a permit is
required for groups of more than 150 people and is sugges'tea-fe 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 I994 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
rentallownership 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 Lida 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&fVg). Planning Director Temple stated that the basic
minimum requirement is a Department of Real Estate (DRE) report, which is a
Volume 56 - Page 1306
INDEX
(100 -2004)
L
is
4)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
November 8, 2004
is 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 Nichols asked if the City
should require that any legal documents be provided. Acting City Attorney
Clauson 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 bave 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 split 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 Rosansky 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 56 -Page 1507
INDEX
z k -, .
4, �
} City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
November 9, 2004
K
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 Tem 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 arent being met, the
issue should be revisited. lie stated that it hasn't necessarily had a negative
impact in West Newport, but that it might elsewhere in the City.
Volume 66 - Page 1808
A
r 1
LJ
4, b
i
49
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
November 9, 2004
.. INDEX .
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
e)dsbng 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.
The agenda for the Stuayqgession was posted on November 3, 2004, at 2:85 p.m
on the City Hall Bulletin gbsqd located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building.
Recording
Mayor
V x-
City Clerk
Volume 56 - Page 1809
4
W
•1
Exhibit 4 '
November 9, 2004 PowerPoint Presentation •
9
0
0
O
C
U 4-0
U)
O
C
.E .�
o
O�
U
51
c
m
L
L
v
C
O
y-
ca
L
ca
o
c
ca
ap
Q
cr
N
to
r
m
o
rn
sa
O
U
O
a
c6
O
(1)
r
0
in
In
>
o
U
-_
=3
c
c
"-c
-D
.c
c
ca
o.
c
is
N
m
a>
o
N
},
Q.
ca
O
..
o
`v
cr
L
a�
'5
m��
c
a)
�'c°
c
E24-
a
c
w
O
E
c-
0
c
�
a
w
g�
oar
p
m
0 o
m
c
U�
c
�c
-acs
a)
3�'S
3
Lm (J)
I
0
0
a
L-
co
CL
�
U)
o
� E
-;=
O
=
�
cu
ca
C
CL
O
=
0
U
C
m
VET
Ec0'vOm
CL
(a.
�E:a
m�U
i
l
l
V)UCL
I
t
I
I
�
f
51
(u L
CU
U�
O
U
5a
I
U
-=
N
U
co
a)
N
t6
N
X
C.
N
E
.�
F—
m
ca
L
O
N
o
CO
ca
0.
N
�
�
cu
=3
Qi
v
4..
a
Q M
Cl)
�r-
p
. �
L
a)
cc co
y.+
L
O
Q
V
C
=
— ^X^''
lit
0
W
p
N
N �+
D)
Q
U
r
�
tq
-�
m
X
cu a,
N U
:
,
O
a
C�
0) Q
co
0)
0
r
T
P
5a
I
0
0
0
0
v
0 G
U cu
E U?
o
E R
"a N
o ry
U
a) �
O CL
O �
�
'- 0 >
Lo O_
O o 0
� 3 E m m
N - E = c
� 6 � as o •E
co
v a o co �:_' -'�
m
cu
Sa o a) 0�� m
ns m > Q.
_ a > > -00
M =
cn 06 0 0 0 = • 4510
i
0 W QV o E
N ,a; is � E E X • : 'S
C N=•c 5 E N
o— E'c ❑cn
E U ;�' E •E a? ° v, c a.
rn�c cu m af�
o
> U? U ti S U � in
I I I I I ! I
53
O
CU
U .0
4-
0
•W
O�
U
•
5q
'C
N
m
O
cn
.a
a.
N
>
S�
o
z
CL
•{U`
.w
co
co
.N
cn
j
c
C
C
.(D
a
4
�+
O
N
cu
co
cu
U
CL�o
c
0
(Z
CU
m
N
70
CU
a
L
m
0
4.
0
to
c
cu
E
CD
ca
C
N
O
O
U
N
5
O
4.0
cn
>
c
0
0
a
Z>
o
E
E
E
E
a.
w
o
•
5q
0
c
0
•cn cn
0 C
U u
EU)
0
•c �n
�D
-0 •N
0
U
cu
U
P
0
U
I
T
55
N
CL
(ff
c
L
j
C
N
cc
C
C
co
cu
G�.
CD
c
c
W
Q_
o
+-
O
.�
O
`�-
a
=
X
p
c�j
-a
O
N
-�
L
o
E
>,
—°
v
N
V
o
LO
CL
4
Clfi
O
O
♦♦^^
v,
O
E
_
T
G
L
O
V-
I
Q
I
0
2
1
J
{
55
INC
fl�i
riK
l'
l
I.
0j
ID
t�
�t.
�v.
S..
9
C
O
,L
(u L
CU
a �
U rr�
O
W
O �
U
N
O
C
0
0
N
C
N
a.
O
cu
m
WC
u
«i
L
c
ra)
V
..0
O
4 =
co
L
CU
c
�`• t..
0
o a (D
N C
>, C
L
4 O
*C
N
0
(D CL
LM ca 0)
w C
yC ca
U
o .2 x
m
c 3
UQLo
51
C
a�
E
0
v
c
co
�
C
o
C
O
L
•0
t'
N
3
�
CD
�
c
qxj
1
co
C
_
�C
CO
N
c
0
E
N
C
E
C?
N
U
(D
C
L-
ca
Cts
(6
fSi
Q
U1
0
to
S'
a) >
V
�
>
0
=
Y
CU
�a3t0
o(D�
°aZ
m
ti
>>
0
U
.
.
C
0
.
..0
O
4 =
co
L
CU
c
�`• t..
0
o a (D
N C
>, C
L
4 O
*C
N
0
(D CL
LM ca 0)
w C
yC ca
U
o .2 x
m
c 3
UQLo
51
i 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
appll ations 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
32nO 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)
58�'
0
Condominium Conversion Applications
January 1995 — Mav 2005
�'y •`x e,;..� ,.:�F�'^�
z Y.i ae
! A t t '�
B x i
:-
• ".
re,. �T
2
1%
2
1%
t crb' a" e111Aai <;
111
72%
Total 155
..
�a.
M,0111,11,2, Mm
0
November 2004 Analysis
Units recognized by County Tax Assessor as Condominiums
January 1995 — October 2004
0
59
i
Pgrcerita
24
16%
2
1%
2
1%
t crb' a" e111Aai <;
111
72%
Total 155
0
59
i
-� •.::.,
°J
!'. ;
G� - ��t«
��,
Harkless, LaVonne
F0 DwaflNpt@cs.com
Monday, June 13, 2005 5:13 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: June 14 meeting
"RE" ZD AMR A[;fn ��� Pie 1 of
PRINTED.." ti
lust to let you know as a long time resident 1 completely agree with the planning department and the city council in limiting condo
;onversfons to properties that have 2 covered parking spaces per unit. Please convey this at the meeting tomorrow. Keep up the
food work! Donna Wall
i
LJ
,6/14!2005
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Sjyou @aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 12:37 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: condo conversions /parking
Hello,
"RECEIVED AFTER AGEN DA , Page 1 of
PRINTEV -.- (1 rs
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
)6/27/2005 65
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 Tide 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 panting 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 welt 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 SUV'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 bears 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 fatalities 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, aisano0nichemarket.net, (949) 721 -8074
64
EXHIBIT 4
June 28, 2005 City Council Minutes
65
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
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
5/10/05 & 6/14/05).
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 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
INDEX
(100 -2005)
Volume 67 - Page 331 6 �0
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
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 Tem 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 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
INDEX
Volume 57 - Page 332 � t
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
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 doesn't 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 staff's 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 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
INDEX
Volume 57 - Page 333 1 '
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
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 that have single family or multi - family units. She
indicated that there was still ample parking this morning even when
40 cars 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.
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 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
Volume 57 - Page 334 /_
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
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, it's
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 by 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 Tem 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 condo conversions without meeting the current parking
standards and that only new construction is required to meet the
INDEX
Volume 57 - Page 335 ' 6
A .
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
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.
Council Member Selich amended his motion 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 6/14/05).
Recreation and Senior Services Knight reported that they received 425
suggestions for the name of this park which were forwarded to the
Parks Development Committee, a subcommittee of the Parks, Beaches
& Recreation Commission (PB &R). She stated that the committee
Volume 67 - Page 336
INDEX
(100 -2005)
q1