HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)Q SEW Pp�T
CITY OF
z NEWPORT BEACH
c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report
March 14, 2023
Agenda Item No. 12
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232,
sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3209
TITLE: Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional
Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
ABSTRACT:
Staff will provide the City Council with an update on the Planning Commission's efforts
and recommendations related to potential code updates pertaining to the regulation of
fractional homeownership.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result
in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Receive presentation and provide staff direction related to code revisions.
DISCUSSION:
Fractional homeownership is when multiple owners purchase a property and split the
allowed time at the property through a formal arrangement. In the fractional
homeownership model, the allocated time for each owner is based on their percentage of
ownership.
On November 16, 2021, the City Council conducted a study session to discuss fractional
homeownership. Information was presented that there were four homes that had either
been fully sold or marketed for sale as fractional homeownership. The City Council
directed staff to monitor fractional homeownership activity in the city and investigate how
other jurisdictions were dealing with such issues and report back.
Staff retained the services of Sagecrest Planning+Environmental (Sagecrest) to study
jurisdictions with known fractional homeownership properties and prepare a report. Due
to bulk, the report and appendices are available online at
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/fractionalownership.
12-1
Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional Homeownership
March 14, 2023
Page 2
On September 13, 2022, the City Council held a study session to discuss the results of
the Sagecrest study. The study found that of the 22 jurisdictions surveyed, 15 classify
these properties as a form of timeshare. Public testimony provided during the study
session included concerns about increases in traffic and noise, as well as fractional
homeownership properties having an adverse impact on the character of the existing
residential neighborhoods. In some instances, fractional homeownership properties
operate in a similar manner as short-term lodgings by limiting occupancy by owners of a
fractional interest in a property to less than 30 consecutive days. By the end of the study,
the number of fractional homeownership residential properties within the City increased
to 11.
At the conclusion of the study session, the City Council directed staff to return with:
1) a moratorium to pause the transactions of new fractional homeownerships; and 2) an
initiation of a code amendment to revise the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to
regulate the practice.
On September 27, 2022, the City Council held a special meeting and adopted Resolution
No. 2022-61 initiating Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program Amendments related to
fractional homeownership. Public testimony provided included the need for the City
Council to adopt a moratorium to prevent the continued growth of fractional
homeownership properties while the code amendments are prepared and reviewed
through the various legislative bodies (i.e., Planning Commission, City Council and
California Coastal Commission). Ultimately, the City Council chose not to pursue a
moratorium due to the lack of findings, but directed staff to work expeditiously with the
Planning Commission to develop code amendments to better regulate fractional
homeownership to protect the character of residential neighborhoods.
On October 6, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a study session and received
public testimony. Staff presented a comprehensive overview of the topic, shared results
of the Sagecrest study, and shared potential options for regulations. Due to the complexity
of the issue, the Commission expressed the desire to form an ad hoc committee and work
closely with staff to formulate appropriate regulations.
On October 20, 2022, the Planning Commission formed an ad hoc committee consisting
of Commissioners Lee Lowery, Mark Rosene and now former Commissioner
Erik Weigand. The expectation was to have the ad hoc committee meet as necessary to
consider regulations that would then be presented to the Planning Commission at a future
public hearing for consideration and recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee Efforts and Recommendation
The ad hoc committee met a total of seven times, including meeting with representatives
from Pacaso as well as concerned residents. In a good faith effort to cooperate with the
City of Newport Beach, Pacaso representatives submitted a draft ordinance (Attachment
A) establishing a regulatory framework they would support and that they felt would
adequately address community concerns.
12-2
Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional Homeownership
March 14, 2023
Page 3
Input from residents included concerns related to commercialization of residential
neighborhoods, impacts similar to short-term lodging, and overall opposition to permitting
fractional homeownership. The ad hoc committee has consulted with staff from the
Community Development Department and City Attorney's Office. After careful
consideration of the input received, the ad hoc committee concluded its efforts on
February 14, 2023, and prepared its final recommendations to present to the Planning
Commission at its February 24, 2023, meeting. A summary of the recommendations is
included in the table below.
RequirementA.
Recommendations
Regulatory Process
Regulate similar to short-term lodging. Create a permit process within
Title 5 of NBMC for both dwelling unit and property manager.
Location Restrictions
Limit in all residential zones by a maximum cap. Cap to be
established by Planning Commission.
Parking
Dwelling units must provide code -compliant parking (number and
Requirements
size) and remain clear and available for use at all times.
Noise Restrictions
Comply with City standards and no amplified sound between hours
of 10 p.m. - 10 a.m.
Require preparation and submittal of a management plan addressing
Management Plan
property maintenance (landscape and trash) and identifying a local
contact person (24 hour, within 25 miles, respond within 30 minutes).
Subletting
Prohibit short-term lodging and guest use.
Good Neighbor Policy
Posted in unit outlining rules.
Owner
Acknowledgement
Signed and submitted by each fractional owner acknowledging rules.
Grandfathering
Provisions
Permit existing legal nonconforming units to remain.
February 24, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting and Recommendation
On February 24, 2023, the Planning Commission heard a presentation from staff
(Attachment B), follow up comments from ad hoc committee members, and public input
(Attachment C). Draft meeting minutes are included as Attachment D for reference. At
the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission provided the following two
recommendations for the City Council's consideration.
12-3
Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional
Homeownership
March 14, 2023
Page 4
- • Broaden the definition of timeshare to include fractional
• • . homeownership.
The majority consensus of the Planning Commission was that fractional
homeownership is like a timeshare use, resulted in the commercialization of residential
neighborhoods and impacted residents like short-term lodging. The preference of the
Planning Commission is to broaden the definition of timeshare to clearly include
fractional homeownership units. As a timeshare use, fractional homeownership would
effectively be prohibited in all residential zoning districts. This approach is similar to
what other jurisdictions have taken to prohibit these uses in residential zoning districts,
including Palm Desert, Truckee, St. Helena and Sonoma. Currently, St. Helena is in
active litigation with Pacaso.
If the City Council desires to create a separate regulatory
Alternativeprocess for Fractional Homeownership, include certain
Recommendation components.
Should the City Council desire to create a regulatory framework allowing fractional
homeownership within residential zoning districts, the Planning Commission
recommends the City Council incorporate the following components.
Requirement
Planning Commission Recommendations
Location
Restrictions
Prohibit in the Single -Family (R-1) Zoning Districts.
Maximum Cap
Establish a reasonable cap. Number to be decided by City Council.
Transparency
Consider adding a public noticing component prior to permit issuance
Requirement
to inform surrounding property owners.
Enforcement
Add ability to suspend permits and use for violations of permit
conditions.
Incorporate components of ad hoc committee recommendations,
Practical
including parking requirements, noise restrictions, management plan,
Regulations
prohibition on subletting, good neighbor policy, and owner
acknowledgements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the City Council decides to allow a limited number of fractional homes through a
regulatory permit, then staff will return with more information on the resources required to
implement such a permit.
12-4
Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional Homeownership
March 14, 2023
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15262 (Feasibility and Planning
Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or
indirectly. This exemption applies to feasibility or planning studies for possible future
actions which the City has not approved, adopted, of funded.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Draft Ordinance Submitted by Pacaso
Attachment B —February 23, 2023 Planning Commission and Ad Hoc Committee
Recommendations
Attachment C — Public Comments Received at the February 23, 2023 Planning
Commission Meeting
Attachment D — February 23, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment E — Correspondence
12-5
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance Submitted by Pacaso
12-6
DRAFT ORDINANCE
Chapter 5.98
CO -OWNERSHIP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
5.98.005 Purpose and Findings.
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds and declares as follows:
A. The City has a long and storied history of being a vacation destination welcoming
families and visitors from all over the world to second homes within our shared community.
B. Unlike short term lodging units that are primarily used during the summer months
when parking and other demands for City services are at their highest, second homes are
utilized by their owners throughout the year.
C. An increasing trend in second home ownership in the City and other communities
throughout the nation is co -ownership whereby a number of persons jointly contribute
towards the purchase and shared use of a second home.
D. A portion of these co -owned homes are managed by third -party management
companies.
E. The restrictions of this chapter are necessary to ensure the growth of co -ownership
homes that are managed by a third -party management company is done in an orderly
fashion that does not negatively impact the surrounding community.
5.98.010 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Authorized Guests" shall mean any guests of an owner of a Co -owned Housing
Unit who have not provided compensation to an owner for dwelling, lodging, and sleeping
purposes and are present in the Co -owned Housing unit while the owner is on -site and in
the home.
B. "City" shall mean the City of Newport Beach.
C. "Community Development Department" or "Department" shall mean the
Community Development Department of the City.
D. "Community Development Director" or "Director" shall mean the Community
Development Director of the City or his or her designee.
12-7
E. "Co -owned Housing Unit" shall mean a residential dwelling unit, managed by a Co -
owned Property Manager, and utilized for occupancy for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping
purposes by up to eight (8) Owners or eight (8) members of a Limited Liability Company,
that owns the residential dwelling unit, along with authorized guests. The term "Co -owned
Housing Unit" is not a time-share project, as defined in this Code, and usage of a Co -
owned Housing Unit is not a time-share use.
F. "Co -owned Housing Unit Permit" shall mean a permit granted by the City to a Co -
owned Property Manager for each Co -owned Housing Unit under management.
G. "Co -owned Property Manager" shall mean a person or Limited Liability Company
that manages a Co -owned Housing Unit, on behalf of the Owners of the Co -Owned
Housing Unit.
H. "Co -owned Property Management Permit" shall mean the annual permit issued by
the City allowing a Co -owned Property Manager to manage a Co -owned Housing Unit(s).
I. "Good Neighbor Policy" shall mean a written policy that governs the operation of a
Co -owned Housing Unit and summarizes general rules of conduct, occupancy limits,
consideration, and respect for neighbors and the community, including without limitation
provisions of this Chapter applicable to the Owner and guests.
J. "Limited Liability Company" shall mean a limited liability company or other form of
business entity, including, but not limited to, all domestic and foreign corporations,
associations, syndicates, joint stock corporations, partnerships of every kind, clubs,
business or common law trusts, or societies.
K. "Local Contact Person" shall mean an individual(s) who is available twenty-four
(24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week for the purpose of responding within twenty-
four (24) hours to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants
of the Co -owned Housing Unit, or any agent of an owner authorized by the owner to take
remedial action and who responds to any violation of this Code.
L. "Owner" shall mean the person(s) that hold legal and/or equitable title to the Co -
owned Housing Unit.
M. "R-1 Zoning District" shall have the same meaning provided in Section
20.18.010(B) and Section 21.18.010(B), or any successor sections.
5.98.015 Co -owned Property Management Permit Required.
A. A Co -owned Property Manager shall not manage a Co -owned Housing Unit
without obtaining a Co -owned Property Management Permit from the City.
2
12-8
B. A Co -owned Property Manager shall obtain a permit by submitting an application
to the Community Development Director, in a form provided by the Department, signed
by the applicant. An application for a new permit, renewal permit, the reinstatement of a
permit or the transfer of a permit shall contain the following information:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;
2. The name, address, and telephone number of the Local Contact for the Co -
owned Property Manager;
3. A current list of every property that the applicant manages in the City;
4. Evidence of a valid business license issued by the City for the separate
business of operating Co -owned Housing Units or submission of evidence or
information indicating that the Owner is exempt or otherwise not covered by
Chapter 5.04 for such activity.
5. A copy of the Good Neighbor Policy that governs each Co -owned Housing
Unit.
C. The Co -owned Property Management Permit shall be renewed annually pursuant
to procedures provided by the Community Development Department.
D. An application for the renewal of a Co -owned Property Management Permit shall be
filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the Co -owned Property Management Permit
expiration, or the Co -owned Property Management Permit shall be deemed abandoned.
E. An application for the reinstatement of a Co -owned Property Management Permit
closed by the Director pursuant to Section 5.98.070 shall be filed within thirty (30)
calendar days of the date the permit was closed by the Director, or the Co -owned
Property Management Permit shall be deemed abandoned.
F. An application for the reinstatement of a previously suspended Co -owned Property
Management Permit shall be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the end of the
suspension period, or the Co -owned Property Management Permit shall be deemed
abandoned.
G. If any application is deemed incomplete, which shall be determined in the sole
discretion of the Director, the application shall be completed within thirty (30) calendar
days of the service of notice that the application is incomplete, which shall be served in
accordance with Section 1.08.080, or the application and any associated permit shall be
deemed abandoned.
3
12-9
H. If good causes exist, as determined in the sole discretion of the Director, the Director
may extend the deadlines set forth in this section.
5.98.020 Co -owned Housing Unit Permit Required.
A. A Co -owned Property Manager shall obtain a permit for each Co -owned Housing
Unit in the City prior to the unit's use as a Co -owned Housing Unit.
B. A Co -owned Property Manager shall obtain a permit by submitting an application
to the Community Development Director, in a form provided by the Department, signed
by the applicant. An application for a new permit, renewal permit, the reinstatement of a
permit or the transfer of a permit shall contain the following information:
1. The address of the Co -owned Housing Unit;
2. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;
3. The name, address, and telephone number of the local contact for the Co -
owned Housing Unit;
4. A copy of the Good Neighbor Policy that governs the operation of the Co -
owned Housing Unit;
5. If applicable, evidence that a Co -owned Housing Unit would not violate the
permissible use for housing within a Homeowners Association in accordance with
the Homeowners Association's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions.
C. The Co -owned Housing Unit Permit shall be renewed annually pursuant to
procedures provided by the Community Development Department.
D. An application for the renewal of a Co -owned Housing Unit Permit shall be filed
within thirty (30) calendar days of the Co -owned Housing Unit Permit's expiration, or the
Co -owned Housing Unit Permit shall be deemed abandoned.
E. An application for the reinstatement of a Co -owned Housing Unit Permit closed by
the Director pursuant to Section 5.98.070 shall be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of
the date the permit was closed by the Director, or the Co -owned Housing Unit Permit
shall be deemed abandoned.
F. An application for the reinstatement of a previously suspended Co -owned Housing
.,I
12-10
Unit Permit shall be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the end of the suspension
period, or the Co -owned Housing Unit Permit shall be deemed abandoned.
G. If any application is deemed incomplete, which shall be determined in the sole
discretion of the Director, the application shall be completed within thirty (30) calendar
days of the service of notice that the application is incomplete, which shall be served in
accordance with Section 1.08.080, or the application and any associated permit shall be
deemed abandoned.
H. If good causes exist, as determined in the sole discretion of the Director, the Director
may extend the deadlines set forth in this section.
I. For purposes of calculating the maximum number of permits under Subsection
5.98.035(A), a Co -owned Housing Unit Permit shall be deemed valid until the applicable
permit has been deemed abandoned.
5.98.025 Denial of Permit.
If Co -owned Housing Unit Permits are available for issuance, no timely application filed
by a Co -owned Property Manager for an annual permit, renewal of a permit, reinstatement
of a permit or transfer of a permit for a unit eligible to be used as a Co -owned Housing
Unit, as provided for in this Chapter and this Code, shall be denied unless: the Co -owned
Property Manager does not have a current valid business license; or the Co -owned
Housing Unit Permit for the same unit and issued to the same Co -owned Property
Manager has been suspended.
5.98.030 Filing Fee.
An application for a new annual permit, the renewal of an existing permit, the
reinstatement of a permit, or the transfer of a permit shall be accompanied by a fee
established by resolution of the City Council; provided, however, the fee shall be no
greater than necessary to defer the cost incurred by the City in administering the
provisions of this chapter.
5.98.035 Maximum Number of Co -owned Housing Unit Permits in the R-1 Zoning
District.
A. The maximum number of Co -owned Housing Unit Permits in the R-1 Zoning District
shall be limited to five hundred (500) permits at any time. For purposes of calculating the
maximum number of permits available, a permit shall be deemed valid and unavailable
until it is abandoned in accordance with Sections 5.98.020(D) through (G).
B. An Co -owned Property Manager who has a Co -owned Housing Unit Permit, or a Co -
owned Property Manager seeking to reinstate a Co -owned Housing Unit Permit that has
5
12-11
not been abandoned in accordance with Sections 5.98.020(D) through (G), shall have
priority to renew or reinstate the permit over anyone on the waiting list, as described in
subsection (D) of this section.
C. A Co -owned Property Manager seeking to transfer a valid Co -Owned Housing Unit
Permit under Section 5.98.040 shall have priority to transfer the permit over anyone on
the waiting list, as described in subsection (D) of this section.
D. If the City has issued the maximum number of Co -owned Housing Unit Permits
available in the R-1 Zoning District, the City shall maintain a waiting list. An application for
placement on the waiting list shall be submitted to the Director, on a form approved by
the Director, and shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City
Council. In the event a Co -owned Housing Unit Permit becomes available, the Director
shall notify the person or persons next in order on the waiting list. The notice shall specify
that applications will be accepted for ten (10) calendar days after the date of the notice,
and that failure to apply within the ten (10) calendar -day period shall result in removal of
the person or persons receiving notice from the waiting list. Notice shall be deemed given
when deposited in the United States mail, with the first-class postage prepaid, and
addressed as specified by the person or persons on the waiting list. The City shall not be
liable for a failure to notify any person or persons on the waiting list since placement on
the list does not create any property right in any person or persons on the list nor any
contractual obligation on the part of the City.
5.98.040 Transfer of Permit.
A Co -owned Housing Unit Permits permit that is valid, and has not been abandoned in
accordance with Sections 5.98.020(D) through (G), may be transferred by the Co -owned
Property Manager to another Co -owned Property Manager that is permitted under this
chapter.
5.98.045 Conditions for Co -owned Housing Unit Permits.
A. All Co -owned Housing Unit Permits issued pursuant to this chapter are subject to the
following standard conditions:
1. The Co -owned Property Manager shall prohibit the Owner(s) from renting the
Co -owned Housing Unit to a transient user for short term lodging.
2. The Co -owned Property Manager shall ensure that the Owner(s) limits the
overnight occupancy of the Co -owned Housing Unit to the maximum permitted by
the building code and fire code.
3. The Co -owned Property Manager shall use best efforts to ensure that the
occupants and/or guests of the Co -owned Housing Unit do not create
unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct, or violate
provisions of this Code or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly
0
12-12
conduct, the consumption of alcohol, or the use of illegal drugs.
4. The Co -owned Property Manager shall, upon notification that any Owner and/or
guest of a Co -owned Housing Unit has created unreasonable noise or
disturbances, engaged in disorderly conduct or committed violations of this Code
or any state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the consumption
of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs, promptly use best efforts to prevent a
recurrence of such conduct by any Owner or guest.
5. The Co -owned Property Manager shall provide the Owner(s) with a copy of
the Good Neighbor Policy.
6. With respect to any Co -owned Housing Unit that is located in any safety
enhancement zone, the Co -owned Property Manager shall take immediate action
during the period that the safety enhancement zone is in effect to prevent any
Owner or guest from engaging in disorderly conduct or committing violations of this
Code or state or federal law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, the
consumption of alcohol or the use of illegal drugs.
7. The Co -owned Property Manager shall provide the City with the name and
twenty-four (24) hour phone number of a Local Contact Person(s) (who resides
within twenty-five (25) miles of the property) who shall respond to any call related
to the Co -owned Housing Unit within thirty (30) minutes, and ensure compliance
with this chapter in a timely manner. The Co -owned Property Manager must
provide a new Local Contact Person and his or her phone number within five (5)
business days, if there is a change in the Local Contact Person(s).
8. The Co -owned Property Manager shall ensure that all available parking spaces
on site, which may include garage, carport, and driveway spaces as well as tandem
parking, are available for the Owner and/or guest of the Co -owned Housing Unit.
The Co -owned Property Manager shall disclose the number of parking spaces
available on site and shall inform the Owner and/or guest that street parking may
not be available.
9. The Co -owned Property Manager shall maintain a valid Co -owned Housing
Unit Permit for each Co -owned Housing Unit under management.
10. The Co -owned Property Manager shall include the City issued Co -owned
Housing Unit Permit number on all advertisements for the sale of the Co -owned
Housing Unit.
11. The Co -owned Property Manager shall ensure that a permitted Co -owned
Housing Units is only used for residential purposes and not used for nonresidential
uses, including, but not limited to, large commercial or non-commercial gatherings,
commercial filming and/or nonowner wedding receptions.
rA
12-13
12. The Co -owned Property Manager shall ensure that no amplified sound or
reproduced sound is used outside or audible from the property line between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m.
13. The Co -owned Property Manager shall provide the City with a copy of the
Good Neighbor Policy, within seven (7) calendar days after the City serves the Co -
owned Property Manager with a notice of request for the Good Neighbor Policy in
accordance with Section 1.08.080.
14. The Co -owned Property Manager shall require every Owner and/or guest to
comply with all State and local laws that regulate parking while staying at or visiting
the Co -owned Housing Unit;
15. The Co -owned Property Manager shall ensure that any Owner and/or guest
complies with all State and local laws that regulate parking while the Owner and/or
guest is staying at or visiting the Co -Owned Housing Unit.
B. The Director shall have the authority to impose additional conditions on any permit in
the event of any violation of the conditions to the permit or the provisions of this chapter
subject to compliance with the procedures specified in Section 5.98.060.
5.98.050 Violations of Permit Conditions.
A. In addition to other provisions of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any Owner or
guest of Co -owned Housing Unit to:
1. Exceed the overnight occupancy limit designated for the Co -owned Housing
Unit.
2. Use street parking prior to utilizing all available on -site parking space(s) for
the Co -owned Housing Unit.
3. Place trash for collection in violation of this Code's rules and regulations
concerning:
a. The timing, storage or placement of trash containers; or
b. Recycling requirements.
4. Amplify or reproduce sound between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and 10.00 a.m.:
a. Outside of the Co -owned Housing Unit; or
12-14
b. That is audible from the property line for the Co -owned Housing Unit.
5. Use the Co -owned Housing Unit for any nonresidential purpose, including, but
not limited to, large commercial or noncommercial gatherings, commercial filming
and/or nonowner wedding receptions.
6. Rent a Co -owned Housing Unit to any person for a short term.
7. Allow guests to use a Co -owned Housing Unit when the Owner(s) is not
present.
5.98.055 Violations, Penalties, and Enforcement.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provisions or to fail to comply with
any of the requirements of this chapter.
B. In addition to, or separate from, the foregoing criminal penalties, any person
violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this
chapter is subject to the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to the
provisions of Section 1.04.010(E) and Chapter 1.05.
5.98.060 Suspensions.
In addition to any fine or penalty that may be imposed pursuant to any provision of this
Code including, but not limited to, Section 5.98.055, a Co -owned Housing Unit Permit
may be suspended as provided in this section.
A. Suspension of Co -owned Property Manager Permit.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if any person violates any
Co -owned Housing Unit Permit condition four (4) or more times in any six (6)
month period or any other provision of this Code, state law or federal law, four
(4) or more times in any six (6) month period, and the violation relates in any
way to the Co -owned Housing Unit Permit, the Co -owned Property Manager
Permit for the unit may be suspended for a period of up to six (6) months in
accordance with subsection (B) of this section.
2. If a Co -owned Housing Unit that is subject to a Co -owned Housing Unit
Permit has been the location of four (4) or more loud or unruly gatherings, as
defined in Chapter 10.66, within any twelve (12) month period, the Co -owned
Property Manager Permit may be suspended for a period of up to six (6) months.
A loud or unruly gathering that occurred prior to the passage of fourteen (14)
calendar days from the mailing of notice to the Co -owned Property Manager in
9
12-15
compliance with Section 10.66.030(D) shall not be included within the
calculation of the four (4) or more loud or unruly gatherings required to suspend
a Co -owned Property Manager Permit.
B. Co -owned Property Manager Permits shall be suspended only in the manner
provided in this section.
1. The Director shall investigate whenever he or she has reason to believe that
a Co -owned Property Manager has submitted an application that contains false
information or committed a violation of a permit condition, this Code, state or
federal law related to a Co -owned Housing Unit. Such investigation may include,
but is not limited to, on -site property inspections. Should the investigation reveal
substantial evidence to support a finding that warrants a suspension of the Co -
owned Property Manager Permit, the Director shall issue written notice of
intention to suspend the Co -owned Property Manager Permit. The written notice
shall be served on the Co -owned Property Manager in accordance with Section
1.08.080, and shall specify the facts which, in the opinion of the Director
constitute substantial evidence to establish grounds for imposition of the
suspension, and specify the proposed time the Co -owned Property Manager
Permit shall be suspended within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the
notice is given, unless the Co -owned Property Manager files with the Director,
before the suspension becomes effective, a request for hearing before a hearing
officer, who shall be retained by the City, and pays the fee for the hearing
established by resolution of the City Council.
2. If the Co -owned Property Manager requests a hearing and pays the hearing
fee, established by resolution of the City Council, within the time specified in
subsection (B)(1) of this section, the Director shall serve written notice on the
Co -owned Property Manager, pursuant to Section 1.08.080, setting forth the
date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be scheduled not less
than fifteen (15) calendar days, nor more than sixty (60) calendar days, from the
date on which notice of the hearing is served by the Director. The hearing shall
be conducted according to the rules normally applicable to administrative
hearings. At the hearing, the hearing officer will preside over the hearing, take
evidence and then submit proposed findings and recommendations to the City
Manager. The City Manager may suspend the Co -owned Property Manager
Permit only upon a finding that a violation has been proven by a preponderance
of the evidence, and that the suspension is consistent with the provisions of this
section. The City Manager shall render a decision within thirty (30) calendar days
of the hearing and the decision shall be final.
C. If a Co -owned Property Manager Permit is suspended, it shall be the Co -owned
Property Manager's responsibility to transfer management of the Co -owned Housing
10
12-16
Unit(s) to another Co -owned Property Manager that is permitted under this chapter.
D. After any suspension, the Co -owned Property Manager may reapply for
reinstatement of the Co -owned Property Manager Permit which shall be processed in
accordance with this chapter, provided the owner has paid the City all amounts owed
the City in accordance with this chapter.
5.98.065 Permits and Fees Not Exclusive.
Permits and fees required by this chapter shall be in addition to any license, permit or
fee required under any other chapter of this Code. The issuance of any permit pursuant
to this chapter shall not relieve the Co -owned Property Manager of the obligation to
comply with all other provisions of this Code.
5.98.070 Permit Closure.
Any Co -owned Property Manager that has ceased operating a Co -owned Housing Unit
shall inform the Director in writing of the date of the last management day, and having
done such, the Co -owned Property Manager Permit for that Co -owned Housing Unit shall
be closed as to the specific Co -owned Property Manager.
11
12-17
Attachment B
February 23, 2023 Planning Commission and Ad -Hoc Committee Recommendations
12-18
Fractional Homeownership
Planning Commission
February 22, 2023
�%dwwp�,O
Seimone Jurjis, CDD Director
Jaime Murillo, AICP, Principal Planner
12-19
What is Fractional
Homeownership?
Community Development Department 2
12-20
Fractional Ownership of
Real Estate
Partial ownership of property:
Common with commercial properties
Emerging with single-family residential
Vacation property (2ndor 3rd homes)
Fractions offered for sale online
Pacaso Ember
EQUITY ESTATES
E L S 0 N SharetiniTM
FAMILY ESTATES
How it Works
Property is purchased under a limited Liability
Corporation (LLC)
Shares of the property are sold:
1/8 ownership or greater
• Operating Agreement is used to manage the
property
Operatiom
Co -owners agree on usage (days, week)
1/8 share = 45 days (not consecutive)
typically less than 30 consecutive day stays
managed through calender
Owners pay share of property costs:
maintenance, management, HOA, cleaning, tax,
utilities, insurance, and reserve funds costs
Co -owners can sell their interest
Complaints/Concern
Function like short term rentals —non-resident
vacation behaviors
Commercialization of neighborhoods
Impacts housing affordability —increased vacation
homes and reduced housing stock
Background and
Direction
Community Development Department 7
12-25
ity Council Background
November 16, 2021, Study Session
4 known homes
Directed staff to study what other cities are doing
and report back
September 13, 2022- City Council Study Session
Sagecrest Planning+Environmental Report
11 known homes
Directed staff to return with proposed action items
ity Council Direct -ion
September 27, 2022 — Council Meeting
Initiated Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program
Amendment
Did not pursue moratorium
Directed staff to work expeditiously with Planning
Commission
tanning Commission
October 6, 2022 —Study Session
Staff presented comprehensive overview and options
Due to complexity of issue, direction to form an Ad -
Hoc Committee
October 20, 2022 —Formation of Ad -Hoc Committee
Commissioners Lowery, Rosene, and Weigand
Total of 7 meetings
Ad -Hoc Committee
Considerations
Regulatory process
Location restrictions
• Development standards
Operational standards
Grandfathering Provisions
Ad -Hoc Committee
Recommendations
Community Development Department 12
12-30
Regulatory Process
• Create regulatory process to permit
Fractiott,A, Homeownership
• Regulate like STL in Title 5 of NBMC- Business
License and Regulations
Require permits for both dwelling units and
property manager
Clarify not applicable to co -owned property
not managed and facilitated by third -party
2. Location Restrictions any
Maximum Ca
Limited in all residential zoning districts by a
cap
Seeking Planning Commission input on
appropriate cap
Parlor Requiremen
Parking shall conform with current standards
(size and number)
Parking shall be free of obstructions and
available for use
4. No -is
ctior
Prohibition of amplified sound outside or
audible at PL from 10 pm to 10 am
• Compliance with City noise ordinance
5. Manageme � plan
Require submission of operating
agreement/management plan to City
Addresses landscape
collection plan
maintenance and trash
Identify local contact person to address issues
24 hour contact
Located within 25 miles
Respond within 30 minutes
Prohibit Subletting ai
lest Use
Prohibit subletting of unit for rentals, including
short-term lodging
Prohibit guest usage when owner not present
Good Neighbor Policy
Written policy posted in unit
Owner responsibilities
Contact person
Parking rules
Street sweeping
Trash collection
City noise restrictions
10. Owni Acknowledgments
Sign acknowledgement by each owner
submitted to the City
Understanding of all rules and Good
Neighbor Policy
Prohibition against subletting and guest use
• Enforcement and fines
Grandfathering Provision.
Needed for existing units that are
nonconforming due to parking requirements
Difficult to retroactively regulate existing
uses or those in process
Allow to remain as legal nonconforming uses
Planning
Commission
Recommendation
Community Development Department 21
12-39
ecommendation Requested
Seeking recommendation to City Council
March 14, 2023, City Council meeting
Options:
Support Ad -Hoc Committee recommendations
Modify Ad -Hoc Committee recommendations
No recommendation
Requirement
Regulatory Process
Location Restrictions
Parking Requirements
Noise Restrictions
Management Plan
Subletting
Good Neighbor Policy
Owner Acknowledgements
Grandfathering Provisions
Title 5 permits for unit and property manager
Limited in all residential zones by a maximum cap
Current standards; free and clear
No amplified sound 10 pm-10 am; City standards
Required to address landscape, trash, local contact person
Prohibit short-term lodging and guest use
Posted in unit outlining rules
Signed and submitted by each owner
Allows existing nonconforming units to remain
Questions and Discussion
Planning Commission Study Session
February 24, 2023
Seimone Jurjis, CDD Director
siuriis@newportbeachca.gov
Jaime Murillo, AICP, Principal Planner
jmurillo@newportbeachca. ov
12-42
Attachment C
Public Comments Received at February 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting
12-43
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6a - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
February 23, 2023, Planning Commission Item 6 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (iimmosher(a)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 6. FRACTIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP (PA2022-0202)
Since this is a matter that has attracted considerable public interest, and since the agenda
announcement says the Commission will hear a presentation and be asked to make a
recommendation to the City Council, it is very disappointing that neither the Commission nor the
public has been given any advance hint of what the report might say or what recommendation
might be suggested, nor has any background information of any kind been provided. The
absence of such information compounds the difficulty of conducting a thoughtful discussion of
what staff may have already made an unnecessarily difficult subject.
I have commented extensively on this topic in the past, including especially at the September
27, 2022, special meeting of the City Council, which was called to initiate code amendments
related to fractional homeownership, where my comments can be found starting on page 4 of
the Item 1 correspondence.
In my view, timeshare arrangements, including ones achieved through "fractional
ownership" of homes, have long been banned in Newport Beach and continue to be
banned except for the larger timeshare developments that are allowed under limited
circumstances in certain commercial districts.
In essence, I think there can be no doubt that Ordinance No. 82-14, adopted by our City Council
in 1982, was intended to prohibit, in all of Newport Beach, the "development" of any kind of
time-share "projects" in which a purchaser obtained an exclusive right to occupy a living space
for limited, recurring intervals of time. And despite its use of the words "project" and
"development," both the statement of intent and the substance of Ordinance No. 82-14 made
clear the prohibition was on a type of land use and not confined to new construction. In
particular, it explicitly prohibited the conversion of any existing residential or hotel/motel units in
the City to a time-shared model, including Pacaso-like shared ownership.
Current City staff argues that subsequent amendments to the Zoning Code repealed the 1982
ban on converting residences to timeshares. But I am not aware of any evidence to suggest
there was ever any such intent.
Indeed, Ordinances No. 96-7 and 96-18 relaxed the complete ban to allow, subject to special
permitting restrictions, larger -scale timeshare ventures in commercially -zoned districts, including
the conversion of some existing hotel/motel units to a time-share model.
But those ordinances carefully retained the 1982 definition of "time-share" and 1982's
prohibition on the "conversion of existing residential dwelling units into time-share units."
Saying, as staff seems to, that the 1996 decision to allow the heavily -regulated creation of
timeshares in commercial districts was, without saying so, simultaneously intended to open the
door for the completely unregulated appearance of timeshares in residential districts makes no
sense to me.
12-44
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6a - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
February 23, 2023, PC agenda Item 6 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Subsequent comprehensive restatements and reorganizations of the City's Zoning Code, in
1997 and 2010, have admittedly caused the code adopted in 1982 and 1996 to become
increasingly fragmented and difficult to follow, but neither the Council nor the public was ever
told any of those comprehensive restatements of code were intended to change the meaning of
the previously -adopted timeshare regulations.
In particular, staff has presented no evidence that seemingly conflicting post-1996 definitions of
"development" and "project" that have been introduced in connection with other Zoning Code
provisions were ever intended to affect the interpretation of the 1982/1996 time-share
regulations.
Indeed, in the City's current Zoning Code, the essentials of those earlier regulations remain
intact:
1982's definition of "Time share project" remains as originally written, but has been
moved to Sec. 20.70.020.V under "Visitor Accommodations (Land Use) — 7."
• 1982's prohibition on converting existing residential units of any kind to a time-shared
model continues in Sec. 20.48.220.A.2 — and would make little sense if the later
definitions of "development" and "project" that staff cites had been intended to allow it.
• 1996's allowance of a time-shared land use in (and only in) certain commercially -zoned
districts where hotel/motel land use would be allowed remains in Tables 2-4 and 2-5 of
Sec. 20.20.020 (under "Visitor Accommodations, Nonresidential") and in Tables 2-8 and
2-9 of Sec. 20.22.020 (under "Visitor Accommodations").
Quite specifically, the principal public concern I have heard is about the conversion of existing
residential units in residential districts to timeshare units through a change to Pacaso-style
fractional ownership, and there has never been any statement of intent to allow timeshares in
residential districts.
My conclusion is that the Pacaso-type model of home ownership was banned in 1982 and
remains banned in non-commercial districts.
Rather than recommending the Council adopt new regulations, my suggestion is the
Planning Commission simply recommend the Council affirm to staff our City's long -
existing prohibition on residential timeshare conversions.
If the meaning of the current code is as unclear as staff claims it is, this could be accomplished
through a new and clearer ordinance approved with the caveat that it is a restatement of
existing law, not an adoption of new law — for, at least in my view, continuing an existing
regulation is much better than attempting to justify new regulations.
12-45
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6b - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
From:
Gary Cruz
To:
Planning Commissioners
Subject:
Fractional Ownership
Date:
February 21, 2023 5:46:38 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Commissioners,
I understand there will be a discussion regarding fractional ownership on the upcoming agenda. I am
not sure the commission understands how many homeowners are against fractional ownership.
Regretfully I am unable to attend in person, but I would like to offer my perspective on it.
It is disappointing that it has taken this long for the discussion to ensue. It was presented to the
commission a long time ago and it feels like taking no action is counter to what has been asked of
the commission. Residents most certainly are in the dark on where the city stands on it and we are
frustrated by a lack of action.
Please envision how it feels to not know what the position of the city has on this issue. The short-
term lodging issue became a crisis when the city took no action, and it seems like history is repeating
itself.
Personally, I have three homes within 100 yards from me that have recently sold, are up for sale or
soon to go up for sale. Each one is a potential fractional ownership. One shared ownership property
already exists about 300 yards away. This is a residential neighborhood and the thought of
corporations taking over the residential neighborhood is depressing. Regardless of the quality of the
people that purchase a share in a house the fact is they do not live here and are basically on vacation
while resident go to work. There is no control over who they let use their week or whether they are
renting it out under the table.
Everyone considers fractional ownership as timeshares except fractional ownership companies. A
recent article says it all:
How to get rid of a fractional ownership time share
1. Sell it
2. Give it away
3. Work with your timeshare company
4. Hire a reputable timeshare exit company
I also read that Pacaso recently laid off 100 workers and that they were focusing on cities where they
already had a foothold. Do we want to be one of those cities where fractional ownership is
condoned. Are we going to stand around while other cities ban them? Given the state is trying to
create housing do we want to create less housing by offering fractional ownership?
Gary Cruz
Newport Island
12-46
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6b - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
From:
L M
To:
Planning Commissioners
Subject:
Item 6 - Fractional Homeownership
Date:
February 22, 2023 4:17:45 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
I am opposed to Fractional Homeownership! This model is almost identical to timeshare
ownership and is incompatible for use in my neighborhood!
I live on the Balbia Peninsula. This ownership structure should not be allowed to evade the
limitations we placed to avoid short term property usage burdens on the City and our natural
resources.
Thank you,
Larry Mathena
12-47
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6c - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
Planning Commissioning Meeting 2023-02-23 — Item 6 — Fractional Homeownership
Planning Commissioners and City Staff,
Not knowing what details will be presented and discussed about the subject during the meeting I would like
to express the following:
Rather than focusing the discussion on "Fractional Homeownership" the discussion should be focused
on "Shared Deed Ownership Timeshares".
2. The issue under review is not a fractional ownership (co -ownership) through an LLC, Trust, etc where
the fractional owners are family members and/or friends. What is under review is a fractional ownership
where specific/structured time restrictions exist for the use of the dwelling by the various co -owners
(who are mostly strangers among them).
3. Pacaso business model is a "Shared Deed Ownership Timeshare" business. For more detail supporting
this statement please refer to the letter submitted by Maureen Cotton representing the Pier to Pier
(Central Newport Beach Community) Association.
4. Investopedia definition of "Shared Deeded Ownership Timeshare": Shared deeded ownership gives
each buyer a percentage share of the physical property, corresponding to the time period purchased.
Shared deeded ownership interest is often held in perpetuity and can be resold to another party or willed
to one's estate.
5. California's "Vacation Ownership and Time-share Act of 2004" (Chapter 11210) defines "Time-share
plan" as follows: "...means any arrangement, plan, scheme, or similar device, other than an exchange
program, whether by membership agreement, sale, lease, deed, license, right to use agreement, or by
any other means, whereby a purchaser, in exchange for consideration, receives ownership rights in or
the right to use accommodations for a period of time less than a full year during any given year, on a
recurring basis for more than one year, but not necessarily for consecutive years".
6. Although California's "Vacation Ownership and Time-share Act of 2004" (Chapter 11210) regulations
only applies to "Time-share plans" consisting of more than 10 time-share interests, the "Time-share
plan" definition clearly describes what Pacaso is doing with their business model. One of the reasons to
keep the fractional ownership to a maximum of eight (8) fractional owners seems to be not to have to
comply with the regulations imposed by California's "Vacation Ownership and Time-share Act of 2004"
(Chapter 11210).
7. Timeshares have never been allowed in Newport Beach's Residential Coastal Zoning Districts. The city
residents do not want Timeshares to be allowed in the residential areas of the city.
8. Timeshares are allowed in Newport Beach's Mixed -Use and/or Commercial Coastal Zoning Districts so
the focus should be for Pacaso, and others, to bring their business model to said areas of the city.
9. During the 2022-10-06 Planning Commission Study Session city staff presentation included "Option A"
(prohibit timeshares in residential zones", which city residents support) and "Option B" (create Fractional
Ownership Land Use and regulate, which city residents do not support). Regarding the suggested "500
feet separation between other fractionals" of "Option B" please note that most of the residential areas in
the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar are not R-1 but R-2 or RM so such suggested
"separation" would have no benefit to most areas.
12-48
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6c - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
10. As some may argue in favor of allowing Pacaso, and others, to operate Timeshares in our residential
areas and for city staff to develop standards to regulate them (rather than prohibit them) please think of
the unintended consequences:
a) Pacaso business model reduces permanent housing in our city
b) Pacaso business model increases housing pricing so it becomes less affordable to locals
c) The "fractional homeowners" will have "property rights" so can they truly be regulated? How?
d) Pacaso may cooperate with the regulations but how about other companies who may decide to
operate in our city (i.e. Ember Homes, Nelson Family Estates, Fractional Villas, Elite Destination
Homes, etc)
I urge the Planning Commissioners and City Staff to take firm action to stop the "Shared Deed Ownership
Timeshare" operations in our city's residential areas. Any other outcome will be detrimental to our coastal
residential areas.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
949-278-2447 Cell
12-49
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6c - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
From:
Cheryl
To:
Plannina Commissioners
Cc:
hello(&mynewportbeach.org; Stapleton, Joe; Avery, Brad; Avery, Brad; Grant, Robyn; O"Neill, William; Kleiman,
Lauren
Subject:
regarding fractional ownership
Date:
February 22, 2023 5:25:25 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
City Council Members and Planning Commission:
My husband and I have resided at 311 Island Avenue on the peninsula since 1995. We value
our neighbors and our neighborhood and urge the City to look long and hard at what the
consequences of fractional ownership will be.
Please refer to information sent to you by our Pier to Pier representative Maureen Cotton
about the Pacaso website and how fractional ownership would work. It is a time share, no
matter what they call it. The City has an obligation
to consider and protect the quality of life of its residents, and fractional ownership only
breaks down neighborhoods. We live here. Our roots are here. We look out for each
other and care about each other.
We will continue following this issue and hope to see 'fractional home ownership' prohibited
in Newport Beach, just as time share ownership is.
Thank you for hearing us.
Keith & Cheryl Garrison
311 Island Avenue
12-50
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6c - Additional Materials Received
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
From:
escapeartist55 (null)
To:
Plannina Commissioners
Subject:
Item 6 - Fractional Homeownership
Date:
February 23, 2023 5:21:56 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I am opposed to Fractional Homeownership! This model is almost identical to timeshare ownership and is
incompatible for use in my neighborhood!
The Peninsula was a lovely place (even though 80000 people came in summer) to live when we bought our home. It
has turned into a zoo ALL YEAR LONG since the commissioners have approved 1600 short term rentals and now
considering Fractional (ie timeshare). How many persons on the commission live on the Peninsula)?
Take a lesson from Laguna and Huntington Beach where none or a fraction are allowed.
How much money does the City need to improve tourism at the cost of the long term owners?
Sara Abraham.
Sent from my Whone
12-51
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6d - Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
From: Linda Orozco
To: Plannina Commissioners
Cc: Chosty NB
Subject: Item 6 - Fractional Homeownership OPPOSED
Date: February 23, 2023 8:57:02 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
To NB Planning Commission
I have been a resident/owner on the Balboa Peninsula since 1983. During that time, I've seen the city of Newport
Beach treat the Peninsula, and its residents as second class citizens of the city. Over the decades, the city has
created segregationist rules to treat the peninsula separately. Specifically, I'm talking about short term rentals, drug
and alcohol rehab houses, half way houses, homeless, etc. Now the new topic is fractional ownership?
The rules should be simple. Anything the city adopts for the Peninsula should be good enough for any other part of
the city, including Big Newport, Corona Del Mar, Newport Coast, Crystal Cove, etc.
I strongly oppose timeshares and/or fractional ownership anywhere in Newport Beach, particularly the Newport
peninsula. The peninsula is already densely populated with horrific traffic problems. If the city believes that
fractional ownership is a good thing, please begin with our neighbors inland, such as Crystal Cove, Newport Coast,
or big Newport. Sort out the progress of such fractional ownership in those residential neighborhoods before you
bring it to the Peninsula alone.
I am strongly opposed to Fractional Homeownership. This model is almost identical to timeshare ownership and is
incompatible for use in my residential neighborhood!
Sincerely,
Linda Orozco, Ph.D.
1800 block Balboa Blvd.
Cell. 949-413-5483
12-52
Planning Commission - February 23, 2023
Item No. 6d - Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
From: Elliott Bonn
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Item 6 - Fractional Homeownership
Date: February 23, 2023 10:07:14 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I am opposed to Fractional Homeownership! This model is almost identical to timeshare ownership and is
incompatible for use in my neighborhood!
Elliott Bonn
714-299-9758
12-53
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rodriguez, Clarivel
February 23, 2023 5:41 PM
Murillo, Jaime
FW: Fractional Ownership - Item #6
From: jepalm@earthlink.net <]epalm@earth link.net>
Sent: February 23, 2023 4:58 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional Ownership - Item #6
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
We are 100% against the proposed fractional ownerships in our community.
These "short term stays" will lead to noise and parking issues and cause disturbance to our now perfect
community.
Hotels and Airbnb's belong in areas zoned for such use and NOT in quiet residential neighborhoods!
Please vote NO on this issue!
We thank the Planning Commission for your understanding and NO vote!
Sincerely,
Jan -Erik and Diane Palm
1104 W. Bay Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92661
12-54
From: Maureen Cotton <maureen@mynewportbeach.org>
Sent: February 23, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission - Item 6. Fractional Home Ownership (PA2022-
0202)
Attachments: 2023-02-22_Planning Commision_Item 6-Fractional Home Ownership —just
say no_CNBCA.pdf
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maureen Cotton <maureen@mvnewportbeach.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:31 PM
Subject: Planning Commission - Item 6. Fractional Home Ownership (PA2022-0202)
To: <celImore@newportbeachca.gov>, <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>,
<sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>, <tharris@newportbeachca.gov>,
<Ilowrev@newportbeachca.gov>, <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>, <icampbell@newportbeachca.gov>,
<istapleton@newportbeachca.gov>, <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>,
<eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>, <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>, <nblom@newportbeachca.gov>,
<Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>, O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>,
<gleung@newportbeachca.gov>
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Attached please find a letter expressing the concerns of the Central Newport Beach Community
Association (CNBCA) and our 300+ members --the majority being property owners and/or long-time
residents on the Balboa Peninsula. A copy of this letter will be shared with our entire membership.
Respectfully,
Maureen Cotton
President
Central Newport Beach Community Association
(949) 675-9934
12-55
Central Newport Beach Community Association
PO Box 884 • Newport Beach, CA • 92661-0884
www. MyNewportBeach.Org
February 21, 2023
City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Item 6. Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202)
Dear Planning Commissioners, City Staff, and City Councilmembers
Apologies in advance for the length of this letter. We thank you for engaging with Central Newport Beach
Community Association (CNBCA) on the matter of fractional homeownership —which is just an alternate
expression for timeshare ownership, as evidenced below. Let me get right into it.
Per the Pacaso website, the maximum continuous stay in a Pacaso for a 1/8-share owner is capped at 14
days and back-to-back stays are prohibited. One -eighth (1/8) share owners are allowed to book six (6)
stays and any stay greater than 7 days counts as two stays, encouraging 2- to 7-day stays. Back-to-back
stays are prohibited with a gap between stays equal to or greater than the length of your previous stay.
X HOW MUCH TIME WILL I HAVE IN MY HOME EACH
YEAR?
On average, owners stay at their homes 6-7 times per year, depending on
their personal travel preferences. Ultimately, you decide what dates are
most important to you, and your usage may vary from year to year.
X HOW MANY GENERAL STAYS CAN I SCHEDULE?
Owners may hold up to four general stays at a time per 1/8 share owned.
Stays must be for a minimum of two nights. A stay with a duration of 2-7
nights counts as one general stay, while a stay with a duration of 8-14
nights counts as 2 general stays.
X HOW LONG ARE OWNER STAYS?
The maximum length of a stay is based on shares owned. Owners of one
share can enjoy a stay anywhere from 2 to 14 nights. A stay with a
duration of 2-7 nights counts as one general stay, while a stay with a
duration of 8-14 nights counts as 2 general stays. Owners of two shares
have the option to book stays up to 28 nights. In off-season periods,
owners also have the option to extend the length of their stay.
X CAN I BOOK SACK -TO -BACK STAYS?
No. To ensure ongoing access for all owners, the period between your
arrival date and your prior departure must be equal to or greater than the
number of nights of your last stay.
12-56
jut Pier_Pier U-4�
Central Newport Beach Community Association
PO Box 884 • Newport Beach, CA • 92661-0884
www. MyNewportBeach.Org
The City of Newport Beach has never seen a commercial business come into single-family and multi-
family -zoned neighborhoods with the express goal of upending single- and multi -family ownership by
converting homes into 8 timeshare units. Unlike hotels where transient overnight traffic is permitted or
where permitted short-term rentals exist, the impact of having unpermitted, transient overnight traffic in
single- and multi -family neighborhoods will be profound and adverse.
/ The sense of neighborhood and community that prevails in single-family zoned areas will be
destroyed. Areas where neighbors know each other, take in each other's garbage cans, or collect
packages will be replaced by a rotating cast of unrelated people with no connection to the
neighborhood.
This change will be permanent, as once homes are converted into 8 timeshares, the likelihood
that they will ever revert to historic single-family homeownership is all but eliminated as it would
take persuading all 8 entities to sell.
/ Home utilization will create occupancy patterns that are prohibited in Single -Family zoned areas
as Pacaso homes will change occupancy as often as they wish (e.g., up to 3 times per week):
Without a Short -Term Lodging Permit, stays for less than 30 days are prohibited. Per the Pacaso
website, the maximum continuous stay in a Pacaso for a 1/8 share owner is capped at 14
days and back-to-back stays are prohibited. One -eighth (1/8) share owners are allowed to book 6
stays and any stay greater than 7 days counts as two stays, encouraging 2- to 7-day stays.
To further illustrate how dissimilar the Pacaso Model is from single-family homeowners, Pacaso owners
do not store personal items inside the home. They are provided storage units. Garages will
accommodate the required eight (8) storage units, making the garage unusable for parking, and placing
an increased demand on street parking.
Anyone who has participated in shared property management, via a Homeowners Association (HOA) or
similar mechanism, understands this model can be very difficult. Each Pacaso property will be its own
"HOA." Pacaso's assertion that they will provide professional management is illusory. Per the Pacaso
website, Pacaso can be terminated as the property manager and "the owner group can ... self -
manage the property." It is not hard to imagine reasons to terminate Pacaso (e.g., poor performance, an
effort to save management fees, etc.) with the resulting potential downside of eight (8), unrelated owners
having to agree on upkeep, maintenance, and repairs —leading to poorly maintained properties with no
single, responsible entity required to implement solutions. Imagine broad swaths of Newport Beach
neighborhoods with such properties.
In §21.48.025 — Visitor Accommodations of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 21.48 — Standards
for Specific Land Uses, it states, "If the review authority determines that the development will impact lower
cost visitor -serving accommodations, or provide only high or moderate cost visitor accommodations, or
limited use overnight visitor accommodations such as timeshares, fractional ownership and condominium -
hotels, then mitigation commensurate with the impact shall be provided..."
12-57
jut Pier_Pier U-4�
Central Newport Beach Community Association
PO Box 884 • Newport Beach, CA • 92661-0884
www. MyNewportBeach.Org
Ordinance No. 2020-15—An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California,
Amending Section 3.16.060 and Chapter 5.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Relating to Short
Term Lodging —details the adverse impacts that short-term lodging and limited use overnight
accommodations, including:
City streets and services are burdened with an increased demand on parking, sewage, and
refuse facilities, paramedics, and police services (responding to complaints of noise disturbances,
disorderly conduct, and other illegal activity).
Permanent residents and long-term tenants' peace, safety, and general welfare are negatively
impacted with increased noise, traffic, refuse, and demand for parking resulting from short-term
lodging by a variety of occupants.
Destroying the quality and residential character of the City's existing single family and multi -family
homes.
The increase in demand for City services resulting from timeshare/fractional homeownership overburdens
and threatens the City's ability to provide necessary services to long-term residents. By creating its own
definition/business model, Pacaso and similar organizations have developed an alternative expression for
timeshare ownership. This type of ownership is already banned by the City. Also, unless the operating
agreement states unequivocally that each one -eighth owner must use his/her 44 days consecutively, the
City's regulations on Short -Term Rentals is being circumvented (i.e., securing short-term lodging permits,
fulfilling the requirements of the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance, etc.).
Potential rental income
A fractionally owned property can be rented cut either as a short-term or long-term
rental if the ownership agreement allows it. Depending on the terms of the agreement, all
owners may earn a share in the proceeds of rental income.
In Newport Beach, timeshares are prohibited. We think the City of Newport Beach wisely made this
zoning decision, because timeshares are an incompatible use within our neighborhoods. We believe that
the Pacaso Model is prohibited by code and request that the City of Newport Beach take action to prevent
further violations by Pacaso and similar businesses that seek to create timeshare -type businesses/
activities in areas where they are prohibited by the City's zoning ordinances.
As the City of Newport Beach performs its analysis, CNBCA and our 300+ members encourage the City
to remember why single-family and multi -family zoning exists and why the City limited the number of
Short -Term Lodging Permits. We request that the City of Newport Beach not allow uses that are
inconsistent with the zoning intent and current short-term lodging ordinances.
Given the foregoing ordinances and municipal codes, fractional homeownership should be banned since
it is just an alternate expression for timeshare ownership. The property manager or owners of each
existing property should be subject to securing short-term lodging permits and fulfilling the requirements
of the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance. Until short-term lodging permits can be secured
(there is already a wait list), each one -eighth owner should be informed of the requirement to occupy the
property for no less than 30 days to comply with our City's codes and ordinances.
12-58
,Pier -Pier
Central Newport Beach Community Association
PO Box 884 • Newport Beach, CA • 92661-0884
www. MyNewportBeach.Org
We thank City Staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council for its willingness to engage with the
residents on this topic. We believe if the City of Newport Beach does not take action to enforce our zoning
laws, codes, and ordinances to prevent this alternate timeshare ownership model from taking over our
neighborhoods, the sense of community will be irreparably harmed. The CNBCA Board and our members
are happy to engage further with you or others in the city government on this topic.
Respectfully,
CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Maureen Cotton
President
12-59
From: Jurjis, Seimone
Sent: February 24, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: Fractional Homeownership PC Meeting Follow-up
-----Original Message -----
From: Maureen Cotton <mcotton@integrated8a.com>
Sent: February 24, 2023 2:13 PM
To: Jurjis, Seimone <slurlis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional Homeownership PC Meeting Follow-up
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi Simone,
I wanted to thank you for taking time after last night's PC meeting to share some of CNBCA's concerns
about Fractional Homeownership and the Ad Hoc Committee Meetings . I really do appreciate all the
work that you and your staff are doing to try and address the former City Council's request, recognizing
that this request may be moot with the new City Council.
As discussed, City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee held seven (7) meetings, including two (2) meetings
with Pacaso. To my knowledge, none of the four largest community associations on the Peninsula and in
Corona Del Mar were invited to attend any of the seven meetings. This is incredibly disappointing since
the Peninsula and CDM are the most impacted by this issue.
I appreciate that you "know" that "none of the residents are in favor of Fractional Homeownership."
However, I think it is critical that City Staff actually "hear" from the residents and community
associations to form a less biased opinion (i.e., only hearing Pacaso's spin on what they are selling).
Since you "know" that "none of the residents are in favor of Fractional Homeownership," do you, as the
CDD Director, have a duty to communicate this to the City Council (who are elected by those same
residents) and to your staff (who may not live in the area)? These were your words not mine. It's rather
depressing to to think that the residents matter so little on such a big issue that affects quality of life,
sense of neighborhood, and our community.
Jim Mosher's comments on Item 6 were, as always, incredibly articulate, concise, and properly sourced.
Specifically, he states:
"In my view, timeshare arrangements, including ones achieved through "fractional ownership" of
homes, have long been banned in Newport Beach and continue to be banned except for the larger
timeshare developments that are allowed under limited circumstances in certain commercial districts."
It appears that Planning Commissioners, Sarah Klaustermeier and Curtis Ellmore, are strongly in favor of
broadening the definition of timeshares to include Fractional Homeownership. Mark Rosene is not
opposed to broadening the definition of timeshares to include Fractional Homeownership. By
broadening the definition of timeshares, the PC and CDD can utilize the current regulations that apply to
12-60
timeshares in the City of Newport Beach. In my opinion, making this recommendation to the City Council
is the right thing do.
Again, thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Maureen Cotton
President, Central Newport Beach Community Association
Cell: 714-981-4926
12-61
From: Jurjis, Seimone
Sent: February 25, 2023 3:31 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Feb 23 Discussion and Recommendations re
Fractional Ownership
From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com>
Date: February 25, 2023 at 2:39:18 PM PST
To: celimore@newportbeachca.gov, "Rosene, Mark" <mrose ne@newportbeachca.gov>,
sklaustermeire@newportbeachca.gov, Ilowery@newportbeachca.gov, "Harris, Tristan"
<THarris@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: "Jurjis, Seimone" <slurlis@newportbeachca.gov>, BOB YANT <byant@aol.com>, Russ Doll
<radoll@roadrunner.com>, Nancy Scarbrough <Nancy@nancvfornewport.com>,
SmartPearll@hotmail.com, ckrawson@att.net, Fred Levine <fredric.mark.levine@gmail.com>, CdMRA
<info@cdmra.org>, dho@obermanassociates.com
Subject: Planning Commission Feb 23 Discussion and Recommendations re Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Chair Ellmore, Vice Chair Rosene, Secretary Klaustermeier ,Commissioner Lowrey and Commissioner
Harris -
We would like to thank the Planning Commission and also City staff, for the work and discussion
surrounding the issue of Fractional Ownership/timeshare businesses.
We appreciate the efforts of the Planning Commission , and those of City staff to prepare
recommendations for the City Council for the upcoming March 14th meeting.
Staff made a Presentation at the February 23, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, which was not made
available to the public for review in advance of the February 23rd meeting, despite multiple requests to
staff.
We would appreciate the Commission's direction to Staff to forward this presentation to those who
requested it or otherwise make it publicly available for review.
The presentation was of concern to the residents that attended the Feb. 23rd meeting. It seemed to
suggest that Fractional Ownership businesses be characterized and regulated by the City as Short Term
Lodging —when they are clearly a form of Timeshare . Further, the approach to regulation suggested
herein would be of questionable feasibility and effectiveness .
The proposal by a Pacasso representative that the City adopt a cap of 500 Fractional Ownership units
allowed was absurd and disrespectful.
After thoughtful discussion, the Commission proposed the following position regarding
recommendations to City Council:
12-62
1. Broaden the Definition of Timeshare in the City's ordinances ( Fractional Ownership clearly form
of Timeshare )
2. Provide for public transparency, review and permitting process through Zoning Administrator,
including public hearing *
3. Do not allow in R-1 residential zones*
4. No recommendation made regarding a Cap on number of Fractional Ownership units
(* if Council, against residents' position and City ordinance prohibiting timeshares, insists on
allowing Fractional businesses with regulation)
We appreciated the Commission's ultimate summary of their position. This is responsive to the
residents' position that Fractional Ownership businesses should not be permitted in our
residential neighborhoods.
Also, we appreciate the Commissioners' guidance to the public that, ultimately, decisions reside
with the political body, eg. The City Council; . Therefore, residents should meet with and
express their position with Council representatives.
Our Leadership Committee is comprised of representatives from Penninsula Point, Central
Penninsula, West Newport, Newport Island, Balboa island, and Corona del Mar.
Thank you again for your time and care on this important subject.
Denys H. Oberman
Oceanfront resident and community leader
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
NOBERMAN
S1Ta1Qgy+ an-d 51narrCtol Advkson
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
19200 Von Karman Avenue, 61" Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
12-63
From: Jurjis, Seimone
Sent: February 27, 2023 8:15 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership
From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com>
Sent: February 26, 2023 7:00 AM
To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: BOB YANT <bvant@aol.com>; Lee Pearl <smartpearll@hotmail.com>; Russ Doll
<radoll@roadrunner.com>; Nancy Scarbrough <Nancv@nancvfornewport.com>
Subject: Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
We wish to confirm that the position of residents in the following communities is that Fractional
Ownership businesses are time share businesses, operating commercially in our residential
neighborhoods:
Penninsula Point
Central Penninsula
Balboa island
Newport Island
West Newport
Corona del Mar
Fractional Ownership/Timeshare is already banned under the City's current Timeshare ordinances.
Under any circumstance, Fractional Ownership businesses should NOT be permitted in Family
Residential zones--- To be clear, these include R1, R1 %, and R2 in our communities.
These are dense, family residential communities with strong ties to the community.
Fractional Ownership is not consistent with the City's General Plan.
Allowing Fractional Ownership timeshares will have an irrevocable adverse impact on our community.
Thank you for your consideration as you develop your recommendations to the City Council.
Denys Oberman
Resident and member of the Leadership Committee to address Fractional Ownership
12-64
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
flOBERMAN
SftcdWy ar}d Flr►orncwl Advksots
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
19200 Von Karman Avenue, 61h Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax (949) 752-8935
Email: dho(a-)obermanassociates. com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the
sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us
immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us.
12-65
Attachment D
February 23, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12-66
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2023
REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE— Secretary Klaustermeier
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner
Tristan Harris, Commissioner Lee Lowrey
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director
Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad
Sommers, Principal Planner Ben Zdeba, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner
David Lee, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Joselyn Perez, and
Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2023
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Secretary Klaustermeier and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the minutes of
the January 19, 2023, meeting with Mr. Mosher's edits.
AYES:
Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 THOMAS RESIDENCE (PA2022-0172)
Site Location: 700 West Ocean Front
Summary:
A coastal development permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 2,748-
square-foot three (3)-story single-family residence with an attached 532-square-foot two (2)-car garage.
Additionally, the applicant requests a variance to deviate from the following development standards of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code:
1. Rear Setback: Request for the first and second floor to encroach six (6) feet into the required 10-
foot rear setback and for the third -floor open deck and mechanical well to encroach 3 feet, 9
inches into the rear setback;
12-67
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
2. Third -Floor Stepback: Request to encroach six (6) feet into the required 15-foot third -floor
stepback, which is measured from the required 10-foot rear setback line; and
3. Floor Area: Request to increase the allowed gross floor area to 3,280, where the maximum floor
area limit is 3,128 square feet.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and the
exceptions to the class 3 exemption do not apply; and
3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-008 approving PA2022-0172 for a variance and coastal development
permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family
residence.
Assistant Planner Lee used a presentation to review the vicinity map in a R-1 Zone, project location, project
request, proposed project rendering and development features, variance request, lot re -orientation,
neighborhood comparison and compatibility photos, adequate separation, third floor stepback drawing, coastal
development permit, Coastal Land Use Plan, 7t" Street and boardwalk views and accesses, building articulation
rendering, conforming parking, summary of findings, and recommended action.
Commissioners reported no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Amy Creager of Brion Jeanette Architecture, accepted the conditions of approval and, in response to
Commissioner Harris' question, stated that the applicant has an agreement with 704 West Ocean Front to
disconnect the utilities under their house and relocate them into the side yard and the documents will be
completed before the building permit is pulled.
Jim Mosher referenced handwritten page 26 and thought that the variance is not justified for the reason that
the third -floor design is noncompliant with Title 20.
Assistant Planner Lee stated that the staircase is repeating up multiple floors and would cause a shift and is
considered a fact.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene's comment, Assistant Planner Lee noted a memo sent out two days ago to
correct the floor area in the resolution.
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Chair Ellmore to approve the item as recommended.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 3 SIT MEANS SIT FOR DOGS COMMERCIAL KENNEL (PA2022-132)
Site Location: 1662 Orchard Drive
Summary:
Page 2 of 10
12-68
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
A conditional use permit to establish an accessory commercial kennel operation in conjunction with an
existing single-family residence. The project includes construction of a new 1,000-square-foot garage and
storage structure; an approximately 833-square-foot kennel structure including 16 kennels, exterior grass
training area, grooming space, food preparation area, and restroom; and a new parking area with three
uncovered parking spaces including one accessible space. The project includes a lot merger of two
contiguous lots, 1662 Orchard Drive and the unaddressed adjacent parcel (APN 439 251 10).
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Section
15315 under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential
to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-009 approving PA2022-132 for a conditional use permit and lot merger
to establish a residential kennel.
Assistant Planner Whelan reviewed the property location, aerial map, proposal drawing, RK District and
surrounding uses map, noise analysis and mitigation efforts, operational characteristics, conditional use permit
(CUP) findings, project comparison with previous City approvals, lot merger findings, complaints and code -
related investigations for Riverside Drive, and recommended action.
Secretary Klaustermeier expressed concern for noise and, in response to her question, Assistant Planner
Whelan identified the proposed block wall on the site plan slide, noted the rear neighboring property on the RK
District and surrounding uses slide, and relayed that the kennels have rear doors that can be closed at night and
individual outdoor areas with noise barriers that block the adjacent residential neighbor, limited outdoor dog
hours, and the lot merger in the grass training area, ownership by the same property owner, and the reason for
merging.
Vice Chair Rosene noted an easement encroachment on the site plan and thought that the Condition of
Approval 31 is meant to pick this up when building permits are issued.
In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Assistant Planner Whelan noted three properties with CUPs
issued from the City and no history of demonstrated complaints.
Commissioners reported no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Cindy Hunt, owner, useda presentation to provide a background of Sit Mean Sit Dog Training, business focus
and model, photos of the parcel at purchase, staff, core values, a previously aggressive dog having gone
through their training, programming, and a training video and noted having incorporated neighbor feedback into
the planning. Furthermore, she agreed to the recommended conditions of approval.
In response to Secretary Klaustermeier's question, Ms. Hunt shared feedback received from the neighbors and
how it was incorporated into the business design.
In response to Commissioner Harris' inquiries, Ms. Hunt relayed that the dogs at the Newport Beach facility will
stay at that location, the facility is staffed 24 hours a day to address concerns, and her direct phone number was
shared with neighbors.
Mike Way, neighbor, noted neighborhood dog walking and the impact to the environment, driving, and parking,
asked to keep the property as residential and replace a current kennel instead of adding one, expressed concern
for parking capacity, and suggested a parking feasibility analysis with the current kennels.
Page 3 of 10
12-69
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
Jim Mosher questioned the use and intention of "should" versus "shall" in Condition of Approval 11.
Susan Doan relayed her experience living next to kennels and questioned the reality of Ms. Hunt's plan, her past
attendance at Planning Commission meetings to reject the kennels and complain, 16 kennels in the residential
zone, dog droppings, traffic, parking issues, mail being stolen, and yard uses.
Heidi Dill noted that the Huntington Beach location is in a commercial zone and suggested environmental
impacts from noise, smell, dog donations, daily traffic, and emissions, questioned if an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was completed, suggested studying emissions and dog donations, and expressed concern for
property value changes.
Ms. Hunt noted their pickup and drop off model, noise reduction training, and dog walking limited to the property
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated that staff recommends approval of the item and
would like to change the word "should" to "shall" in Condition of Approval 11 and noted the applicant's approach
to traffic and noise control lead staff to recommend approval of this application.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Lowrey's question, Assistant Planner Whelan was unaware of the land use history
In reply to Commissioner Harris' inquiries, Assistant Whelan noted that all the kennels not City permitted have
active kennel permits and are subject to inspections every two years by Animal Control, the City has no control
over the amount of dogs allowed, Animal Control responds to complaints, and new permits would be required if
remodeling thresholds are exceeded. Community Development Director Jurjis noted that residents are
encouraged to reach out to the City's code enforcement with complaints by filing a complaint online or phone.
Motion made by Commissioner Lowrey and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as
recommended.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 4 FLETCHER JONES AIRPORT SHUTTLE AND CAR WASH (PA2022-128)
Site Location: 2172, 2192, and 2222 South Bristol Street
Summary:
A conditional use permit and lot merger to renovate the existing Fletcher Jones Motorcars airport shuttle
facility and carwash facility. The project would replace an existing open car wash with a 4,293-square-foot
enclosed car wash with outdoor detailing bays and other site modifications. The project also requires the
approval of a lot merger to combine three parcels into a single building site. If approved and implemented,
Planning Director's Use Permit No. UP2005-009 (PA2005-037) would be superseded.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Section 15302 Class 2 (Replacement or
Reconstruction), and Section 15315 Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines,
because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-010 approving PA2022-128 approving the Lot Merger and Conditional
Use Permit.
Page 4 of 10
12-70
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
Assistant Planner Perez used a presentation to show a vicinity map, General Plan Land Use designation, Santa
Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP-7) Land Use Map, existing site conditions with photos, the proposed project and
site plan, required entitlements for the project, compatibility findings for the CUP, required findings for the lot
merger, conditions of approval, and recommendation. Furthermore, staff revised Condition of Approval 41 by
adding that repairs to damaged or broken curb or gutter will be at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
Commissioners reported no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Austin Hahn, applicant, stated he reviewed the conditions of approval and agreed to them along with the
modifications.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Assistant Planner Perez identified a nonconforming residential use
property in the business park land use designation and a residentially zoned property behind the project site
developed with a tennis court and private garage.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified the
last incoming and first incoming flight times at John Wayne Airport and thought a 10:00 p.m. closing time is
appropriate given the surrounding and existing zoning and surrounding uses. Vice Chair Rosene offered a
suggestion to allow for a later closing time to accommodate for later flights and if the owner would like to take
advantage of it.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Taylor Colemen, architect, agreed to pass along the closing time option to Fletcher Jones, stated that the
applicant would like to keep the car wash hours contained, and was amenable to the option of extended
business hours.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the item with an
amendment with the option to close at 10:00 p.m. instead of 9:00 p.m.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 5 BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT PLAN (PM-1)
IMPLEMENTATION (PA2017-046)
Site Location: Balboa Village, generally between Adams Street and A Street on the Balboa
Peninsula
Summary:
A coastal development permit to implement the City's Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay
District Plan (PM-1), which was approved by the California Coastal Commission on September 9, 2020,
and subsequently adopted by City Council on February 9, 2021. If approved, the PM-1 would primarily
preserve existing off-street parking, eliminate required off-street parking for most commercial uses, allow
parking reductions with a shared parking arrangement, and provide guidance for efficient use of the
existing parking supply within Balboa Village.
Page 5 of 10
12-71
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) and statutorily exempt under Sections 15262 and 15265
of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has not potential to have a significant effect on the
environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-011 approving the Coastal Development Permit filed as PA2017-046
Principal Planner Zdeba used a presentation to review the Balboa Village Parking Management District Plan
background, purpose, implementing components, coastal consistency, and recommendation.
Commissioners Rosene and Klaustermeier reported no ex parte communications and Commissioner Harris
and Lowrey reported having spoken with area property owners.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Jim Pertrulli asked if the parking on Adams Street will change and if his duplex spaces are included in the 161
spaces that will be more public.
Jim Mosher noted a spillover parking analysis not included for consideration of an anticipated problem, typo on
handwritten page 31 referring to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval when it is the Planning
Commission's approval, missing implementation specifics, Municipal Code, and incomplete pieces.
Principal Planner Zdeba stated that no changes are planned for parking on Adams Street and residential parking
garages are not included in the off-street parking pool that represents private commercial parking. Furthermore,
he relayed that Mr. Mosher was referencing a residential parking permit program, which was not supported by
the residents nor the CCC and thus not carried forward. He added that spillover parking impacts could happen if
the Village is successful and that they can be reviewed in the required two-year review period.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Harris' questions, Principal Planner Zdeba indicated that the code does not speak
to potential private parking being utilized to offset residential parking and would not be consistent with the
program intent. He noted that the plan has flexibility built-in to make changes and the Employee Parking Permit
program is intended to help divert the spillover.
Motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as
recommended.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 6 FRACTIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP (PA2022-0202)
Summary:
A discussion of potential regulation of fractional homeownership.
Recommended Action:
Page 6 of 10
12-72
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
Receive a presentation of the Planning Commission ad -hoc committee on fractional homeownership and
provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Community Development Director Jurjis explained that the City Council has passed this item to the Planning
Commission to work on, an Ad -Hoc Committee with Commissioner Lowrey and Vice Chair Rosene was
formed, the staff has spent an enormous amount of time on the item, the recommendation is the Ad -Hoc
Committee's idea of how to address fractional ownership, and the subject is difficult and not perfect. He asked
that the Planning Commission provide feedback which will be provided to the City Council on March 14 for
further review.
Principal Planner Murillo used a presentation to review what is fractional ownership, how it works, operations,
complaints/concerns, background of past City Council direction, the Planning Commission study session with
staff and Ad -Hoc Committee formation, and Ad -Hoc Committee considerations. He shared the recommendations
of the Ad -Hoc Committee which included a regulatory process, location restrictions and maximum caps, parking
requirements, noise restrictions, management plan, prohibition of subletting and guest use, Good Neighbor
Policy, owner acknowledgments, and grandfathering provisions. Principal Planner Murillo stated the
recommendation requested and displayed a summary of the recommendations of the Ad -Hoc Committee for
discussion purposes.
Chair Ellmore provided an opportunity for public comment.
Carmen Rawson thought that time shares cannot be regulated like Short -Term Lodging (STL), questioned how
regulations will be enforceable, asked for an update on what other City's are doing, noted the impacts, thought
the City's goal should be to have more residents, questioned removal of separation requirements, and the noted
the challenge of regulating subletting.
Jim Mosher noted the difference in stay times between fractional ownership homes and co -owned homes,
concern for regulating ownership, the applicability of the timeshare definition to fractional ownership, and
differences in ordinances enacted in Park City, UT that prohibit fractional ownership in most residential areas
except for where timeshares are allowed and Carmel where timeshares are banned in all residential areas, and
sale advertisements will be prohibited.
Maureen Cotton, President of Central Newport Beach Community Association, referenced Mr. Mosher's letter to
the Planning Commission dated yesterday as having clarified all the City needs to know, noted ordinances
already placed by the City, asked for timeshares and fractional ownership to be called the same, described stay
lengths, programming, and STL permit rules, asked the Planning Commission to review the letter from Mr.
Mosher and her, thought the fractional ownerships are acting like timeshares and should be limited to where they
are allowed in the City, and relayed the burden to City services.
Denise Oberman asked for the presentation to be made available to the public and a reasonable opportunity to
provide input, provided background information on fractional ownership companies and thought the corporate set
up is not comparable to families forming a LLC for trust reasons, strongly opposed permitting commercial entities
engaged in the business of fractional ownership and timeshare activity in residential neighborhoods, questioned
if fractional ownership falls in the purview of timeshare ordinances and legal framework, believed that fractional
ownership structures are not STL, noted impacts to the community, and suggested fractional ownership is a
fundamental change in land use plans.
Max H. Johnson requested the clarification and specification of the agenda item be available before the meeting,
seconded that fractional ownership is a timeshare and not allowed in the City of Newport, noted the urgency to
ban or enaction of a moratorium on fractional ownership in other cities with no legal repercussions, urged the
Planning Commission to consider placing a moratorium or ban and using a buffer/pause until a decision is made,
and relayed the quality of life in the Peninsula Point.
Nancy Scarbrough noted her frustration for not having information in advance of the meeting, supported
comments by Jim Mosher and Carmen Rosen, noted a 30 percent Picasso staff reduction in the fourth quarter
and 100 employees fired recently, stated that fractional ownership homes are permanently out of the residential
Page 7 of 10
12-73
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
housing stock and overvalued, and thought the focus of the discussion should be on what is best for the
residents, stepping back, enacting a moratorium, conducting a thorough study of other cities, and seeking a
second legal opinion.
Ken Rawson inquired about why the Ad -Hoc Committee is recommending regulating fractional ownership and
expressed concern for regulation details and limits to the number of fractional ownership homes.
Purvi Doshi, Senior Public Affairs Manager for Pacaso, thanked the staff and Planning Commission
subcommittee, expressed gratitude for working collaboratively, and expressed hope to move forward with
policies that address the City's concerns and enrich lives, noted a regulations draft prepared by Pacaso that
addresses concerns, supported the recommendations presented, recommended a cap of about 500 fractional
ownership homes City-wide, relayed the differences of a Pacaso home versus a timeshare, and described the
characteristics of a fractional owner.
Gina Cruz supported the other speakers and expressed her astonishment at the proposed 500 fractional
ownership cap.
Chair Ellmore ended the opportunity for public comment.
Chair Ellmore recapped what is being requested of the Planning Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill suggested a permit suspension penalty to address enforcement issues and
using the co-owner permit and acknowledgements to verify who is on the property and address subletting
issues.
In response to Chair Ellmore's inquires, Principal Planner Murillo indicated that there is no data on police
department complaints at Pacaso properties, Community Development Director Jurjis shared one complaint to
code enforcement that was quickly resolved. Chair Ellmore stated that a party atmosphere does not seem to be
apparent with 12 fractional ownership properties and one complaint.
Vice Chair Rosene suggested to the public that the opportunity still exists to reach out to the new Council to
recommend broadening the definition of timeshares and include fractional ownership under it. He stated this
action is not in the purview of this body and supported the inclusion of a public hearing process by the Zoning
Administrator (ZA) for complete transparency, adding a management permit, prohibiting fractional ownership in a
R-1 zone, and meeting the guidelines of the City codes.
Commissioner Lowrey thanked staff for their help, recapped what is being asked of the Planning Commission
and the goal of creating regulations that a lot of people could agree on. He noted his issues of ownership and
contract law, legal challenges in the State, and a fair recommendation to forward to the City Council as a starting
point that could return to the Planning Commission for a full resolution. Community Development Director Jurjis
indicated that the current recommendation of a regulatory framework would be included in the business
license side so it will not come back to the Planning Commission, but will depend on how the Council looks
at it.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill relayed that the St. Helena case is pending, and the trial date has been
pushed out to January 2024.
Vice Chair Rosene relayed that the recommendation is an attempt to come up with practical regulation and
provide visibility to what's happening in the neighborhoods and does not mean it is the only option. He noted the
option to broaden the timeshare definition with the City Council.
Secretary Klaustermeier thought fractional ownership sounds like a timeshare framed differently, is a business
model that commercializes residential neighborhoods with a profit taken through sales and operates like STL
which is capped in the City. She concurred with Vice Chair Rosene regarding the opportunity for the City Council
to revise the way timeshare is defined and preferred not permitting this use and legally find a way to make that
happen.
Page 8 of 10
12-74
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
In response to Commissioner Harris' inquires, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that Carmel by the
Sea tweaked and expanded their timeshare definition to capture fractional ownership, which is the equivalent to
a ban, the ordinance is just now taking effect, she is not aware of a lawsuit on the case, and they prohibited the
advertisement by realtors of the units. Furthermore, she is aware of cease and desist instances, but does not
know the enforcement efforts in the jurisdictions.
Commissioner Harris was curious about the process with homeowners and companies and buffer zones, did not
know how the City could enforce permit suspension restrictions and regulations, thought punitive or financial
consequences made sense, and inquired about possible restricted areas and a cap number.
Commissioner Lowrey explained that the Committee chose a cap method because it would be difficult to enforce
spacing and a cap limit was more appropriate. He predicted a slowdown in sales with the rates changes over the
last six to seven months.
In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Community Development Director Jurjis stated that the
recommendation is a starting point of what enforcement could look like, consists of parts taken from the STL
policy, and plans for enforcement like STL.
Vice Chair Rosene restated his recommendations:
1- Consider the option to broaden the definition of timeshare.
2- Transparency for neighbors is needed with a regulatory process and permitted through the public ZA
process for the property and co-owner permit. (A management company must be maintained)
3- Prohibit fractional ownership in the R-1 Zone.
4- Add practical regulations that create a good neighbor atmosphere.
5- Add language that suspends a permit after a certain number of complaints.
6- Explore an advertisement prohibition.
Vice Chair Rosene thanked staff.
Chair Ellmore proceeded with establishing a consensus of the Planning Commission for a recommendation. He
confirmed the Planning Commission can recommend that the City Councill broaden the definition of timeshare.
In response to Chair Ellmore, Vice Chair Rosene thought permit suspensions should be placed in the
recommendation and discretion should be given to staff for review.
In response to Commissioner Lowrey's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill thought transparency can
be created through a regulatory permit but is not sure if it would be through the ZA if the direction provided is to
use a regulatory permit. The Commission agreed not using the ZA, but recommended some transparency be
provided to the neighbors through the permit process.
Chair Ellmore recommended the the Council further evaluate the idea of not allowing fractional ownership in the
R-1 Zone.
The Commission discussed a reasonable cap limit and agreed to forward it to the City Council to address.
In response to Commissioner Lowrey's question, Chair Ellmore clarified that the recommendation includes
reviewing the timeshare definition to see if by broadening it, fractional ownership can be incorporated.
Summary:
A discussion of planning application appeal fees and a recommendation to the Finance Committee and
City Council.
Recommended Action:
Page 9 of 10
12-75
IX.
X.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
Find any recommendation to the City Council regarding planning application appeal fees is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2)
(the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(C)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential
for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
2. Recommend the City Council modify the Chapter 3.36 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to
refund appeal fees for successful planning application appeals.
Chad Ellmore asked for feedback from the Planning Commission on the item and none was received.
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the item as
recommended.
AYES:
Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 8 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO.9 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS
WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell announced the Planning Commission next meeting on
March 9 and four items scheduled.
ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
Commissioner Harris requested an excused absence on March 9 and Chair Ellmore on a date to be determined
pending the birth of a child.
ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Page 10 of 10
12-76
ATTACHMENT E
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Opposition ro Fractional Home Ownershipip
Date: March 06, 2023 7:13:29 PM
From: Mary Allyn Dexter <maryallyn.dexter@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:13:05 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Opposition ro Fractional Home Ownershipip
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
• FHO meets the definition of a timeshare, which is already prohibited by
code in residential neighborhoods.
• Fractional owners come to play ... the City already has -1 ,600 Short -Term
Rentals with renters who come to play.
• FHO should be included in the City's ordinances on Timeshare
Ownership --which is only allowed in Commercial Zones. This is what the
City Council directed the Planning Commission to do on September 27,
2022.
• The Planning Department has yet to do as they were directed by the City
Council on Sept 27, 2022.
• FHO should be PROHIBITED in Residential (Rl and 112) zoning districts
within the City of Newport Beach.
Mary Allyn ad Earl Dexter
1132 West Bay Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92661
949-675-2272
12-77
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: No fractional ownership in Newport
Date: March 06, 2023 9:54:31 PM
From: Mark Callin <mark.callin@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:54:10 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: No fractional ownership in Newport
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please put a stop to fractional ownership. It is ruining our community.
No no no
Mark
Owner
1112 W Bay Ave
12-78
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership
Date: March 07, 2023 11:46:00 AM
From: tomiovenitti@gmail.com <tomiovenitti@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:45:49 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: 'Maureen Cotton' <maureen@mynewportbeach.org>
Subject: Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
City Clerk/City of Newport Beach
I am emailing the City Clerk's office to express my opposition to Fractional
Ownership being proposed in the Newport Beach communities. In
accordance with the already rules of ownership, the proposal to allow
multiple families to cooperate in as littles as 12.5% of R1 and R2 zoning
areas in fractional ways impacts zoning laws creating wild creative
ownership opportunities for profit in a tenant/condominium/R4 Multi
Family or even greater R-zoning density application. It might as well be
proposed as a modified condominium, no subdivision or required reports
along with no HOA. It is allowing a stock cooperative into a very dense,
already confined set back between properties. I am against it as a home
owner and against it from a practical and value situation impacting my
property and the properties surrounding these proposed percentage splits.
Numerous oppositions facts are being distributed to the City Clerk's office
from concerned homeowners and in accordance with those opposition
remarks I will reiterate the following below. The City should focus on the
following:
FHO should be included in the City's ordinances on Timeshare
Ownership --which is only allowed in Commercial Zones. This is what
the City Council directed the Planning Commission to do on
September 27, 2022. The Planning Department has yet to do as they
were directed by the City Council on Sept 27, 2022. FHO should be
PROHIBITED in Residential (111 and R2) zoning districts within the
City of Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
Tom Iovenitti
1425 W Bay Ave,
12-79
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Oppose Fractional Ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 7:40:35 AM
From: Steve Gilbert <stevegilbert208@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 7:38 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Oppose Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting on March 14
I oppose fractional ownership in Newport Beach.
Steve Gilbert
208 Apolena Ave
12-80
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Opposing Fractional Ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 8:03:04 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Lauri Root <lauriroot@me.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 7:54 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Opposing Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Counsel,
As a homeowner on Balboa Island, this form of ownership is not welcomed. I oppose this. It increases parking
issues along with not having same consistent owner / resident damages the neighborhood well being. I prefer having
relationships with my neighbors, being known and watching out for one another. I don't want a revolving door as
my next door neighbor.
Thank you for taking my opinion into account. I love Newport Beach & Balboa Island. It's a lovely charming
community because of the people that live here and those that represent our well being.
Sincerely,
Laura Root
115 Amethyst Avenue
Sent from my iPhone
12-81
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership"s
Date: March 08, 2023 8:22:20 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Annette Giermann <balboalover@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 8:20 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional Ownership's
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Newport Beach City Council,
Please vote NO on allowing Fractional Owners' in Newport Beach. More laws need to be in place before these are
considered.
Would you want a Fractional Ownership next door to you and your family?
Thanks,
Annette Giermann
1609 Balboa Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92662
12-82
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: We oppose Fractional Ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 8:24:09 AM
From: Jennifer Hofer <cdmhofer@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 8:24 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: We oppose Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Balboa Island is so special and unique, that is why everyone wants to visit and live here. Let's keep
it that way, please.
Single owners, not multiple/fractional owners, are the ones who tend the flowers, put out seasonal
decorations and make these homes so one -of -a -kind.
I live between two owners who do Air B&B, and they tend to their homes as if they were their own
babies. 3 or 4 owners would not care as much, and it seems the home would be a party house to
run into the ground.
Homeowners
Harold and Jen Hofer
218 Onyx Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92662
12-83
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 8:35:19 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Maggie Brown <mkbrownl 14@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 8:34 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
We are homeowners on Little Island. We definitely OPPOSE fractional ownership.... noise and lack of parking is bad
enough already on Balboa Island!
Sent from my iPhone
12-84
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: 203 Diamond Ave
Date: March 08, 2023 8:39:50 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Murray Lobel <MLobel@LobelFinancial.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 8:36 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 203 Diamond Ave
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Council
I want to voice my opinion to
OPPOSE fractional ownership on the island. This move could further compound the the island's parking issues, as
well as decay it as a peaceful place to visit and ultimately affect the property values.
Let's keep the island a sacred place for all of those that have lived here for many years and for those who follow us
Thank you
Murray Lobel
Sent from my iPhone
LOBEL FINANCIAL PRIVACY NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential company information
that is protected by federal law. Federal regulations prohibit the disclosure (or re -disclosure) of confidential
information without the written consent of the person(s) to whom it pertains. Additionally, the views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
12-85
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: I am opposed to fractional ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 8:56:59 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Shawn L Walters <shawnlwalters@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 8:52 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: I am opposed to fractional ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I grew up on Balboa Island, my parents have lived here since 1969. I've recently moved back to Balboa Island full-
time. I am strongly opposed to fractional ownership for the following reasons:
1) it dilutes the magic of the Balboa Island neighborhood where we all know each other and have strong, supportive,
decades -long relationships with our neighbors.
2) it dilutes the "pride of ownership," and commitment to the island —multiple owners simply using the property as
a party house or short term vacation spot means less caring for property, sharing resources/learning from neighbors,
minimal/no involvement in community improvement...
3) it increases likelihood of noise/parking issues as the house is always a party/vacation place, vs those of us living,
working in our daily lives.
4) ultimately, it dilutes the value of our properties as the more the island loses its charm and special
family/generational space and instead becomes short-term vacation spot, the less attractive it will be for new
families.
I ask you to please prohibit fractional ownership to continue in our market.
Thank you,
Shawn Walters
324 Onyx Ave
NB, CA 92662
12-86
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 9:04:12 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Richard Cholakian <rcholak@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: March 08, 2023 9:03 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
From: Rich Cholakian
113 Ruby Avenue
Sorry but I will not be able to attend the meeting on March 14th.
I am opposed to this fractional ownership idea.
I have been on the island since 1985.
Anyone who truly loves the island has to very upset about this concept.
Right now houses are rented out.
They bring 2-6 cars, and not all but but probably half really have no regard for the residents.
I could go.
Rich Cholakian
Sent from my iPad
12-87
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional home ownership.
Date: March 08, 2023 9:35:04 AM
From: Davies, John <jbdavies@financialguide.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional home ownership.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
1 understand that there will be an upcoming vote for fractional Home
ownership.
1 strongly oppose fractional ownership. Currently we have high density of
homes on Balboa Island, difficult parking and the Air B & B brings in a
flood of people which could be increased dramatically if fractional
ownership is passed.
Please vote against this fractional ownership.
Best wishes,
John
John B. Davies CLU, ChFC
112 Opal Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92662
413-572-1077-0
413-237-7333-C
413-572-0089-F
Calif Insurance License # OC85673
This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged and/or confidential
and is intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's designees is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or their designee, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies
12-88
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 9:35:15 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Jill Hinman <jillhinman@mac.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear city council members,
My husband and I have owned property on Balboa Island since 1975. We greatly oppose the idea of opening up
Newport Beach and/or Balboa island to fractional ownership. Please do not allow this to happen in our community.
Thank you very much.
Frank and Jill Hinman
Sent from my iPhone
12-89
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 9:48:24 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: LINDA UPHOFF <ouphoff@aol.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 7:59 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Tony Uphoff <tuphoff@gmail.com>
Subject: Fractional ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
To whom it may concern. My husband and I are full time Balboa Island resident. We have owned our home on
Amethyst just over a year and specifically looked for a block with no obvious vacation rentals. We want to be part
of a community. A real neighborhood where we are friends with our neighbors and enjoy a strong sense of
community.
Fractional ownership is the exact opposite of that.
We strongly oppose turning our homes into mini hotels and money making operations. We want a neighborhood.
Please vote against fractional homes coming to Newport Beach.
Linda Uphoff
Sent from my iPhone
12-90
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 10:47:45 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Wolensky <janetwolensky@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 10:47 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
City Council,
We live on Garnet Ave and are current frustrated with the number of short term rentals on our street. Parking and
noise is a constant issue. Our street has lost it's neighborhood feel.
We are not in favor of fractional house ownership and would actually REALLY the short term rentals to be more
limited. We have lived here over 20 years and the island has become less charming.
Thank you, Jan Wolensky
Sent from my iPad
12-91
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: We Oppose Fractional Ownership Interest in Newport Beach
Date: March 08, 2023 11:18:25 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: joelle martin <joellemartin311@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 11:14 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: We Oppose Fractional Ownership Interest in Newport Beach
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am writing to advise you we OPPOSE fractional ownership in Newport Beach. We live on Balboa Island and have
a Picasso fractional interest ownership home 3 doors down from our home on the Grand Canal.
Living on Balboa Island we are accustomed to short term rentals. We live here full time, and have for the last 9
years, so we see it all, all times of year.
Our issue with the fractional ownership business model is not the numerous people coming and going in vacation
mode, after all we are blessed to live "on vacation", but the more significant problem is that it will drive up the
prices of the homes, further making it very difficult for the current residents to be able to afford to move within our
community, or for our kids to ever be able to afford to live in the community they grew up in. One family trying to
purchase a home cannot compete with eight families contributing to the purchase of 1 home.
Commercializing our residential community is akin to the companies who have gone into cities across the country
and purchased significant numbers of single family homes and then turn around and rent them out. Local residents
are no longer able to purchase a home for themselves as the prices have increased significantly with the companies'
buying power driving up prices.
Commercial investors should be prevented from being able to take over Newport Beach's single family home
communities all for their own profits. We are better than that. Let's not let this issue fall through the cracks,
Newport Beach is a special place, let's keep it that way.
Thank you,
Joelle and Jim Martin
12-92
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 11:28:40 AM
From: Bohnie <bohnie@earthlink.net>
Sent: March 08, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: smartpearll@hotmail.com; fullfender32@aol.com
Subject: Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I live in Los Angeles and own a home located at 304 Sapphire Ave., Balboa Island. I wish I could
attend the meeting on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 concerning Fractional Ownership in Newport Beach.
I would like you to know for the record that I oppose fractional ownership in Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
Bohnie Avanzino
450 Canyon Vista Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90065
12-93
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional owner ship
Date: March 08, 2023 1:36:35 PM
From: Laurie Hoagland <hoagland107@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 1:36 PM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional owner ship
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
No on fractional owner ship. The long time, full time residents need to be considered. Laurie
Hoagland 107 Ruby Avenue Balboa Island
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
12-94
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 1:33:46 PM
From: Suzy McLaughlin <soozi43@sbcgloba1.net>
Sent: March 08, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
I am writing today to plead with you not to allow Pacaso or any fractional ownership to
take hold on Balboa Island. This kind of ownership degrades our residential
character. Pacaso can call it whatever they wish, but ultimately it is a timeshare
situation and doesn't belong here. It does not fit the history, culture or quaintness of
all that is Balboa Island. This is not Miami.
As I'm sure you've all done your research, you know this has been a disaster for the
Sonoma wine country and they are still fighting to get these banned.
It is also a turn off for potential home buyers if they want to actually live here. I
wouldn't want to invest several million dollars for a home next door to a Pacaso home.
Please don't allow this to be a part of Balboa Island.
Thank you,
Suzy McLaughlin
Balboa Island Homeowner since 1966
12-95
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: vote
Date: March 08, 2023 2:05:19 PM
-----Original Message -----
From: Connie Scolinos <conniescolinos@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: vote
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
To whom it may concern,
This email is to vote opposting the Fractional Housing on Balboa Island.
Thank you,
Constance Scolinos
310 Coral Ave
Balboa Island, CA
12-96
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Strongly oppose fractional ownership for Newport Beach
Date: March 08, 2023 4:11:12 PM
From: Dennis Bress Sr. <dbress@ozglobalsoftware.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 4:10 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc:'SOL DJAMILA DE LEON' <sdeleon@ozglobalsoftware.com>
Subject: Strongly oppose fractional ownership for Newport Beach
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
We have four Airbnb homes on our block which cause parking shortage, noise and increased traffic.
Please do not approve fractional ownership.
Best regards,
Dennis Bress
OZ Global Software, Inc.
124 Opal Ave, Newport Beach, CA 92662
Phone: 949-723-0644
Email: dbress(@ozelobalsoftware.com
Skype ID: ozglobal
www.ozglobalsoftware.com
12-97
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 4:45:44 PM
-----Original Message -----
From: Les Barkley <les.barkley@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 4:45 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I would like to inform our City Council of my strong opposition to fractional ownership in Newport Beach.
Les Barkley
107 Coral Ave
92662
Sent from my iPhone
12-98
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership
Date: March 08, 2023 4:36:20 PM
-----Original Message -----
From: kewhite546@gmail.com <kewhite546@gmail.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 4:35 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fractional Ownership
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
A resounding NO on the subject of fractional ownership on Balboa Island!!!
Kathy White
302 Sapphire Ave
Sent from my iPhone
12-99
From: Rieff, Kim
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: No Fractional Homes in NB
Date: March 08, 2023 4:21:12 PM
From: Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com>
Sent: March 08, 2023 4:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Mark & Melissa Markof <msm619@ymail.com>; drs6080@gmail.com; Bud Reveley
<budreveley@gmail.com>; Mike Veal <mike@gold coastglass.com>; Larry Leifer
<lawrelei@gmail.com>; newportislandjim@gmail.com; Gary Cruz <gdcruz1949@outlook.com>
Subject: No Fractional Homes in NB
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Honorable City Council,
A big no on any form of fractional housing! It will be like having unregulated short term
rentals all over again. On going disruption with commercial businesses in any neighborhood is
unacceptable. Disruption is disruption and it never goes away once allowed into any
neighborhood and enforcement will not work.
Scott McFetters
12-100