The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 - Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional Homeownership (PA2022-0202) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Fred <maryfredd@cox.net> Sent: March 09, 2023 8:47 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Balboa Island Fractional Ownerships [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Honorable City Council Members, I oppose the fractional ownerships of Balboa Island Properties. Many problems have occurred with these properties in other locations. Please preserve the privacy and residential quality of the Island. Please vote against the proposed fractional ownership. Sincerely, Mary Dahm Owner 226 Collins Ave Balboa Island Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Carol Anne Econn <econn@earthlink.net> Sent: March 09, 2023 2:00 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Carol Econn <econn@earthlink.net> Subject: BALBOA ISLAND HOMEOWNER OPPOSING FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP IN NEWPORT BEACH! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sirs and Madams, I can't imagine the chaos caused to our community or especially the Island with residences rented as a result of fractional ownership! I am taking care of family this week in Northern California and cannot attend the March 14th City Council meeting to voice my objection in person. Please, please, oppose this proposal. Carol Anne Econn Owner, 222 Collins Ave. Balboa Island, CA 92662 626 833-0872 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: LYNN LORENZ <Ivnnierlo(@aol.com> Sent: March 08, 2023 6:42 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil(@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Homes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: City Council Members From: Lynn Lorenz, Resident Newport Heights It is hard to engage thoughtfully in city issues after one's disenchantment with the politics of the last election. We need to feel respect for our city government for it to be effective. That requires confidence in their ability to lead and make good decisions that are beneficial to the city as a whole. Having said that, it has come to my attention that the big issue that our city government is having a hard time resolving is the fractional home issue. First I find it hard to understand why OUR City is so fearful of litigation over this issue because it has been brought to my attention that many cities have banned fractional homes or put a moratorium on them. During the time that the city has been dragging its feet, the number of fractional homes has increased by 7. This is a very divisive issue because I am assuming that these homes are cropping up in certain areas and not in others. First of all, the issue divides us because those who live in areas where these homes are not going to exist, for the most part, cannot properly relate to the problem. It does not seem fair that only certain parts of Newport Beach should bear the burden. If they are allowed in beachside areas, they should be allowed in all areas, including Big Canyon, Cameo Shores and Newport Coast. In other words, the whole city must unite behind this issue. Shared ownership property invites « vacation type behavior »: lots of noise, partying, and late hours -behavior that is not conducive to acquiring a sense of community in a neighborhood. It is not illogical to think that the behavior of people when they are in a fractional home will not be like their behavior in their own community. The easiest solution of all is to consider the fractional homes as timeshares and prohibit them. SINCERELY, Lynn Lorenz Newport Heights 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Loc Waters <loc@le-waters.com> Sent: March 09, 2023 3:03 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Sue Ellen Ellen <sueellenwaters@gmail.com>; 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, On the subject of "Fractional Ownership". We are vehemently OPPOSED. Corporations of any size will destroy the very fabric of what makes NPB and Balboa Island the quintessential and unique place that it is. We have been residents all of our lives and would abhor any efforts to render the quality of life we enjoy and pay for, moot for profit. The revenue from the resulting "flipping" would be short sighted and in the end not worth the denigration of the area. At some point there will diminishing returns as it will be less desirable due to over crowding. There's enough of that all ready. Thank you for considering theses thoughts. Sue Ellen & Laughlin Waters 131 Agate Ave Balboa Island Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: jeff kimball <jeffdkimball@gmail.com> Sent: March 09, 2023 4:11 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 Newport City Council, I live at 1102 South Bayfront and appreciate the quaint environment that is Balboa Island. I hope you will help preserve that legacy and deny fractional ownership on the island. Thank you, Jeff Kimball Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Michele Lovenduski <mloven4u@gmail.com> Sent: March 09, 2023 12:55 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Ownership Issue [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please vote no on the issue of fractional ownership involving more than two parties. The current proposal of 8 owners invites many problems into our already crowded Balboa Island. Thank you for your time. Michele Lovenduski Topaz Ave. Owner Balboa Island Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: some stuff <guincal6@gmail.com> Sent: March 10, 2023 7:46 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. I am unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday so that I can LOUDLY object in person to this concept. We have lived here for many years and the only issues start and end with renters or part time neighbors. Please vote NO! D Tustin 92625 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Larry Leifer <lawrelei@gmail.com> Sent: March 09, 2023 11:39 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Newport Island <newportisland@groups.outlook.com>; Jim Miller <newportislandjim@gmail.com> Subject: Fractional Ownerships in Residential Areas [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We bought our home 35 years ago to enjoy living in a residential area of Newport Beach which includes single family and duplex properties. We chose not to live in commercial or summer/winter rental areas because we valued the quiet enjoyment of a family oriented neighborhood. The persistent attempts to infiltrate family neighborhoods by converting residential properties to commercial enterprises violates the very nature of residential life. Those proponents of fractional ownership, timeshares and short term rentals derive financial gain at the expense of those residents who bear the disruptive and unpleasant consequences while they are safely protected in their private enclaves elsewhere. We are adamantly opposed to any propagation of timeshares in Newport Beach and ask that you, our council members, reject any effort to allow them. Lawrence and Susan Leifer I Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Mary Ker <marycker@me.com> Sent: March 09, 2023 9:29 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional property ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I want to let you know how fractional ownership can ruin a neighborhood. I personally faced this problem at my home in the town of Sonoma where I spent many idyllic years. Then Picasa came along. The co -owners fight amongst themselves and they are NOT neighborly!! It's a constant headache in every way. Co -ownership is the end of your peaceful life. Airbnb is one thing. It can be difficult enough to get along with so many cars from time to time. And the parties! And the trash in the street. Please don't let this happen here. I moved back here to get some peace. I can't help but think this would be the worst case scenario. Sent from Mary Ker 210 Coral Balboa Island March 9, 2023 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Krystal Barkate <kcbarkate(@gmail.com> Sent: March 09, 2023 9:16 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil(@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NO FRACTIONAL OWENERSHIP [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please vote against allowing Fractional Ownership and preserve the community and character of Balboa Island. Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: meggale <meggale@aol.com> Sent: March 09, 2023 1:25 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Strongly opposed to fractional ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have owned a home on Balboa Island since 1997 and this may be the worst idea ever to come before the city council. It will destroy communities and neighborhoods for no good reason. Do not allow it! Do not even consider allowing it! There is already far too much corporate ownership of residential property in Newport Beach. Mary Ellen Gale 316 Amethyst Ave. Newport Beach CA 92662 Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: nancy gardner <naardner636(agmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 9:10:47 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil(a)newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk(&newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Homeownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members: I hope you will support the Planning Commission's preferred option on this issue. I refer you to Tom Johnson's comments in today's StuNews which nicely sums up the issues. RESPONSE TO "PACASO EXECS" LETTER TO THE EDITOR In his Stu News Newport Letter to the Editor (March 10, 2023), "Pacaso Exec" Mr. Joe Maehler basically says "Jump, I'll catch you." No worries, the letter in effect promises. Mr. Maehler states "Pacaso owners have a significant vested interest in both the home and the community ...." He adds "Pacaso owners are responsible families that abide by local ordinances and are committed to being good neighbors ...." Mr. Maehler further assures us that his family is "heavily" involved in local sports and "spends a lot of time in local parks and beaches." (It is unclear whether Mr. Maehler's home is fractionally owned, but presumably not.) In my view, Mr. Maehler's lofty praise and unconditional assurances of Pacaso owners and his family's civic involvement does not necessarily qualify as license for a well -funded, dressed up timeshare operator to disrupt the peace and quality of life for which our villages are renowned. Here's a different take from Mr. Maehler's, adapted in part and revised from a past letter we provided to Stu News Newport. Unless you grew up in Newport, do you remember the feeling of unbridled excitement when you arrived from your inland home at the rental for a summer week at the beach? I do. The warm sand. Welcoming blue ocean with white -cresting waves. Colorful swim suits. Canvas rafts before Boogey Boards were invented. Fishing rods with soft shell sand crabs as bait. Volleyball and touch football. Hot dogs and hamburgers on the barbecue. Multi -colored umbrellas. Zinc Oxide and Baby Oil. Top 40 blaring on the patio. Beach towels on the fence. Noise. Party on! Late nights. Nirvana. Could we escape the Ford Country Squire (with the fake wood decals) fast enough to take advantage of all activities from Day 1 through Day 7? We're only here for a short time, so let's experience it all without limits —and damn the neighbors. And, boy, did we get our money's worth during that week. But what about those poor neighbors who were full time residents? They put up with the noise. They put up with all of our many visitors ---the relatives (some close, some not -so -close), the boyfriends (and their friends), the girlfriends (and their friends), the parents' pals. They put up with the overcrowded parking by us and the hoards from our San Gabriel Valley home. They put up with the trash we accumulated. They put up with the beach toys we scattered. They put up with the sand we tracked. They put up with the blaring music we played. They put up with the wet towels and bathing suits we draped on the front/side walls. They put up with the beer cans our parents emptied and the paper plates, red cups, and garbage. They put up with the loss of privacy. They put up with the likely loss in property value. They put up with a loss of community and "neighborhoodness". (We seldom engaged 1 our neighbors, nor did they wish to engage us; I suspect this will be the case with the temporary Pacaso visitors.) They put up with the traffic. They put up with the noisy late nights by everyone! Yes, for those seven days we received the maximum return on our investment. Well, the good news for our poor neighbors was that it was temporary. A summer week here and a summer week there. It goes with the territory of Newport as a desirable community, yes? But it all ended on Labor Day. But fast forward to the age of Pacaso which IMHO is not a Picasso masterpiece. The typical Pacaso model promises 45 days for each of eight owners (who may well be strangers to each other) on a repeated, in -and -out, never-ending, year-round basis. Yes, the Nirvana hormonal excitement of a summer week at the beach is multiplied by eight owners for 52 weeks who all want to get their money's worth for their high-priced investment at the expense of neighbors and neighborhoods. Perhaps Beverly Hills Director of Community Development Ryan Gohlich said it best in supporting that City's Moratorium on Pacaso ownership: "Fractional ownership often results in noise, loss of privacy and community, a decline in property values, and a reduction in available homes." S000, on Tuesday, March 14, 2023, our Council will consider the Planning Commission's majority consensus Preferred Recommendation which correctly identifies fractional ownership as a commercialized timeshare. I like this approach. I do not like Pacaso's self-serving proposed Ordinance which (in part) would allow up to 500 fractional ownership permits, would not extend to the R-2 Zoning District, and would not be restricted to commercial zones. Until a properly researched, publicly vetted measure is adopted by our Council, I favor a moratorium on fractional ownership. (Note the Staff Report that the number of fractional homeownership residential properties as of the end of the Sagecrest study [August 29, 2022, over six months ago] had increased to eleven (11) properties and [I would venture to say] likely more since then.) Fractional ownership will make Bal Week a permanent fixture in our community with whirlwind transient occupancy, will result in unenforceable enforcement, will not produce TOT, does nothing to help us meet the multiple California mandates regarding RHNA and affordable housing, and will permanently scar the nature, quality of life, and character of our village -centric town. Rome is burning, and I hope that you or someone in your neighborhood does not become a Pacaso victim until our Council imposes a moratorium and thereafter acts responsibly, reasonably, and quickly to deter/severely restrict/eliminate fractional ownership. Thank you. Paul Watkins 714-403-6408 2 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Carmen Rawson <carmen rawson(Oatt.net> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 11:48:27 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman(a)newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Stapleton, Joe<jstapleton(anewportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery( newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik<eweigand(alnewportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rarant(abnewportbeachca.gov>; Blom, Noah <NBlom(a)newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill(abnewportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office<CityClerk(abnewportbeachca.gov>; Nancy Scarbrough <nancy(a)nancyfornewport.com>; BOB YANT <byant(�aol.com>; Denys Oberman <dho(a)obermanassociates.com>; Maureen Cotton <mcotton(a�i integrated8a.com>; Gary Cruz <gcruz(dushandball.org>; Lee Pearl <smartpearl1@)hotmail.com>; Debbie Stevens <dstevens(a1envaudit.com>; Russ Doll <radoll(aroadrunner.com>; Ken & Carmen Rawson <ckrawson(a)att.net>; Jim Mosher <jimmosher(&yahoo.com>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjuriis(a0newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp(a)newportbeachca.gov>; Fred Levine<fredric.mark. levine(Gamail.com> Subject: Upcoming 2023-03-14 City Council Mtg - Pacaso's Fractional Ownership Considered a Timeshare [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please make this correspondence part of the upcoming 2023-03-14 City Council meeting documentation (Fractional Ownership item) Hello Lauren, Thank you for meeting us yesterday Thursday 09Mar23 to discuss Fractional Homeownership when operated by a company such as Pacaso. During our meeting you indicated that the timeshare interpretation, for the Pacaso business model, is in dispute as timeshares normally do not include an ownership interest on the property. Please look into Andy Sirkin Law (www.andysirkin.com). Andy Sirkin is a lawyer specializing in Co - Ownership since 1985. Note that Pacaso as well as Ember Homes (who operates 2 fractional ownership properties in Newport Beach) are (or at least were) Sirkin Law clients (see attachment "Sirkin Law Clients..."). Several articles in their website make reference to Pacaso. Sirkin Article "Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare" (see attachment) state the following (highlighted on the attachment): Page 2 of the attachment: "In virtually every state, any arrangement involving time -based sharing of an asset falls within the legal definition of a timeshare, and is regulated under timeshare laws. This means that, from a legal standpoint, all fractional are timeshares. But it does not mean that all fractionals share the same problems that have given timeshares a bad name,, Page 4 of the attachment: "... his [Andy Sirkin] word( now encompasses advising and preparing contracts for web -based platforms (such as Pacaso) that organize, facilitate and manage fractional ownership arrangements for specific homes" Sirkin Article "Introduction to Fractional Ownership" (see attachment) state the following (highlighted on the attachment): Page 1 of the attachment: "... "fractional ownership" is typically used to describe shared ownership of a vacation or resort property by people in an arrangement which allocates usage rights based on time. In other words, only one owner will be allowed to use a particular home or apartment at a particular time. The terms, private residence club (or "PRC), destination club, vacation club, quartershare, timeshare, and vacation home partnership are also used to describe variations on these arrangements, and there are no consistent distinctions in the use of these descriptions,, Pages 1-2 of the attachment: make another reference to Pacaso Page 2 of the attachment: ,It is incorrect to say that timeshare involves the sale of time, weeks or usage, while fractional ownership involves full titled ownership. Today, many timeshare properties involve titled ownership. The real differences between timeshares and fractional ownership arrangements are: • Fractional ownership typically involves more usage than timeshare for each owner each year • Fractional ownership typically involves fewer owners than timeshare • Fractional ownership is typically more expensive than timeshare,, Based on the above considering Pacaso's fractional homeownership business model a timeshare is - per my understanding - indisputable. Andy Sirkin, the "co -ownership expert" lawyer that helps Pacaso with their business model, has stated so - in writing - multiple times. Note Andy Sirkin has an office in San Francisco, CA. Hope this helps. Regards, Carmen Rawson 949-278-2447 Cell Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman(&newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 3:27:33 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Carmen Rawson <carmen rwson( att.net> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk(&newportbeachca.gov>; Nancy Scarbrough <nancy(& ancyfornewport.com>; BOB YANT <byant@)aol.com>; Denys Oberman <dho(a)obermanassociates.com>; Maureen Cotton <mcotton(d>integrated8a.com>; Gary Cruz <acruz(a0ushandball.org>; Lee Pearl <smartpearI1(&hotmail.com>; Debbie Stevens <dstevens(aenvaudit.com>; Russ Doll <radoll(cbroadrunner.com>; Ken & Carmen Rawson <ckrawson(a)att.net>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis(cbnewportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp(@newportbeachca.gov>; Fred Levine<fredric.mark. levine(&Qmail.com> Subject: Re: Upcoming 2023-03-14 City Council Mtg - Pacaso's Fractional Ownership Considered a Timeshare Dear Carmen, Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me yesterday and for your email, below. Perhaps you misunderstood what we discussed, so please allow me to clarify here: 1) timeshare ownership can generally be distinguished from an ownership interest in real property purchased in an LLC; and 2) the interpretation of whether the business model adopted by Pacaso, and other companies, can legally be distinguished from timeshare ownership is in dispute in the pending Pacaso Inc. v City of St. Helena lawsuit. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical- law/document/Id2844a55545411e698dc8b09b4f043e0/Timeshare? viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true Should you have other information you would like to share, please don't hesitate to reach out again. I have many other resident engagement meetings scheduled over the next several days on this topic and am looking forward to more thoughtful discourse with staff, the public and my council colleagues during Tuesday's hearing. Warmly, Logo Lauren Kleiman City Council District 6 19 Office: 949-644-3004 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Newport Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. On Mar 10, 2023, at 11:48 AM, Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson(@att.net> wrote: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please make this correspondence part of the upcoming 2023-03-14 City Council meeting documentation (Fractional Ownership item) Hello Lauren, Thank you for meeting us yesterday Thursday 09Mar23 to discuss Fractional Homeownership when operated by a company such as Pacaso. During our meeting you indicated that the timeshare interpretation, for the Pacaso business model, is in dispute as timeshares normally do not include an ownership interest on the property. Please look into Andy Sirkin Law (www.andysirkin.com). Andy Sirkin is a lawyer specializing in Co -Ownership since 1985. Note that Pacaso as well as Ember Homes (who operates 2 fractional ownership properties in Newport Beach) are (or at least were) Sirkin Law clients (see attachment "Sirkin Law —Clients..."). Several articles in their website make reference to Pacaso. Sirkin Article "Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare" (see attachment) state the following (highlighted on the attachment): Page 2 of the attachment: ,In virtually every state, any arrangement involving time -based sharing of an asset falls within the legal definition of a timeshare, and is regulated under timeshare laws. This means that, from a legal standpoint, all fractional are timeshares. But it does not mean that all fractionals share the same problems that have given timeshares a bad name" Page 4 of the attachment: "... his [Andy Sirkin] work now encompasses advising and preparing contracts for web -based platforms (such as Pacaso) that organize, facilitate and manage fractional ownership arrangements for specific homes" Sirkin Article "Introduction to Fractional Ownership" (see attachment) state the following (highlighted on the attachment): Page 1 of the attachment: "... "fractional ownership" is typically used to describe shared ownership of a vacation or resort property by people in an arrangement which allocates usage rights based on time. In other words, only one owner will be allowed to use a particular home or apartment at a particular time. The terms, private residence club (or "PRC'), destination club, vacation club, quartershare, timeshare, and vacation home partnership are also used to describe variations on these arrangements, and there are no consistent distinctions in the use of these descriptions" Pages 1-2 of the attachment: make another reference to Pacaso Page 2 of the attachment: ,It is incorrect to say that timeshare involves the sale of time, weeks or usage, while fractional ownership involves full titled ownership. Today, many timeshare properties involve titled ownership. The real differences between timeshares and fractional ownership arrangements are: • Fractional ownership typically involves more usage than timeshare for each owner each year • Fractional ownership typically involves fewer owners than timeshare • Fractional ownership is typically more expensive than timeshare', Based on the above considering Pacaso's fractional homeownership business model a timeshare is - per my understanding - indisputable. Andy Sirkin, the "co -ownership expert" lawyer that helps Pacaso with their business model, has stated so - in writing - multiple times. Note Andy Sirkin has an office in San Francisco, CA. Hope this helps. Regards, Carmen Rawson 949-278-2447 Cell <Sirkin Law —Clients List (Pacaso, Ember).png><Sirkin Law_ Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare_Highlighted.pdf><Sirkin Law —Introduction to Fractional Ownership_Highlighted.pdf> Currently.com - AT&T Yahoo Ern X I (775 unread) - carmen rawsonC X Sirk;nLaw Articles and Links O andysirkin.com/articles-resources/links/ SIRKIN LAW Fractional Ownership Platforms X + _ v 1-7 L� * ❑ ABOUT .. PRACTICE AREAS .. ARTICLES .. SAMPLES RESOURCES The following sites facilitate vacation home co -ownership by offering Tract onal ownership purchase and sale opportunit es and then helping co -owners operate, manage and maintain their usage calendars. finances, and co -owned homes. Each of these companies is a current or past SirkinLaw client. Pacaso Kocomo Beso Homes Ember OwnSawy Paris Perfect Leeds Group Individual Fractional Lending For TICs Ln Family / Friend Shared Ownership Equity Sharing Subdivision and Condominium Conversion CCandR Amendment / Replacement Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) Investment TICs, Crowdfunding and Securities Operating A Homeowners Association (HOA) ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Real Estate Basics Sample Agreements, Forms and Templates YOUR CART T 9/12/22, 11:50 PM Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare SIRKIN LAW Home >> Fractional Ownership Resources and Articles >> Fractional Ownership and Residence Club Buyer Guide >> Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare By Andy Sirkin Are today's fractionals really different from yesterday's timeshares? The common wisdom is that timeshares are a scam perpetrated on the na'l've. Relaxed during their vacation in a storybook location, hapless couples are lured into high-pressure presentations by offers of free meals, lodging and recreational activities, then sold on the idea of an annual "prepaid vacation" for the rest of their lives. Soon afterward, they discover that their "prepaid vacation" is difficult to use, in undesirable facilities, more expensive than a regular hotel, or all three. When they try to sell, they find their investment worthless. Sometimes they can't even walk away without credit agencies hounding them for ownership dues. Whether or not this picture is accurate, developers of today's fractional resorts struggle mightily to distance themselves from this perception. Central to this effort has been renaming and repositioning the product. Regardless of how similar or different they are from the timeshares of the past, today's arrangements are called fractionals, condo hotels, condotels, private residence clubs, destination clubs, or something else, but rarely timeshares. Are today's fractionals really different from yesterday's timeshares? In general, the answer is yes, but this generalization can be misleading, especially if one puts too much stock in the name of the arrangement, and not enough in the arrangement itself. The idea behind traditional timeshares was every bit as logical and compelling as the idea driving today's fractional https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/buyer-guide/timeshare-versus-fractional-ownership/ 1 /4 9/12/22, 11:50 PM Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare explosion. The problem was not the concept; it was the execution. In virtually every state, any arrangement involving time -based sharing of an asset falls within the legal definition of a timeshare, and is regulated under timeshare laws. This means that, from a legal standpoint, all fractional are timeshares. But it does not mean that all fractionals share the same problems that have given timeshares a bad name. Key Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare The most important distinguishing factor between modern fractionals and traditional timeshares is the number of owners per home or apartment. Most timeshares involve as many as 52 owners per unit, and many of the rest involve 26. The main consequence of having so many owners is short and/or infrequent owner stays. Most timeshare owners visit their property only once a year, often for only one week. This means there is little emotional connection between the owners and the property, often called "pride of ownership", and this lack of connection translates into lack of care and apathy. Higher traffic also means more wear and tear. By contrast, most fractionals involve 2-12 owners per unit, meaning owners visit the property more frequently and stay longer. Larger ownership shares and more time spent at the property gives fractional owners a greater stake in how the property looks and feels, and in how it appreciates over time. Fractional owners care about their property and their investment, and it shows in how the property is maintained and operated. Higher quality and cost also distinguish fractionals from timeshares. In general, fractionals involve larger apartments or homes, more amenities and better finishes. Fractional buyers pay more to purchase and expect to pay more in maintenance and management fees. Higher quality construction and finishes, coupled with more resources for maintenance and management, and fewer users, tends to keep the property looking good and operating smoothly. By comparison, timeshare properties often degrade over time, causing them to become less desirable for original purchasers and lose most or all resale value. This degradation results from lower initial quality, inadequate maintenance and management, and higher user traffic. Another common distinguishing factor between modern fractionals and traditional timeshares is the degree of owner control. Properly structured fractional associations operate much like homeowners associations, and retain ultimate authority and control over their property. Day to day operational responsibility is delegated to a manager or management company, but owners retain the right to https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/buyer-guide/timeshare-versus-fractional-ownership/ 2/4 9/12/22, 11:50 PM Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare replace management if it is not performing. In contrast, most timeshares are permanently controlled by a developer or hotel operator, and timeshare buyers are viewed more as repeat hotel guests than as property owners. This arrangement provides little incentive for the operator to maintain high standards after the last timeshare interest is sold. Is Fractional Ownership Better Than Timeshare? The fact that most fractionals do not share the characteristics that have made most timeshares bad deals does not mean that all fractional are good deals, or even that fractionals are always better than timeshares. Rather, it means that fractional buyers need to assess the details of the arrangement before buying, and not be distracted by the label attached by the seller. How many owners per unit will there be? What is the quality of the construction and furnishings? Is there a realistic budget that will provide money to operate the property as well as to replace the furnishings and equipment regularly? To what extent can owners exercise control over the property and the management? LEARN MORE For more information about the various types of fractional vacation property, and how to compare a timeshare to a private residence club, destination club, vacation club and other types of fractional, shared and co -ownership of vacation residences, see "Analyzing, Comparing and Choosing Among Fractional Vacation Ownership Options". For answers to the most frequently asked questions about fractional vacation home sharing and co -ownership, including partnerships with friends and family, see "Fractional Vacation Property FAQs I_\11111j�yI0:41►1W-11YE\all SirkinLaw APC has focused on real estate co -ownership since 1985, and has been involved in the creation of more than 5,000 co -ownership arrangements throughout the United States and the world. This breadth of experience allows us to draw on a huge library of fractional project documentation as https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/buyer-guide/timeshare-versus-fractional-ownership/ 3/4 9/12/22, 11:50 PM Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare well as extensive knowledge of marketing and registration requirements for virtually any location where a project might be located or potentially marketed. We pride ourselves on our ability to write legal documents in plain English, develop simple and elegant usage and organizational structures, and offer efficient, reliable and cost-effective services for fractional projects ranging in size from a single house or condominium up to hundreds of factional interests. Our firm has offices in San Francisco California, Evergreen Colorado, and Paris France. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Andy Sirkin has been a recognized expert in fractional ownership for more than 35 years. Since 1985, he has focussed on advising and preparing contracts for small groups of families and friends who want to buy and share vacation homes as partners, and on advising and preparing contracts for sellers and real estate agents who want to market and sell fractional interests in a particular vacation home. While work with individual owner groups, buyers, sellers, and real estate agents remains a major part of Andy's fractional ownership practice, his work now encompasses advising and preparing contracts for web - based platforms (such as Pacaso) that organize, facilitate and manage fractional ownership arrangements for specific homes, and advising and preparing contracts for fractional ownership developers (who buy properties to renovated and furnish for sale as fractional ownership interests), fractional ownership marketing and sales firms, and fractional ownership management companies. Andy has worked on fractional ownership of properties located throughout the U.S. and the world, and has also advised fractional ownership startups, platforms, developers and related businesses based in, or focussing on, locations throughout the U.S. and many other countries. However, most of his work has involved fractional ownership in the U.S., the U.K., Western Europe, Mexico, and the Caribbean. He has been a featured speaker at many fractional ownership and timeshare conversions and symposia, an accredited instructor with the California Department of Real Estate, and a frequent interviewee on fractional ownership for podcasts and news coverage throughout the world. Andy is based in Paris, and can be contacted via the contact form. https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/buyer-guide/timeshare-versus-fractional-ownership/ 4/4 9/12/22, 11:56 PM Fractional Ownership Resources and Articles — SirkinLaw APC SIRKIN LAW Home Fractional Ownership Resources and Articles Introduction To Fractional Ownership The phrase "fractional ownership" is typically used to describe shared ownership of a vacation or resort property by people in an arrangement which allocates usage rights based on time. In other words, only one owner will be allowed to use a particular home or apartment at a particular time. The terms, private residence club (or "PRU), destination club, vacation club, quartershare, timeshare, and vacation home partnership are also used to describe variations on these arrangements, and there are no consistent distinctions in the use of these descriptions. Fractional ownership arrangements should not be confused with condohotels or condotels, in which each participant has whole ownership of a particular hotel room or suite Fractional ownership arrangements can be applied to a single home or apartment (typically referred to as a "one-off fractional") or to a multi -unit building or resort development. In multi -unit developments, each co-owner may have ownership rights to all the units, some of the units, or only one unit, and his/her usage rights, and cost obligations, may or may not correspond to his/her ownership rights. Groups can be assembled by a real estate development or hotel company, an individual builder, Realtor or seller, one or more of the prospective buyers/users, or groups of friends or family members. In recent years, there has been an explosion of interest in fractional ownership arrangements involving a single home or apartment led by the launch of several web -based platforms designed to organize, facilitate and manage these arrangements. For example, SirkinLaw client Pacaso locates suitable properties, solicits and qualifies prospective members for each owner group, provides purchase money https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/ 1 /5 9/12/22, 11:56 PM Fractional Ownership Resources and Articles — SirkinLaw APC financing, renovates and outfits the shared home, provides ongoing calendaring, maintenance and management services, and even offers an "assessment guarantee" under which it effectively removes the risk theoretically created when a group member does not pay his/her share of costs. The advent of well -capitalized and comprehensive marketing and support platforms has created a disruption or inflection point in the fractional ownership/timeshare industry similar to those spawned by Uber in the taxi industry and AirBNB in the hotel industry. Recall that there was a time when private, independent car owners carrying paying passengers, or individual homeowners hosting paying guests on a nightly basis, were considered fringe economic activities that would never become serious alternatives to taxis and hotels (respectively). For may years, that same skepticism applied to the idea of small groups of strangers sharing a vacation home. (Believe me, I know: for over 15 years, I touted the idea of single -home fractional ownership at fractional ownership/timeshare industry conventions and symposia around the world, and was routinely treated with respectful dismissiveness.) Today, single - home vacation fractionals represent the fastest -growing segment of fractional ownership. The Difference Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare It is incorrect to say that timeshare involves the sale of time, weeks or usage, while fractional ownership involves full titled ownership. Today, many timeshare properties involve titled ownership. The real differences between timeshares and fractional ownership arrangements are: • Fractional ownership typically involves more usage than timeshare for each owner each year • Fractional ownership typically involves fewer owners than timeshare • Fractional ownership is typically more expensive than timeshare Why Is Fractional Ownership Becoming So Popular? Although many people dream of owning vacation property, most either can't afford the type of property they want, or reason that they would not use the vacation home often enough to justify the expense. Fractional ownership provides a solution to these problems by allowing each co-owner to pay only a fraction of the costs and ongoing expenses of vacation home ownership, and share the risks of unforeseen maintenance problems and value depreciation with others. Fractional ownership is increasingly popular among those who already own a vacation home (or even a primary residence in a resort community) but feel burdened by the expense, upkeep and management of a property they use infrequently or are regularly absent from during certain seasons. Rather than sell a home they love, these people opt to sell one or more fractional ownership interests to others who will https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/ 2/5 9/12/22, 11:56 PM Fractional Ownership Resources and Articles — SirkinLaw APC use the home when the original owner does not and will help share the costs and burdens. Besides lowering cost and time burdens, shared ownership can free capital for the purchase of other resort property, or for alternative investments. It can also provide an alternative when selling the entire home proves difficult due to market conditions. Fractional ownership can be a significantly less expensive and more attractive alternative offering in a new development, giving some buyers an incentive or opportunity to purchase that would otherwise be lacking. The builder or developer can thus open up a new market and access a different group of potential customers by offering fractional ownership, a particularly attractive opportunity when whole ownership sales are slow. Marketing a less costly ownership option may also increase the overall visibility of, and traffic to, the project sales sites, and increase sales volume of whole ownership. Finally, opening a project to fractional ownership will generally increase overall usage of the property, which can enhance the viability and financial performance of amenities and ancillary services such as a spa, golf course, ski resort, or restaurant. Learn More About Fractional Ownership This page is a gateway to many articles on all aspects of fractional ownership, categorized for easy navigation under the links below. General Information on Fractional Ownership Get started with the basics of fractional ownership and other vacation home sharing arrangements with a short overview of fractional ownership, a more comprehensive explanation of fractional ownership, definitions of fractional ownership terms and lingo, characteristics of fractional ownership and timeshare product categories, and essential tips for smaller, less formal vacation home sharing partnerships and family ownership groups. Designing and Creating Fractional Ownership Arrangements Guides and tips for vacation home owners, developers, and real estate professionals interested in selling property as fractional ownership, and individual buyers interested in organizing a fractional ownership group. Step-by-step instructions for analyzing the fractional ownership potential of individual homes and condominiums, and assessing the feasiblity of offering fractional ownership within a resort or other real estate development. A detailed article describing the various fractional ownership usage arrangements, and another explaining how to price fractional ownership offerings. https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/ 3/5 9/12/22, 11:56 PM Fractional Ownership Resources and Articles — SirkinLaw APC Marketing and Selling Fractional Ownership Learn the most effective marketing and sales techniques for fractional ownership, private residence clubs, destination clubs, and quartershares. Most people quickly understand the benefits of fractional ownership arrangements, but can find many reasons to delay the decision to buy. To sell out a fractional ownership project quickly and cost-effectively, it is critical to understand how to expose the property to the right customers, explain the concept of fractional ownership in a clear and compelling way, and then convince the customer to buy now instead of later. These articles will explain the best practices used with the most successful fractional ownership properties, from individual homes to large private residence clubs. Fractional Ownership and Residence Club Buyer Guide Discover how to compare and choose between different fractional offerings.Which fractional is the best deal, and why? Which one will remain a good deal over time when owner dues are compared with other accommodations? Which ones will remain attractive and make you want to return? Which will best hold resale value? How valuable are exchange programs, and which ones are best? Get the tools you need to make an informed fractional buying decision. Operating and Managing Fractional Ownership Groups Everything you need to know to smoothly start and operate a fractional ownership group, whether you are a professional property manager or just someone who wants to manage a fractional with your family and friends. Learn what tax and governmental filings you need to make, how to open bank accounts, what records to keep, how to call and run meetings, how to create a budget and collect dues, how to keep repair replacement reserves, and how to organize and control decision -making. Most important, learn how to keep your fractional ownership associations running smoothly and without arguments or disputes. Fractional Ownership and Timeshare Law Articles on fractional ownership and timeshare law throughout the United States and Europe as well as resources to help you find the law in your jurisdiction. Fractional Ownership Resources https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/ 4/5 9/12/22, 11:56 PM Fractional Ownership Resources and Articles — SirkinLaw APC Additional articles, podcasts and lists on various fractional ownership related topics including a list of books on fractional ownership, and sources for fractional ownership financing. https://andysirkin.com/fractional-ownership/ 5/5 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Tara Lau <tara514@cox.net> Sent: March 10, 2023 10:34 PM 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. Hello, I would like to express my concern regarding the fractional home ownership proposal in Newport Beach. Upon reviewing the details it appears this type of agreement resembles a timeshare agreement too closely. I am deeply concerned about the issue of commercialization in my neighborhood. Our city already faces issues, and green lighting this proposal could bring on a wave of legal headaches for not just the city but the taxpaying residents. Parking availability, contact in case of emergency, number of fractional homes in the city are just a few of the concerns that initially come to mind. I urge you to preserve the residential integrity of our city and not proceed on this proposal. Sincerely, Tara Lau Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: WILLIAM LEONARD <desertwml@gmail.com> Sent: March 11, 2023 8:21 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Opposition to Fractional Ownership in Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As the owners of 118 Sapphire Avenue, Newport Beach, CA, we oppose fractional ownership in Newport Beach. Sincerely, LuAnne L. Leonard & William M. Leonard, Co - Trustees of the LuAnne L. Leonard 1988 Living Trust Please note that effective immediately, my new email address is as follows: DESERTWML@GMAIL.COM 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: WILLIAM LEONARD <desertwml@gmail.com> Sent: March 11, 2023 8:24 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Opposition to Fractional Ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As the owner of 3355 Via Lido, Newport Beach, CA, I oppose fractional ownership in Newport Beach. Sincerely, William Michael Leonard, Trustee of the William Michael Leonard 1987 Living Trust Please note that effective immediately, my new email address is as follows: DESERTWML@GMAIL.COM 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Karen K James <kjdelmar@yahoo.com> Sent: March 11, 2023 11:30 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Kathy Hamilton <cocohl@icloud.com>; Karen Carlson <kkc2616@aol.com>; Katy Callender <kate@ctcallender.com>; Linda & Richard Delaney <lindadelaney@me.com>; Joel Graves <joelgraves123@gmail.com>; Harley Broviak <harleyjb@earthlink.net>; kaymulvaney7@gmail.com; Kent Moore <moorekent1523@gmail.com>; Susan Maher <susanmaher@cox.net> Subject: Fractional Housing [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council of Newport Beach You have a grave decision in front of you this week. It could affect every neighborhood in Newport Beach in a negative way. Please, please do not vote to allow a commercial enterprise to polute our neighborhoods. won't repeat all the many reasons there are for a "NO" vote. I am sure you are aware of them. If you open this "Pandora's Box", you will be responsible for the negative conseclunces. Think carefully. Sincerely, Karen James 2627 Cove St. Corona del Mar 949 5149717 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Karen Carlson <kkc2616@gmail.com> On Behalf Of KAREN CARLSON Sent: March 11, 2023 3:09 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Owernship [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council I was almost sick to my stomach when I read the staff report on Fractional ownership and the recommendation that there be 500 PERMITS IN R-1 NEIGHBORHOODS. 500 is way too many for the whole city!! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE follow the Code Update Recommendations of March 14, page 4 that view "Fractional ownership as another form of Time Share" and prohibit them in ALL residential zoning districts. If you can't do this then Vote to put a moratorium on this subject until the lawsuits by other cities are resolved and then revisit. As a long-time resident of CDM I can't think of anything that has the Community so upset since the Museum House project ...and you know how that ended, even with the City Council supporting it. I hope you will all think deeply on this issue and realize how drastically it could change Newport Beach for years to come. Sincerely Karen Carlson 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Dan Abbott <abbottedmd@gmail.com> Sent: March 11, 2023 3:21 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. Esteemed Newport Beach City Council Members: My name is Dan Abbott and I live on Balboa Island. Since I moved into my house on the Island, my next door neighbors have operated an VRBO, which has resulted in near year round visitors, from many parts of the country. Many have been very nice, quiet, respectful and overall pleasant. However, a few have been unruly, disrespectful, and just unpleasant; partying loudly until late at night, abusing our property, using loud, foul language & being overall very difficult to put up with. I am very concerned that fractional ownership would expose us to some of the same unpleasant situations. I would hope that most fractional owners would not be unpleasant, but that is not a chance I want to take. I love living on the Island. My full time neighbors are delightful, considerate people, whom I enjoy very much. I moved here to retire peacefully; not to endure a revolving door of unpleasant, part time neighbors. I am asking that you do not approve fractional ownership allowances. Respectfully submitted, Dan Abbott, Balboa Island resident. Sent from my iPhone 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Ted Mumm <ted@3mumms.org> Sent: March 11, 2023 4:47 PM 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 Members: This email is to express my opposition to the Fractionally -Owned Homes that are springing up in our city. I urge you to approve the Preferred Recommendation to "broaden the definition of timeshares to include Fractional Home Ownership" in all residential zoning districts. Sincerely, Carl W. Mumm 319 Cedar Street Newport Beach 92663 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 N46,5r�e Nmfmd good neigh bornewport.org March 12, 2023 Dear Mayor Blom and Council Members: Good Neighbor Newport strongly supports the preferred recommendation of the Planning Commission on fractional homeownership. Fractional homeownership detracts from residents' quiet enjoyment of their property (i.e. their property rights), and does nothing to help us meet the various state mandates with which we are we are struggling. Cordially, Nancy Gardner Secretary Good Neighbor Newport Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Bud Reveley <budreveley@gmail.com> Sent: March 12, 2023 4:42 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Gary Cruz <gcruz@ushandball.org>; Larry Leifer <lawrelei@gmail.com>; Markof, Mark & Melissa <mnk218@yahoo.com>; Mike Veal <mike@goldcoastglass.com>; Scott McFetters <smcfetters@outlook.com> Subject: Fractional Ownership for Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I throughly disagree with any plan to offer fractional ownership schemes for ANY Residential zone whether it be R-1 or R-2. Be it a timeshare or fractional ownership plan, it should nor be allowed in the future. Some fractional ownership has invaded our neighborhoods and so far our Council has again failed to contain this cancer. Many cities are already taking steps to cure this contagion but not Newport, even though it's been here for years already. Step up to the plate Council. We need your help. Bud Reveley, Newport Island 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Michelle Blank <jemtlewis@gmail.com> Sent: March 12, 2023 8:43 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NO Home Fractional Ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please consider this email my way of rejecting HFOs in Newport Beach (and everywhere else) and kindly, but strongly, I'm asking each of you to be vocal and fight against this new way of destroying our city's neighborhoods. Thank you. Sincerely, Michelle Lewis i Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Jeff Schaffer <jpschaffer@gmail.com> Sent: March 12, 2023 9:04 PM 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. Za I can't attend the upcoming meeting so wanted to state we're against FHOs in our city. I'm sure you've already heard all the reasons stated by SPON and the other local community groups, and we agree with them. I know this isn't a formal voting process, but figured we'd at least like to register our opinions. Thank you, Jeff and Michelle Schaffer 1806 Port Margate Place Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Dan Chambers <chamberscolorado@gmail.com> Sent: March 12, 2023 9:05 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NO ON FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening, I oppose fractional ownership in Newport Beach. This would just add more fuel to the housing fire that the FED has created with ZIRP and buying Treasuries and MBS(QE 1,2,3 U) expanding the balance sheet to $9T! Further, congress has approved -$7T in COVID relief and the so called IRA(Inflation Reduction Act), money which we don't have to spend. Fractional ownership would promote speculation and risk taking from investors trying to turn a profit. Newport Beach and California is already unaffordable, this would make it worse. Lastly, I am a resident of Balboa Island where traffic, parking and privacy are a huge issue. This would further exacerbate the problem. This is not what the residents of Newport Beach desire. Please listen to the people. Best, Dan Chambers 217 Topaz Ave Newport Beach, CA 92662 Sent from my iPhone 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Newport Beach City Council copy to City Manager To: City Council Members and City Manager, This email is to request you select the preferred option on the agenda item concerning regulations for Fractional Ownership property. We concur with the majority consensus of the Planning Commission that fractional home ownership is like a timeshare use. As such, we believe fractional ownership should not be permitted in residential neighborhoods. If the fractional ownership of properties are not defined as Timeshare properties, this will result in the commercialization of residential neighborhoods and impact residents like short-term lodging. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council broaden the definition of timeshare to clearly include "fractional homeownership" units. We support this option and request the City Council use the Timeshare definition and requirements for all future fractional ownership proposals. Sincerely, Ronald Rubino and Sharon Esterley 2845 Alta Vista Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Geoff Garrett <garrett_geoff@yahoo.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 8:20 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Home Ownership - Opposition [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Geoff Garrett and we live at 2041 Port Provence Place in Newport Beach. I'd like to express my opposition to Fractional Home Ownership (FHO). FHO seems to behave like a short-term rental. FHO residents have their primary homes elsewhere; they do not have the same perspective as my full- time neighbors. FHO residents are on vacation and not connected to the community. Please do not permit these type of companies to buy -up our neighborhood. thanks, Geoff Garrett Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Barbara W <barbarajwallace@roadrunner.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 8:33 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please note my strong opposition to the Fractional Ownership concept. I do not believe that the ownership of homes in that manner should be allowed in the City of Newport Beach. Thank you. Barbara Wallace Corona del Mar Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Mark Gordon <markdgordon@hotmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 8:35 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, As long-time homeowners and full-time residents in Corona Del Mar, we are OPPOSED to the proposal to allow Fractional Ownerships in Newport Beach (and of course CdM). The downsides are few, the upsides limited to a very few. Everyone has seen the outcomes when something like this is permitted, for example, in our neighboring cities. Quality of life drops, orderliness drops, streets become more crowded, noise increases, crime opportunities increase, all so a very few can turn a profit. There are really no drivers for a 'yes' here - let's maintain our wonderful way of life and say 'no'. Thank -you, Mark and Bhadra Gordon Corona Del Mar, CA 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Greg Reposa <reposa@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 8:35 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear NB City Council, I am writing to communicate our concern about Fractional Home Ownership in Newport Beach. Like short term rentals, fractional home ownership would be a problem for our city. We urge you to consider the negative effects of the revolving door of homes being occupied by different people throughout the year. We strongly disagree with both short term rentals and Fractional Home Ownership in Newport Beach. Thank you, DeAnna and Greg Reposa 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: bobnmel2 <bobnmel2@aol.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 9:02 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council I am opposed to fractional ownership. I have lived in CDM for 30+ yrs and have great friends a neighbors who looked out for each over. Fractional owners do not make good neighbors and neighborhoods. Please do not let them get a foothold in our community. Thank you, Melinda Keeler Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Deborah Christiansen <dchristiansen09@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 9:46 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Ownership in CDM & NB [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 and my husband, Kurt Christiansen reside at 412 Carnation Ave, CDM. We built 2 units on the property in 1995 and per our CC&R's between the 2 units, we have been able to limit the rentals at 412112 to avoid the Short Term Rental problems that a lot of homeowners who live next to them encounter. Further, our home, 412112 and 3 other homes are located off a dead end alley off First Ave. Our courtyard is privately owned and our restrictions in said courtyard do not allow for vehicles to be parked in the courtyard... they must be in the garages or parked on the street. It was set up this way so emergency vehicles could enter our courtyard unimpeded. To say we are adamantly against Fractional Ownership in CDM & NB is an understatement. Whether 4, 6 or 8 owners purchases a property as a Fractional Ownership, the problems are still the same. These are the reasons we are against it: 1. It only benefits the seller and potentially a company that "might" manage them. 2. If you live next door to one, there will be rotating families AND their friends coming & going constantly. 3. There will be noise, noise & more noise and most likely parties that will exceed the noise restrictions in CDM. 4. There will be additional parking problems in areas that already have current parking problems/availabilty. S. There will be trash issues as existing Short Term Rentals have already demonstrated. Who needs excess trash and highly unlikely the Fractional Owners will be aware of the trash regulations in CDM & NB. Trash not properly taken care of could result in a proliferation of rats. 6. Loss of real estate tax revenues if all Fractional Owners don't sell the properties at the same time. 7. This could result in a revenue loss for our local hotels & the Marriott Time Share on Newport Coast. They already contribute to our revenues through the Transient Occupancy Tax & I've read that it's our 3rd largest revenue stream to the city. 1 can't envision that any of the Fractional Owners will be vested into our community as they already have permanent home in other locations. Cities across the nation have had problems with Short Term Rentals with some cities banning them completely. Newport Beach was way behind in establishing any kind of rules or regulations for STR's and the number of them got out of control. Do you want Fractional Owners living next to you? We certainly don't nor do we want to see a decreased Fair Market Value for our property due to them. Respectfully Submitted, Deborah Christiansen Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Carol Harmon <carol303O6@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 10:05 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Corona Del Mar I am totally opposed to allowing timeshare or any partial ownership in Newport Beach. This is a family neighborhood. Timeshares erode our family -oriented neighborhoods in much the same way as short-term lodging rentals do, such as no community ties and no participation in neighborhood functions/events. Please vote no on timeshares. Carol Johnson Harmon 3330 Fourth Avenue Corona del Mar Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Dana Dietel <danadietel@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 10:38 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Re: 500 new permits for time shares We are adamantly opposed to the issuing of any new permits which would allow for the building of units to be used for time shares. Our already crowded neighborhoods have enough Airbnb's & substance abuse facilities as it is, changing the character of our neighborhoods & adding to traffic & parking issues. Please vote NO on this proposal or, any proposal that changes the building zoning laws already in place. Thankyou Sincerely, Kurt & Dana Dietel 436 Dahlia Avenue CDM Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Patricia Evans <cdmpat@me.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 10:54 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We understand the Newport Beach city council will be discussing possibly allowing fractional ownership of homes in our city. Unfortunately my husband & I are unable to attend Tuesdays meeting. We want you to know that we are vehemently opposed to this happening. Please do not allow this or timeshares in residential neighborhoods. Thank you, Patricia & Robert Evans 932 Gardenia Way CDM Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Josh Trinh <thejoshtrinh@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 10:57 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. As a resident of Newport Beach, I would like you to know that we oppose this measure and do not think it benefits our city in any way. Please note our opposition to this. Quang Trinh Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Erik Johnson <eriknjohnsonl@yahoo.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 11:12 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to fractional ownership in Newport Beach. This model lowers our quality of neighborhood living that makes Newport Beach such a wonderful community. I urge you to block future fractional ownership purchases in Newport Beach. Regards, Erik Johnson Corona del Mar property owner and voter since 2009 I Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Sarah Besikof <besikofs@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 11:44 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Reject Fractional ownership in Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We are firmly against fractional ownership in NB and these need to be regulated like air bnb and not allowed- will ruin neighborhoods! Warmly, Sarah Besikof Port Locksleigh Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Carmen Rawson <carmen rawson(a)att.net> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:07:08 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Leung, Grace <gleunq newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2023-03-14 City Council Mtg - Item 12 - Fractional Homeownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council members, We urge you to proceed with the Planning Commissioner's Preferred Recommendation to Broaden the definition of Timeshare to include Fractional Homeownership and to effectively prohibit such business model in ALL residential zoning districts (R-1, R-1.5, R-2 and RM). Companies such as Pacaso, Ember, etc could still consider implementing their business model (shared deed timeshares) in the Mixed Use and Commercial zoning areas of our city (where timeshares are currently allowed). Residents do not want to "allow and regulate" timeshares in our residential zoning districts. Sincerely, Ken and Carmen Rawson 949-278-2447 From: Carmen Rawson <carmen rawsonCq),att.net> To: Lauren Kleiman <lkleiman(a newportbeachca.gov> Cc: istapleton(a0ewportbeachca.gov <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; bavery(cD_newportbeachca.gov <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; eweigand(@_newportbeachca.gov <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; rgrant(i)_newportbeachca.gov <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; nblom(D_newportbeachca.gov <nblom@newportbeachca.gov>; woneill(cD_newportbeachca.gov <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; cityclerk(@_newportbeachca.gov <cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Nancy Scarbrough <nancy@nancyfornewport.com>; BOB YANT <byant@aol.com>; Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates. com>; Maureen Cotton <mcotton@integrated8a.com>; Gary Cruz <gcruz@ushandball.org>; Lee Pearl <smartpearl1 @hotmail.com>; Debbie Stevens <dstevens@envaudit.com>; Russ Doll <radoll@roadrunner.com>; Ken & Carmen Rawson <ckrawson@att.net>; Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>; Seimone Jurjis <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; aharp(@_newportbeachca.gov <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Fred Levine<fredric.mark. levine(a-,)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:48:34 AM PST Subject: Upcoming 2023-03-14 City Council Mtg - Pacaso's Fractional Ownership Considered a Timeshare Please make this correspondence part of the upcoming 2023-03-14 City Council meeting documentation (Fractional Ownership item) Hello Lauren, Thank you for meeting us yesterday Thursday 09Mar23 to discuss Fractional Homeownership when operated by a company such as Pacaso. During our meeting you indicated that the timeshare interpretation, for the Pacaso business model, is in dispute as timeshares normally do not include an ownership interest on the property. Please look into Andy Sirkin Law (www.andysirkin.com). Andy Sirkin is a lawyer specializing in Co -Ownership since 1985. Note that Pacaso as well as Ember Homes (who operates 2 fractional ownership properties in Newport Beach) are (or at least were) Sirkin Law clients (see attachment "Sirkin Law —Clients..."). Several articles in their website make reference to Pacaso. Sirkin Article "Differences Between Fractional Ownership and Timeshare" (see attachment) state the following (highlighted on the attachment): Page 2 of the attachment: "In virtually every state, any arrangement involving time -based sharing of an asset falls within the legal definition of a timeshare, and is regulated under timeshare laws. This means that, from a legal standpoint, all fractional are timeshares. But it does not mean that all fractionals share the same problems that have given timeshares a bad name" Page 4 of the attachment: "... his [Andy Sirkin] work now encompasses advising and preparing contracts for web -based platforms (such as Pacaso) that organize, facilitate and manage fractional ownership arrangements for specific homes,, Sirkin Article "Introduction to Fractional Ownership" (see attachment) state the following (highlighted on the attachment): Page 1 of the attachment: "... "fractional ownership" is typically used to describe shared ownership of a vacation or resort property by people in an arrangement which allocates usage rights based on time. In other words, only one owner will be allowed to use a particular home or apartment at a particular time. The terms, private residence club (or `PRC'), destination club, vacation club, quartershare, timeshare, and vacation home partnership are also used to describe variations on these arrangements, and there are no consistent distinctions in the use of these descriptions" Pages 1-2 of the attachment: make another reference to Pacaso Page 2 of the attachment: "It is incorrect to say that timeshare involves the sale of time, weeks or usage, while fractional ownership involves full titled ownership. Today, many timeshare properties involve titled ownership. The real differences between timeshares and fractional ownership arrangements are: • Fractional ownership typically involves more usage than timeshare for each owner each year • Fractional ownership typically involves fewer owners than timeshare • Fractional ownership is typically more expensive than timeshare" Based on the above considering Pacaso's fractional homeownership business model a timeshare is - per my understanding - indisputable. Andy Sirkin, the "co -ownership expert" lawyer that helps Pacaso with their business model, has stated so - in writing - multiple times. Note Andy Sirkin has an office in San Francisco, CA. Hope this helps. Regards, Carmen Rawson 949-278-2447 Cell Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Norma Edelhauser <njedel@hotmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 12:30 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am opposed to fractional ownership because when residents are only part time they are not full participants in the community. They don't have a vested interest in the welfare of the community. I am strongly opposed to this idea. Norma Edelhauser Sent from my iPad Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Katharine Young <ksyoung@post.harvard.edu> Sent: March 13, 2023 12:33 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Robert Young <rryoung@uci.edu> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Newport Beach City Council: We have owned a house in Newport Beach for 30 years and agree that Fractional Ownerships should be prohibited, just like Timeshares. Robert and Katharine Young 4601 Surrey Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 1:12 PM To: Blom, Noah; Weigand, Erik; Stapleton, Joe; Grant, Robyn; O'Neill, William; Avery, Brad; Kleiman, Lauren Cc: Leung, Grace; Jurjis, Seimone; Murillo, Jaime; Harp, Aaron; Brown, Leilani Subject: Letter to City Council re: Fractional Ownership Businesses Attachments: No to Fractional Ownership businesses in our residenial neighborhoods- Leadership letter to City Council 3-13-23.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. For the Public Record, in connection with the City Council session of March 14, 2023- Agenda Item, Fractional Ownership. Thank you, Denys H. Oberman -------------------------------------------- Please disregard the signature block below Denys H. Oberman, CEO NOBERMAN Sftcdegy on-d Fiw%tal Advbsem OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 19200 Von Karman Avenue, 61" Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Email: dho(o-)_obermanassociates.com 1 March 13, 2023 FOR DISTRIBUTION AND THE PUBLIC RECORD Mayor Noah Blom and Council Members Avery, Grant, Kleiman, O'Neill, Stapleton and Weigand 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach CA Re: Fractional Ownership Businesses in our Residential Neighborhoods - Mayor Blom and Members of the City Council: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Leadership Committee comprised of community leaders representing the following neighborhoods: Central Balboa Peninsula; Peninsula Point; West Newport, and Newport Island; Balboa Island; and Corona del Mar. We understand that the City Council will be considering recommendations from the Planning Commission, staff, and evidence and testimony from the public at the upcoming City Council session of March 14, 2023. The Council will be deciding to either, ban Fractional Ownership timeshare businesses (FHO) or, "Allow and regulate". There have been multiple resident complaints to the City regarding Fractional Ownership/timeshare businesses in our residential neighborhoods for over two years. The City for a variety of reasons, deferred taking action to prevent the spread of these businesses. The Planning Commission and City staff were charged with developing recommendations for the Council's consideration. We appreciate their diligence and efforts to be responsive. The City Council committed prompt post -election action to address this issue. Extensive evidence and testimony has already been provided by various stakeholders and legal experts. Therefore, we are not repeating all of the detail made available to the City Council, Planning Commission and staff in this correspondence. Our position is summarized below. The residents of Newport Beach are opposed to allowing these commercial businesses in our dense, residential neighborhoods. • Fractional Ownership businesses are commercial businesses engaged in real property development, acquisition and management. They have commercial infrastructure and services which they apply across multiple sites. The structure and use of these commercial businesses is distinct from LLCs or other estate planning entities set up between family members or close friends for their own use. These businesses are buying up homes in our dense, family oriented Residential neighborhoods, (zoned R1, 1.5,2 and RM). These businesses have targeted our attractive coastal neighborhoods to expand their business model, at the expense of residents and other communities. Very simply, Commercial businesses are not allowed to establish and operate in our residential neighborhoods. Further, Fractional Ownership businesses are a type of timeshare business. The City of Newport Beach has had ordinances on the books for some time prohibiting timeshares in our neighborhoods. Fractional Ownership businesses create numerous adverse impacts in our dense, residential neighborhoods ---- impacts for which there is no ultimate Remedy for Residents. Impacts such as late -night partying, noise, lights and smoking are particularly intense in our coastal neighborhoods. Lots are narrow and houses are 6 feet or less apart. Much of the FHO partying occurs on open decks. Owners of fractional ownership equity come here to play. They generally believe it is their "right" to do what they please without typical neighbor's regard for the disturbance to others. Fractional owners are not members of the regular community —they do not work, have children in school, participate in civic and community work, or vote in our community. These commercial uses are NOT compatible with our family neighborhoods (R 1, 1.5, 2 and RM). No Ultimate Remedy for Residents- Impacts and disturbances cannot be controlled or prevented by application of Code Enforcement. In contrast to the framework for regulation of Short Term rentals, these businesses and their fractional owners cannot be "abated" through revocation of Permits. The City is already challenged to regulate STRs which already exist, and can offer only limited enforcement attempts. Disturbance is perpetual. Surrounding residents are losing the peaceful enjoyment of their homes with inability to mitigate. Further, the commercial Fractional Ownership timeshare businesses need to accommodate multiple fractional owners (typically 8 or more), using onsite parking for storage lockers. Other intensifications occur which burden surrounding residents, and which cannot practically be controlled either by the business' management entity, or the City. Allow but regulate is not a viable option to effectuate relief. • Fractional ownership timeshares reduce our much needed, mandated Housing stock required for Newport's permanent residents. The City is already taxed with mandate and need to provide additional Housing stock for those who live, work and raise families here. Newport Beach's challenge is already intensified by the number of Short Term rentals allowed. The number of STRs has already been capped, through extensive administrative and regulatory proceedings. It is incumbent on the City to NOT allow additional businesses which reduce Housing stock. 2 Time is of the essence to ensure that our residential communities and the quality of life are protected. We are confident that the City Council, as our elected representatives, appreciates the benefit of swift, decisive action to ensure the protection of our residential neighborhoods. The City of Newport has had Ordinances prohibiting Timeshares for some time. We respectfully request that the City Council immediately take action to: 1) Enforce its ordinances prohibiting timeshare businesses. 2) (If, and only if, deemed necessary)- Complete refresh, clarification, of the City's current ordinances to specifically include, Fractional Ownership businesses. This can be accomplished with qualified legal counsel in not more than 30-60 days. 3) Enact a Moratorium, including immediate notice to commercial Fractional Ownership timeshare businesses to cease any further marketing, promotion, transactional, or operational activity. This position reflects the desires of the Leadership Committee to prohibit commercial Fractional Ownership timeshare businesses. We appreciate your consideration and action. Sincerely, loom, H 0boixn,2n, resident and member of the Community Leadership Committee 1210 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92661 Cc: City Staff: G. Leung- City Manager; S. Jurjis- Director Community Development; A. Harp- City Attorney; L. Brown- City Clerk Resident Coalitions and Association: -Leadership Committee (B. Yant, R. Doll, L. Pearl, D. Stevens, N. Scarborough, C. Rawson, G. Cruz, D. Oberman) -Community Associations (Central Pier to Pier, West Newport, Peninsula Point, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, Newport Heights) -SPON Board and membership 3 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Virginia Spragins <gigispragins@yahoo.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 1:02 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please don't let this happen. It is fraught with so many problems. We have been homeowners on Balboa Island for over thirty years snd know what bad management on rentals can look like. Gigi Spragins Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Veronica Lorman <vlorman@icloud.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 1:13 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 City Council Members, I have lived on Balboa Island since 1979 and treasure every day in this charming neighborhood community of home owners and long time friends. We care for and enjoy one another. We all appreciate and respect each other. I am very opposed to fractional ownership and the change it would bring to The Island. Please vote against it. Best regards, Veronica Lorman 117 Apolena Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92662 Vlorman@me.com 949-683-4077 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Richard Gregory <rsaregory@)att.net> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:22:20 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@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 Sir or Madam, I would like to express my opposition to permitting fractional home ownership in R1 and R2 zoned areas. I feel it would be incompatible with the single family nature of our already compact and congested neighborhoods. Sincerely, Richard Gregory 1300 West Bay Avenue Newport Beach, CA Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Teresa Chandler <teresachandler@icloud.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 1:27 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council -members: To maintain quality of life in our town we need a critical mass of full-time residents. My family and I have lived in our home in CdM Village since 2000 and have felt the effects of full-time neighbors being replaced by part time and transient neighbors. I am not sure what the right ratio is, but I am concerned we are getting to close to a limit. Please proceed carefully. Sincerely, Teresa Chandler 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Pat Warmington <warmingtonpat@gmail. com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:26:50 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FHO [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We have lived here for more than 39 years. We purchased based on R1 zoning keep it single family. We want no FHO or any type of timeshare arrangement! Pat & Ed Warmington 807 Bellis st. New port Beach Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: LYNN LORENZ <lynnierlo@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:43:17 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Fractional Homes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please acknowledge receipt From: Lynn Lorenz, Newport Heights, 92663 Sent to City Council members last week >>> After our last election I, undoubtedly like many others, felt the need to take a vacation from city politics. But now that we have an important issue before us that needs resolution, it is time to speak up again. >>> It has come to my attention that the big issue that our city government is having a hard time resolving is the fractional home issue. First I find it hard to understand why OUR City is so fearful of litigation over this issue because I have been told that many cities have banned fractional homes or put a moratorium on them. During the time that the city has been dragging its feet, the number of fractional homes has increased by 7. >>> This is a very divisive issue because I am assuming that these homes are cropping up in certain areas and not in others. First of all, the issue divides us because those who live in areas where these homes are not going to exist, for the most part, cannot properly relate to the problem. It does not seem fair that only certain parts of Newport Beach should bear the burden. If they are allowed in beachside areas, they should be allowed in all areas, including Big Canyon, Cameo Shores and Newport Coast. In other words, the whole city must unite behind this issue. >>> Shared ownership property invites « vacation type)) activities: lots of noise, partying, and late hours -behavior that is not conducive to promoting a sense of community in a neighborhood. It is not illogical to think that the behavior of people when they are in a fractional home will not be like their behavior in their own community. >>> The easiest solution of all is to consider the fractional homes as timeshares and prohibit them. 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Robbins <BillyR@RobbinsFinancial.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 2:03 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the members at large: As a long time resident and home owner in Corona Del Mar, it seems inconceivable to me that there would ever need to be a discussion on "fractional ownership" in our community. Allowing this type of transaction guarantees a year around rotation of multiple owners coming in and out of potentially every area of our beautiful community. I think it is short sighted and would lead to a rapid deterioration of our beautiful neighborhoods. Thank you William H Robbins 4515 Brighton Road Corona Del Mar, CA Sent from my iPad Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Kathleen Pace <pacepediatric@yahoo.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 2:30 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. No to Fractional. Kathleen Pace Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Dale Camera <DCamera@leeirvine.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 2:34 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NO Fractional Ownership Businesses in Newport Beach Residential Neighborhoods Importance: High [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, I am a homeowner at 115 Via Ravenna in Newport, and I strongly oppose fractional ownership businesses. Sincerely, Dale Camera Senior Vice President Lee & Associates I Irvine D 949.790.3132 M 949.337.2546 dcamera(J5�leeirvine.com [A LEE & ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES Corporate ID 01044791 1 License ID 01313921 9838 Research Drive Irvine, California 92618 L O * Ica) O Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Steve Collins <steve@collinscomputing.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 2:41 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Keep Pacaso on Balboa Island [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I am a local resident, business owner, and commercial property owner of Orange County. My wife and I live in Irvine and own a Pacaso property on Balboa Island. We have been renting vacation homes on Balboa Island for years to enjoy everything it has to offer from the beach, to the shops and the many restaurants. This is a special home we share with our grandkids where we have made lasting memories. We are respectful of our neighbors and treat this home as we do our primary residence. We have made a big investment in this community with the purchase of our Newport Beach home. I don't understand why the city would consider owning a home under an LLC as unlawful. This is a common mechanism for which to own real estate and is common practice in Newport Beach. We hope you consider the owners point of view and the value we bring to the community when debating this topic. Thank you for your time and consideration. ."- Steve Collins I Founder Crins � i n s 949-457-2987 �. scollins@collinscomputina.com 6 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Glenn and Lynda ROBISON <glrrobison@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 3:03 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We have been residents of Newport Beach for years. Please DO NOT let fractional Ownership become part of our city. Please vote NO on Fractional Ownership. Thank you for your service to our community. Glenn and Lynda Robison Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Yonkers, Ken J - NEWPORT BE CA <kenyounkers@ml.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 3:29 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 Mayor and Council Members: The Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Association Board recently discussed and voted on this issue. Please let it be known the board voted and is unanimously AGAINST fractional ownership in our City. Thank you. Ken Ken Yonkers, President Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Association P.O. Box 74 Balboa Island, CA 92662 949-683-7805 The Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Association is dedicated to maintaining a safe, enjoyable, and harmonious neighborhood while increasing the value of its members' properties. Please visit our website: littlebalboaisland.org This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Geraldine Scherr <gjscherr@icloud.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 3:31 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My husband & I, Richard & Gerri Scherr, are not for allowing fractional ownership businesses in our community. We live in a quiet area & this ordinance would create create huge problems for our community. Please vote no on the fractional ownership ordinance to protect our homes & our home values. Thank you for your service. Richard & Gerri Scherr 2026 Vista Cajon Newport Beach, CA 92660 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Virginia Cook <vhcook3@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 3:32 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I vote NO on fractional ownership! Virginia H. Cook Cell: 714-883-1639 vhcook3@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Dennis Bress <dennis@ieei.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 3:42 PM To: Blom, Noah <NBlom@newportbeachca.gov>; Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Finnigan, Tara <TFinnigan@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: City of Newport Beach : "Fractional Ownership" No [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor and Council, I am writing to express my hope that you do not allow "Fractional Ownership" or regulate it in a way that it is not allowed in Residential Communities. This "Fractional Ownership" structure has less "Transparency" and thus "Accountability" to address problems. Compared to traditional rentals, you can address issues pertaining to renters by communicating with the property owner or in other rental configurations you could contact say the rental company handling the rental and the rental contract to hold them accountable. Based on a "Fractional Ownership" config on Emerald on Balboa Island as an example, there has been problems and lack of transparency and accountability. If this "Fractional Ownership" is scaled up to 50+ on Balboa Island, we could have a big problem and this "Fractional Ownership" model would then negatively impact our lives. No matter what, I make the case that regardless of what the city has done or has not done in this process, they have NOT reached out to the most important part of this process and that is the "Community" for our education of the entire issue and all its nuances, to be fully informed to make any decision or community consensus. If we use the BENCH process as an example, look at the efforts and transparency the city used to inform the public, and via the ballot get community response that helped guide its policies / decisions. None of this has yet to happen in any real fashion or form regarding this topic "Fractional Ownership" which on a scale of 1-10, Benches being lower on the rating, "Fractional Ownership" is a 10 issue as this could / would seriously negatively impact our community / village. Mayor Blom makes the public comments, we want to maintain what makes our "Villages" special and unique. YES!!!! I will be speaking at the Tuesday meeting, public comments asking that this is a big deal and that we defer on any decisions regarding allow "Fractional Ownership" and get our community engaged in the education of the issue to see where we land. Keep on Rocking all the best and "Thank you" for all you do to make Newport Beach the awesome place it is. A jewel on the Big Blue Pacific Ocean. :-) Dennis Bress Resident Balboa Island Best, -Dennis Bress Jr. 714-878-1276 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: RMendrin@silverstarsound.net Sent: March 13, 2023 3:46 PM To: City Clerk's Office Cc: Dept - City Council; Leung, Grace; Harp, Aaron; Brown, Leilani; Jurjis, Seimone Subject: City Council Letter - Pacaso Attachments: LettertoCouncil.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Please take the time to review the attached letter on behalf of our appreciation for Pacaso. As a Newport Beach small business owner, it is the professional management and conveniency of companies like Pacaso that keep our business active and successful. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions or concerns. Thank You, Roy Mendrin Silver Star Sound & Electric President 895 Production Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 o (714) 262-1186 c (562) 665-4437 www.silverstarsoundandelectric.com 1 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Darius Lahoutifard <darius.la@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 3:46:18 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: carmen rawson@att.net <carmen rawson@att.net> Subject: 2023-03-14 City Council Mtg - Item 12 - Fractional Homeownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Fractional Homeownership Dear City Council members, We urge you to proceed with the Planning Commissioner's Preferred Recommendation to Broaden the definition of Timeshare to include Fractional Homeownership and to effectively prohibit such business model in ALL residential zoning districts (R-1, R-1.5, R-2 and RM). Companies such as Pacaso, Ember, etc could still consider implementing their business model (shared deed timeshares) in the Mixed Use and Commercial zoning areas of our city (where timeshares are currently allowed). Residents do not want to "allow and regulate" timeshares in our residential zoning districts. Sincerely, Darius Lahoutifard Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Kathleen Ramp <kathleenramp@yahoo.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 4:00 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This does not sound like a good fit for Corona Del Mar, a beautiful close knit community. Kathleen Ramp Local resident Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 From: Joseph Meyers <jmeyers@kelleranderle.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 4:17 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Jennifer Keller <jkeller@kelleranderle.com>; Jeremy Stamelman <jstamelman@kelleranderle.com>; Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com> Subject: Letter from Jennifer Keller on behalf of Still Protecting our Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Mayor Blom and City Council Members, In advance of tomorrow's public hearing on code updates related to fractional homeownership, please find attached a letter from Jennifer Keller on behalf of Still Protecting our Newport Beach. Sincerely, Joseph Meyers Associate Ick KeII r/And rl «p UNMIVALED TPIA4 LAWYERS 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, California 92612-1057 949.476.8700 1 Fax 949.476.0900 imevers(&kelleranderle.com I www.kelleranderle.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at info@kelleranderle.com or by telephone at 949.476.8700 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. Keller/AnderleLLP UNRIVALED TRIAL LAWYERS March 13, 2023 VIA E-MAIL Noah Blom, Mayor Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Fractional Ownership Properties Are Time Shares Dear Mayor Blom and City Council Members: I write on behalf of Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON) concerning the threat fractional ownership companies pose to the unique character of Newport Beach. SPON is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit made up of responsible members of the Newport Beach community. Since 1974, SPON has worked to protect and preserve the charm and environment of Newport Beach. Recently, highly capitalized out-of-town companies, including Pacaso and Ember, have violated Newport Beach's Municipal Code by acquiring single family homes and converting them to time shares.' Not only are these conversions illegal, they also threaten the integrity of Newport's residential communities. The City Council should act soon to prevent Pacaso, Ember, and similar companies from fundamentally changing the residential character of Newport Beach neighborhoods before it is too late. 1. Fractional ownership "homes" are time shares. Pacaso and Ember claim —wrongly —that the residential properties they acquire are not converted to time shares because their investors enjoy partial ownership of a property -specific limited liability corporation. But while these companies have tweaked the time share model to benefit their own investors, for full-time Newport Beach residents, the negative effects on the community are largely the same. Under recent revisions to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, time shares and "fractional ownership" schemes are indistinguishable and subject to the same ordinances and zoning provisions. Pacaso and Ember sell 1/8 shares in Newport Beach single family homes. Their customers purchase one or multiple shares and, in return, receive access rights to the properties. Under both companies' property management systems, purchasers then use a website or mobile app to book vacation time in the property in which they own a share. How long they can stay is capped based on the size of the customer's share. Owners of 1 /8 shares can stay for a maximum of 14 consecutive nights, while owners of 2/8 shares can stay for a maximum of 28 nights, with some flexibility during company -defined "off seasons." Customers must have a gap between stays that is at least ' Pacaso has raised approximately $1.5 billion in investment capital. Ember is currently valued at between $100 and $500 million and is backed by billionaire Peter Thiel. Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 2 as long as their first stay. For example, if a customer stays in a home for ten nights, they must then vacate the property for at least ten nights before staying there again. Pacaso and Ember's position that their Newport Beach fractional ownership properties are not time shares is not based on sound legal analysis, but on a business model that requires flouting the spirit, if not the letter, of city ordinances nationwide. Whatever the merits of their hairsplitting in other jurisdictions, their claims are false in Newport Beach, where the Municipal Code defines fractional ownership as falling under time share regulations. The Municipal Code defines a "time share project" as: [A] development in which a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of an ownership interest in a lot, unit, room(s), or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to, time share estate, interval ownership, fractional ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time share use, hotel/condominium, or uses of a similar nature.' It does not require complex legal analysis to determine that what Pacaso, Ember, and other fractional ownership companies offer is the "recurrent, exclusive use" or "ownership interested in" a "lot" or "unit" on a "periodic basis," for allotted "period[s] of time" — i.e., by Code, "time share use." Both Pacaso and Ember hold themselves out as selling "fractional ownership" shares, which, as noted above, is explicitly included in the definition of a "time share project" in Newport Beach. What responsibilities do you have as a fractional owner? Maintenance of fractionally owned properties typically falls to a third -party management company. If the property you share is recognized as a tenancy in common, the owners might take a more casual approach and assign property management tasks to individuals In the group. March 10, 2023 screenshot, https:llw-ww.pacaso.com/bloglwhat-is-fractional-ownership 2 Newport Beach Mun. Code § 21.70.020 (emphasis added). (Attached as Exhibit A). The City Council most recently revisited the definition of "time share" in 2016, in its Ordinance implementing the Coastal Land Use Plan and the California Coastal Act of 1976. See Newport Beach Ord. 2016-19. This 2016 definition of "time share," codified at Mun. Code § 21.70.020, is controlling for all properties discussed in this letter. See Newport Beach Mun. Code § 21.70.010 (Exhibit A). Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 3 4rEmber Listings How it works Agents About (800) 366-6891 ( A �D Interior Design & Fractional Ownership Lot Procurement Architecture Construction and Buyer Furnishing Aggregation March 10, 2023 screenshot, https://emherhome.com/custom-build Though "fractional ownership" properties are to be regulated as "time share projects" in Newport Beach, neither Pacaso nor Ember comply with Newport Beach time share law. 2. Pacaso and Ember violate Newport Beach's prohibition on converting residential dwellings into time share units, zoning requirements, and other laws. Since at least 1982, Newport Beach has strictly limited the creation of time shares within city limits and has prohibited the conversion of certain dwelling units into time shares. In 1982, the City Council passed Ordinance 82-14, which banned the construction, sale, or development of any new time share projects in the City.' Ordinance 82-14 reflected the same concerns then that many Newport Beach residents have today: time shares increase transient occupancy, traffic, and demand for city services and can negatively impact the existing character, economy, and values of the City.' In 1996, the Council lifted the complete ban on time shares, but imposed comprehensive permitting and zoning requirements designed to limit their negative effects.' The ban on converting residential dwellings to time shares and the restriction of new time share units to commercially zoned districts remain in effect today.6 The 1982 and 1996 Ordinances both reflect particular concern over the problems created by converting residential dwellings into time shares or placing time shares in residential areas. Such conversions reduce the number of units available for permanent residence within the City, drive prices upward,' and can alter the character of residential neighborhoods. For that reason, even when the City Council partially lifted the ban on new time share development in 1996, it continued to prohibit residential dwelling conversions and limited new time share aroiects to commercially zoned districts.' Disregarding Newport Beach law, Pacaso and Ember are acquiring residential properties in Newport Beach and converting them to time share units, rebranded as "fractional ownership" properties. Those properties are: ' Newport Beach Ordinance No. 82-14. (Attached as Exhibit Q. 4 Id. 'Newport Beach Ordinance Nos. 96-7 (Exhibit E) and 96-18 (attached as Exhibit F). 6 Codified at Newport Beach Mun. Code § 21.70.020. (Exhibit A). 7 Ordinance No. 82-14. (Exhibit D). 8 Ordinance No. 96-7. (Attached as Exhibit E). Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 4 • 117 25th Street, Newport Beach 92663 (Pacaso) • 121 Emerald Avenue, Newport Beach 92662 (Pacaso) • 2628 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar 92625 (Pacaso) • 4106 River Avenue, Newport Beach, 92663 (Pacaso) • 305 Grand Canal, Newport Beach 92662 (Pacaso) • 506 West Oceanfront, Newport Beach 92661 (Pacaso) • 3803 Marcus Avenue, Newport Beach 92663 (Pacaso) • 1703 Plaza del Sur, Newport Beach 92661 (Pacaso) • 315 East Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, 92661 (Ember) • 2137 Miramar Drive, Newport Beach, 92661 (Ember) All these Pacaso and Ember's property acquisitions appear to be in residentially zoned districts: PENINSULA -_ ._.- BIG CANNON CORONA DEL M-AR I r Map of Pacaso and Ember properties in Newport Beach and Corona Del Mar. (Pacaso properties are blue; Ember properties in red.) Each of these properties is in violation of Municipal Code § 20.48.220 subd. (A)(2), which states "[t]he conversion of existing residential dwelling units into time share units shall be Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 5 prohibited." (Attached as Exhibit B). They are also in violation of the prohibition on developing time shares outside of commercially zoned districts.' Pacaso's and Ember's conduct would be subject to injunctive relief by those with "standing" to challenge their conversions of these homes into fractional ownership time share properties. Parties with standing would include neighbors of the affected properties, and probably even all Newport Beach residents, due to the domino effect of allowing these fractional ownership properties to multiply. The City itself might also be subject to litigation for refusing to enforce its own Municipal Code ordinances, which, on their face, prohibit what Pacaso and Ember have done to date.10 What's more, even if these time shares were in commercially zoned districts of Newport Beach (which we understand they are not), we have seen no evidence that Pacaso and Ember are compliant with applicable fees and permitting requirements: Municipal Code § 20.48.220 subd. (C)(1) establishes permitting and review requirements for time shares. In addition to the general conditional use permit (CUP) requirements set out in Section 20.52.020, applicants seeking a permit for a time share project must also submit to the City a proposed plan including a sales plan (detailing methods of selling shares), operating plan (detailing terms of time share ownership), management plan (describing methods employed to guarantee satisfactory maintenance and management of property), and contingency plan (addressing actions to be taken if the plan fails or sells less than 50% of shares in the first two years of obtaining a time share permit). (Exhibit B). • Municipal Code § 20.48.220 subd. (C)(2) requires that the time share operator and the City enter into a Development Agreement, the requirements of which are detailed in Municipal Code § 15.45. (Exhibit B). • Municipal Code § 3.28 assesses a visitor's fee on guests staying fewer than 28 consecutive days in time share projects, among other temporary accommodations. (Exhibit Q. ' See Ordinance 96-7; Newport Beach Mun. Code §§ 20.12, 20.18. io In California, parties may seek a writ of mandate in Superior Court when public officials abuse their discretion or act arbitrarily, capriciously, or without due regard for the parties' rights. See Schwartz v. Poizner, 187 Cal. App. 4th 592, 598 (2010). Writs of mandate may issue to "compel a public official to perform an official act required by law," People v. Karriker, 149 Cal. App. 4th 763, 774 (2007) (citation omitted), including against municipal zoning authorities when they interpret local laws "contrary to their express terms," Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 186 Cal. App. 3d 814, 834-35 (1986). Municipal zoning authorities do not have the discretion to refuse to enforce local zoning resolutions. Id. (City zoning administrator may not "ignore and not enforce requirements of specific resolutions," and a writ of mandate may issue to compel them to do so). And decades ago, the California Supreme Court acknowledged that a city may be subject to a lawsuit for violating its own zoning laws. See Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal. 3d 920, 940 n. 19 (1972). Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 6 Because each property acquired by Ember and Pacaso is a new time share project, incorporated as a separate limited liability corporation, under Newport Beach law each fractionally owned home must fulfil these requirements. There is no reason they should be exempted from these laws. 3. Fractional ownership time shares cause many of the same problems as short term rentals. In recent years, Newport Beach has recognized the risks posed by newfangled home ownership and rental models, such as short-term vacation rentals. SPON applauds the steps the City has taken to regulate such rentals. Fractional ownership time shares raise some of the same concerns the City sought to address with these rules." Those include: • operation and management of residential properties by absentee owners and corporate entities, which have less investment in property upkeep and maintenance; • failure to pay required municipal fees and taxes; • difficulty enforcing noise and disorderly conduct rules when share owners are permanent residents of areas outside Newport Beach and only visit Newport Beach for short pleasure trips; • parking, overcrowding, and refuse accumulation; • failure of unlicensed operators to collect and remit the City service fee; • loss of permanent residences for renters and homeowners; and • damage to the quietude and residential character of residential neighborhoods. Like short term rentals, converting residential homes into fractional ownership time shares could destroy one of the very experiences that makes Newport Beach such a wonderful place to live: neighbors knowing, socializing with, and helping neighbors. Neighborhoods become hollowed -out shells of their former selves when homes are occupied only by short term vacationers staying for days at a time and then leaving, not to return for weeks or months. Widespread short- term residency will fray the ties that bind the City's residents together. As it did with short term vacation rentals, the City must act now to protect Newport. The City must enforce its already enacted municipal ordinances prohibiting "fractional ownership" time shares in areas where they are banned, and regulate such time shares where they are permitted. i i See Newport Beach Ordinances 2020-15 and 2022-28. Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 7 4. The City should enforce existing law and issue a temporary moratorium on further use of Newport Beach homes as fractional ownership time shares. Time shares are nothing new, but recently the pace of conversions and fractional ownership offerings is accelerating, as companies like Pacaso, Ember, and their competitors race to acquire and convert single family homes. For decades, Newport Beach has appropriately regulated time shares and kept them out of residential areas. But fractional ownership companies repackaging this familiar time share model have so far managed to trick the City and evade enforcement by simply ignoring the Municipal Code and wrongly claiming the laws do not apply to them. Their willingness to brazenly violate Newport Beach law does not bode well for how they will behave as neighbors and members of the Newport Beach community. The City cannot afford to sit on its hands. First, the Council should refer this matter to the Code Enforcement Division and City Attorney for enforcement of applicable zoning and permit requirements and to issue City Ordinance Violations. Second, in light of the willingness of these companies to break existing law, further legislation or zoning proposals may be required. At a minimum, further study of this emerging issue is needed before more fractional ownership time shares are allowed to open in any areas. Third, the City Council needs to immediately pause further time share development while this issue is being deliberated. Several time share units are currently offered for sale across Newport Beach, luring out-of-town customers into spending money on shares of properties and entering use agreements in schemes that violate the Municipal Code. The Council should immediately adopt an interim ordinance prohibiting property uses that conflict with time share and zoning regulations. While the moratorium is in place, the City Council and planning commission should continue to study this issue and consider whether changes to existing law are needed. Such a moratorium is authorized by California Government Code § 65858 and was recently used by the City of Beverly Hills to pause a fractional ownership scheme pending further review.12 5. Pacaso's litigation against St. Helena should not deter the City from acting now. Newport Beach should not fear Pacaso suing the City as it has done with St. Helena.13 That is because, unlike St. Helena's laws, Newport Beach's municipal code already expressly references 12 See Beverly Hills Interim Ordinance 21-0-2841 (initial moratorium), 21-0-2842 (extending moratorium). 13 In 2021 the City of St. Helena sent letters to Pacaso and local realtors informing them that their fractional ownership schemes were likely in violation of city time share ordinances. Pacaso responded by suing the City of St. Helena in federal court. Part of Pacaso's lawsuit was stricken under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16), and Pacaso was ordered to pay St. Helena's attorneys' fees for that portion of the lawsuit. Litigation in that case continues. But unlike Newport Beach, St. Helena's municipal code did not expressly prohibit fractional ownership time shares. Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 8 and prohibits "fractional ownership" time shares. It would set a terrible precedent for Newport Beach to be intimidated into ignoring its own municipal code because a corporate actor violating that code threatens a lawsuit. The City needs to stand up for itself and its residents, enforce its own laws, and not ignore lawbreaking under the guise of avoiding litigation. If that is how the City's streets were policed (or not policed), it is easy to imagine the crime that would follow. This Council spoke clearly in 1982 and 1996 when it decided that time shares should be kept out of residential neighborhoods. It was well within its power to do so and should not let out- of-state companies ignore and break those laws. Like other municipalities, Newport has clear and broad authority to regulate land use and property development within City boundaries. The California Constitution gives counties and cities the power to make and enforce within their limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Cal. Const. art. XI, section 7. The City's authority to regulate the use of property and to create zoning regulations is derivative of these general police powers, and is also codified in the California Government Code. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65850, et seq. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the broad scope of these powers over the course of the last century. See Miller v. Bd. of Pub. Works of City of Los Angeles, 195 Cal. 477, 484 (1925) (zoning is within city's police power, which is not to be "lightly limited"); Consol. Rock Prod. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 57 Cal. 2d 515, 522 (1962) (city's police powers are "elastic" to allow government to "meet existing conditions of modern life"); California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435, 455 (2015) (scope of municipal power to regulate development and use of property is "extensive" and constitutional so long as it "bears a reasonable relationship to the public welfare"). There is no serious question that Newport acted within the scope of its authorities when it passed Ordinances 82-14, 96-7, and 96-18. Pacaso's lawsuit against St. Helena is based on St. Helena's municipal code, not Newport Beach's law. As stated above, the Newport Beach Municipal Code specifically references and prohibits "fractional ownership" time share schemes, while the St. Helena ordinance does not expressly do the same. (See St. Helena ordinance attached as Exhibit G). In Newport, the City unquestionably intends fractional ownership schemes to be deemed as time shares, especially when Municipal Code § 21.70.020 explicitly defines time shares to include "fractional ownership." There is simply no reason for Newport Beach to await the outcome of St. Helena's litigation before enforcing its own laws against Pacaso and Ember. The decision of the court in St. Helena will not be binding upon Newport Beach. The cities are differently situated, with different ordinances. And the St. Helena litigation is just starting the discovery phase. It will be a long time before that litigation wraps up in the trial court, after which an inevitable appeal will follow. Meanwhile, fractional ownership properties will continue to metastasize in Newport. Once entrenched, they will become difficult to remove. Neglecting enforcement, wringing hands, and waiting to see what happens with other cities is not responsible municipal leadership. By the time a final decision is rendered, the time share conversions of numerous Newport homes —in violation of City law —will have occurred with the damage probably irreversible.11 14 Another reason the City should act now is because Pacaso will use enforcement delay as a reason why it should continue on with its business model, which is one of its contentions in the St. Helena litigation. Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com March 13, 2023 Page 9 Cities across California not unlike Newport Beach are protecting their residents and their cities by taking the necessary action of enforcing their laws against unregulated fractional ownership time shares. Cities that are upscale and attractive vacation destinations find themselves increasingly under threat of their neighborhoods being "hotel-ized." Beverly Hills, Palm Springs, South Lake Tahoe, Carmel -by -the -Sea, Monterey County, Hermosa Beach, and Santa Cruz, among other municipalities, have issued moratoriums, sent cease and desist letters, and/or published resolutions seeking to stop unlawful time share development. Newport Beach should do the same. Sincerely, KELLER/ANDERLE LLP Jennifer Keller cc: Charles Klobe (SPON) Jeremy Stamelman (Keller/Anderle) Joseph Meyers (Keller/Anderle) Keller/Anderle LLP 1 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 1 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 949.476.87001 Fax 949.476.0900 1 www.kelleranderle.com Exhibits Exhibit A Newport Beach Mun. Code § § 21.70.010, 21.70.020 Exhibit B Newport Beach Mun. Code § 20.48.220 Exhibit C Newport Beach Mun. Code § 3.28 Exhibit D Newport Beach Ordinance 82-14 Exhibit E Newport Beach Ordinance 96-7 Exhibit F Newport Beach Ordinance 96-18 Exhibit G St. Helena time share ordinance Exhibit A Chapter 21.70 — Definitions Sections: 21.70.010 — Purpose of Part 21.70.020 — Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases 21.70.010 — Purpose of Part This part provides definitions of terms and phrases used in this Implementation Plan that are technical or specialized, or that may not reflect common usage. If the definitions in this part conflict with definitions in other provisions of the Municipal Code, these definitions shall control for the purposes of this Implementation Plan. If a word is not defined in this part, or elsewhere in this Implementation Plan, the most common dictionary definition is presumed to be correct. As used in this Implementation Plan, the following terms and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this part, unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise. 21.70.020 — Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases A. "A" Definitions "Abandon" means to cease or suspend from developing or maintaining a structure or use for a stated period of time. ABC. See "Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)." "Abutting/adjoining" means contiguous to, having district boundaries or lot lines in common (i.e., not separated by an alley, public or private right-of-way, or street). See "Adjacent." "Access" means a safe, adequate, and usable way of approaching or entering a property or use, including ingress (the right to enter) and egress (the right to exit). Accessory Dwelling Unit (Land Use). See "Dwelling unit, senior accessory." "Accessory" means a structure or use that is a part of, and clearly incidental and secondary to, a structure or use and that does not change the character of the structure or use. Accessory Structure (Land Use). "Nonresidential accessory structure" means an attached or detached structure that is a part of, and clearly incidental and secondary to, a nonresidential structure and that does not change the character of the nonresidential structure. Illustrative examples of these structures include: Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan Page 21.70-1 City of Newport tseacn Intervening pages intentionally omitted "Transportation systems management (TSM)" means individual actions or comprehensive plans to reduce traffic congestion by increasing the efficiency of the transportation system itself. Examples include improved traffic signal timing, coordination of multiple traffic signals, or spot improvements that increase capacity of the roadway system. Treatment Control BMP. See "Best Management Practices (BMP)." Triplex. See "Dwelling, multi -unit." "Tsunami" means a long period wave, or seismic sea wave, caused by an underwater disturbance (e.g., volcanic eruption, earthquake, etc.). "Turbidity" means a measure of the extent to which water is stirred up or disturbed, as by sediment; opaqueness due to suspended sediment. "Turning Basin" means an area, often designated on nautical charts, connected to a channel that is large enough to allow vessels to maneuver or turn around. Two -Unit Dwelling. See "Dwelling, two -unit." U. "U" Definitions. Unit. See "Dwelling unit." Usable Open Space. See "Open space." "Use" means the purpose for which land or a structure is arranged, designed, intended, maintained, or occupied. Utilities (Land Use). Major. Energy generating plants, electrical substations, above -ground electrical transmission lines, lone switching structures, refuse collection, transfer recycling or disposal facilities, water reservoirs, flood control or drainage facilities, water or wastewater treatment plants, transportation or communications utilities, and similar facilities of public agencies or public utilities. Any utility structure or facility that may have a significant effect on surrounding uses. 2. Minor. Utility facilities that are necessary to support legally established uses and involve only minor structures (e.g., electrical distribution lines, underground water lines, underground sewer lines, etc.). V. "V" Definitions. Vehicle/Equipment Rentals (Land Use). General. Rental of automobiles, construction equipment, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, trucks, and similar vehicles and equipment, including on -site storage and Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan Page 21.70-62 City of Newport tseacn incidental maintenance that does not require pneumatic lifts. Does not include boat rentals (see "Marine rentals and sales"). 2. Limited. Limited to the rental of mopeds, scooters, Segways, and similar vehicles with electric power or engines less than one hundred (100) cc. May also include the maintenance, minor repair, and on -site storage of the equipment offered for rent. 3. Office Only. Rental of automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, trucks, and other types of transportation vehicles. Does not include the on -site storage of or incidental maintenance of vehicles. Does not include boat rentals (see "Marine rentals and sales"). Vehicle/Equipment Repair (Land Use). General. Major repair of automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, or trucks. Examples of uses include body and fender shops; brake shops; full -service motor vehicle repair garages; machine shops; painting shops; tire sales and installation shops; towing services; and transmission shops. Does not include vehicle dismantling or salvage and tire retreading or recapping. Does not include boat repair (see "Marine services"). 2. Limited. Minor repair of automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, or light trucks, vans, or similar size vehicles. Examples of uses include brake adjustments and repairs; installation of electronic equipment (e.g., alarms, stereos, etc.); servicing of cooling, electrical, fuel, and exhaust systems; oil and lube shops; wheel alignment and balancing. Does not include boat repair. See "Marine services." Vehicle/Equipment Sales (Land Use). General. Sale of automobiles, construction equipment, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, trucks, and similar vehicles and equipment, including display, storage, maintenance, repair, and incidental rental of the vehicles and equipment. May include the sale, installation, and servicing of related equipment and parts. Does not include boat sales (see "Marine rentals and sales"). 2. Limited. Limited to the sale of automobiles, including display, storage, minor maintenance, and incidental rental. Does not include maintenance and/or repair requiring pneumatic lifts. Does not include boat sales (see "Marine rentals and sales"). 3. Vehicles Sales, Office Only. Limited to an office for the sale of automobiles. Does not include on -site inventory, display, storage, maintenance, or repair of automobiles. May be subject to parking requirements of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Vehicle/Equipment Services (Land Use). Automobile Washing/Detailing. Establishments engaged in the washing, waxing, or cleaning of automobiles or similar light vehicles. a. Full Service. A car wash establishment where operating functions are performed entirely by an operator/owner with the use of washing, waxing, and drying equipment supplemented with manual detailing by the operator/owner. Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan Page 21.70-63 City of Newport beacn b. Self -Service or Accessory. An establishment where washing, drying, polishing, or vacuuming of an automobile is done by the car driver or occupant. 2. "Service station" means an establishment engaged in the retail sale of gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuel, lubricants, parts, and accessories, including incidental minor maintenance and repair of automobiles and light trucks, vans, or similar size vehicles. Does not include body and fender work or heavy repair of trucks or other motor vehicles (see "Vehicle/Equipment Repair"). 3. "Vehicle storage" means storage of operative or inoperative vehicles, including tow yards (i.e., outdoor storage facilities for the temporary storage of towed vehicles), impound yards, and storage lots for automobiles, trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles. Does not include vehicle/equipment repair activities (see "Vehicle/equipment repair") or vehicle dismantling or salvage. "Vehicles for hire (land use)" means a use specializing in the provision of vehicles with drivers to the general public for the purpose of transportation (e.g., taxi or limousine service). May also include business office and the maintenance, minor repair, and on -site storage of vehicles for hire. Does not include vehicle rental uses or a vehicle for hire use that is an office use only and does not include storage or maintenance of vehicles on site. "Vernal Pool" means a low depression that typically is flooded and saturated above a hardpan or claypan for several weeks to a few months in the winter and spring. "Very low-income household" means a household whose income is fifty (50) percent or less of the Orange County median income ("Area Median Income"), adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. "Vessel" means every type of watercraft that is used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. This includes all vessels of any size home -ported, launched/retrieved, or visiting in Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and registered or unregistered under State or Federal requirements, except a seaplane on the water. "Vessel" means watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. Visitor Accommodations (Land Use). "Bed and breakfast inn" means a dwelling unit that offers guest rooms or suites for a fee for less than thirty (30) days, with incidental eating and drinking service provided from a single kitchen for guests only. 2. "Campground" means a lot upon which one or more sites are located, established, or maintained for rent as an overnight tenting or camping area for recreation or vacation purposes. 3. "Hostel" means Establishments offering supervised overnight sleeping accommodations, primarily for travelers who use non -motorized transportation or commercial or public transportation. Such sleeping accommodations are designed, intended to be used and are used, rented or hired out as temporary or overnight accommodations for guests in which Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan Page 21.70-64 City of Newport beacn daily services of linen change, towel change, soap change and general clean-up are provided by the management. If kitchen or eating facilities are provided, they are communal in nature. 4. "Hotel" means an establishment that provides guest rooms or suites for a fee to transient guests for sleeping purposes. Access to units is primarily from interior lobbies, courts, or halls. Related accessory uses may include conference and meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, and recreational facilities. Guest rooms may or may not contain kitchen facilities for food preparation (i.e., refrigerators, sinks, stoves, and ovens). Hotels with kitchen facilities are commonly known as extended stay hotels. A hotel operates subject to taxation under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280. 5. "Motel" means an establishment that provides guest rooms for a fee to transient guests for sleeping purposes. Guest rooms do not contain kitchen facilities. A motel is distinguished from a hotel primarily by direct independent access to, and adjoining parking for, each guest room. A motel operates subject to taxation under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280. 6. "Recreational vehicle (RV) park" means a lot upon which two or more recreational vehicle sites are located, established, or maintained for occupancy for a rental fee by recreational vehicles of the general public as temporary living quarters for recreation or vacation purposes. 7. "Short-term lodging" means a dwelling unit that is rented or leased as a single housekeeping unit (see "Single housekeeping unit") for a period of less than thirty (30) days. 8. "Single room occupancy, residential hotels (SRO)" means buildings with six or more guest rooms without kitchen facilities in individual rooms, or kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of guests, and which are also the primary residences of the hotel guests. 9. "Time share project" means a development in which a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of an ownership interest in a lot, unit, room(s), or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to, time share estate, interval ownership, fractional ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time share use, hotel/condominium, or uses of a similar nature See also "Limited -Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations (LUOVA)." 10. "Time share estate" means a right of occupancy in a time share project that is coupled with an estate in the real property. 11. "Time share interval" means the period or length of time of occupancy in a time share unit. 12. "Time share unit" means each portion of the real property or real property improvement in a project that is divided into time share intervals. Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan Page 21.70-65 City of Newport tseacn 13. "Time share use" means a license or contractual or membership right of occupancy in a time share project that is not coupled with an estate in the real property. "Visitor -serving retail (land use)" means retail establishments primarily engaged in selling goods or merchandise to tourists and visitors. Examples of these establishments and lines of merchandise include: 1. Antiques. 3. Art galleries. 4. Artists' supplies. 5. Bakeries (retail only). 6. Bicycle sales and rentals. 7. Books. 8. Cameras and photographic supplies. 9. Clothing and accessories. 10. Convenience market. 12. Gift shops. 13. Handcrafted items. 14. Hobby materials. 15. Jewelry. 16. Luggage and leather goods. 17. Newsstands. 19. Specialty food and beverage. 21. Specialty shops. 21. Sporting goods and equipment. 23. Toys and games. 24. Travel services. W. "W" Definitions. "Warehousing (land use)" means establishments engaged in providing facilities for the storage of furniture, household goods, products, or other commercial goods. Includes cold storage. Does not include personal storage (mini -storage) facilities offered for rent or lease to the general public ("Personal storage —mini -storage"); or warehouse facilities in which the primary purpose of storage is for wholesaling ("Wholesaling"). Small. Establishments located in facilities that are five thousand (5,000) square feet or less in size. 2. Large. Establishments located in facilities that are over five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. "Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)" means a plan which identifies best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff and runoff from small storms (less than 0.75 inch of rain falling over a 24-hour period) from the property. "Water Feature" for purposes of Section 21.30.082 (Water Efficient Landscaping) means a design element where open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water features Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan Page 21.70-66 City of Newport beacn Exhibit B 20.48.220 Time Share Facilities. This section provides regulations for time share developments. A. Development Standards. 1. Property Development Standards. A time share project shall comply with the standards for the zoning district in which it is located. 2. Conversion of Existing Dwelling Units Prohibited. The conversion of existing residential dwelling units into time share units shall be prohibited. 3. Minimum Number of Units. Each time share project shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) time share units. Time share projects consisting of less than one hundred (100) units, but developed or converted in conjunction with a resort hotel complex of three hundred (300) or more units, shall be considered to be in compliance with this requirement. B. Required Amenities. Time share projects shall be developed with substantial recreational amenities (e.g., golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc.). C. Permit and Review Requirements. 1. Plan Submittals. In addition to the application requirements in Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits), an application for a time share project shall include the following documents: a. A sales plan shall address the times, areas and methods that will be used to sell the time share project. Factors to be defined in the plan shall include the location, length, and marketing methods that will be used, distinguishing on -site and off -site marketing and signage; and an estimate of the potential numbers of individuals and automobiles expected during various stages of the sales effort. The plan also shall describe measures that will be implemented to reduce traffic during peak hours. b. An operating plan shall address the terms of the timeshare resort ownership interests, the types of private unit and common amenities, and the general financing, maintenance, and management arrangements of the resort that benefit the unit owners. c. A management plan shall describe the methods employed by the applicant to guarantee the future adequacy, stability, and continuity of a satisfactory level of management and maintenance of a time share project. d. A contingency plan shall address the actions to be taken by the applicant if the time share project is an economic failure or fails to sell fifty (50) percent of the time share estates or uses within two years of receiving a permit to occupy the first unit. 2. Development Agreement. The City and the time share project operator shall enter into a development agreement in compliance with Chapter 15.45 (Development Agreements). 3. Modification or Waiver. The review authority may modify or waive any of the standards contained in this section if strict compliance with the standards is determined to be unnecessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. (Ord. 2010-21 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2010) Exhibit C 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* Sections: 3.28.005 Findings and Purpose. 3.28.010 Definitions. 3.28.015 Visitor Services. 3.28.020 Service Fee. 3.28.025 Use of Service Fee. 3.28.030 Operator's Collection Duties. 3.28.035 Exemptions. 3.28.040 Reporting and Remitting, Collection. 3.28.045 Penalties and Interest. 3.28.050 Records. 3.28.055 Enforcement Procedures —Appeal. 3.28.057 Payment Required. 3.28.060 Duty of Successor of Operator. 3.28.065 Divulging Information Prohibited. 3.28.070 Refunds. 3.28.075 Notice. 3.28.080 Fee Declared a Debt —Action to Collect. 3.28.085 Penalty for Violations. * Prior ordinance history: Ords. 86-5 and 93-15. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportB each/html/NewportBeach03/NewportB eachO328.html 1/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* 3.28.005 Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The natural, recreational and cultural resources of Newport Beach make it a popular destination for business travelers and vacationers; B. Visitor serving businesses, such as hotels, restaurants and retail shops, comprise a large segment of the economy of the City of Newport Beach; C. The existing visitor serving businesses within Newport Beach are subject to increased competition due to the construction of numerous hotels and restaurants in cities near Newport Beach; D. To maintain the economic viability of the existing visitor serving businesses it is necessary to provide those visitors with information about the resources and businesses available to serve their needs, and to encourage persons to visit Newport Beach during the off-season; E. Businesses that provide lodging for visitors will play a key role in dispensing information to visitors and the guests of hotels, motels and inns will be the principal beneficiary of the program; F. The program for providing services to visitors and encouraging others to visit Newport Beach should be funded by fees charged to the guests of hotels and motels; G. A program for providing services to visitors and informing potential visitors of the advantages of Newport Beach is likely to generate additional transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenues that can be used by the City to provide services and make improvements that will benefit residents and visitors alike; H. The visitor service fee required by this chapter is equivalent to the costs incurred by the City in providing services and is representative of the benefit to those visiting Newport Beach. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.010 Definitions. Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section shall govern the construction of this chapter: Finance Director. The term "Finance Director" shall mean the Finance Director of the City of Newport Beach or his or her designated representative. Guest. The term "guest" shall mean any individual who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for a period of https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/html/NewportBeach03/NewportBeachO328.html 2/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any individual occupying space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a guest until the period of thirty (30) days has expired, unless there is a qualifying rental agreement between the operator and the guest providing for a longer period of occupancy. Hotel. The term "hotel" shall mean any structure or any portion of any structure or the air space within any structure which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes for periods of thirty (30) days or less. The term "hotel" includes any inn, residential dwelling unit, motel, group residential or lodging house, bed and breakfast inn, single room occupancy hotel, hostel, rental unit, public or private residential club, mobile home, time-share project, house trailer at a fixed location, or other structure or portion of a structure. Individual. The term "individual" shall mean any natural person. Occupancy. The term "occupancy" shall mean the use or possession, or the right to use or possession, of a specific room or rooms or portion thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes. Operator. The term "operator" shall mean the person who is proprietor of the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, time-share project owner's association or any other capacity. Where the operator performs his functions through a managing agent of any type or character other than an employee, the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for the purposes of this chapter and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be considered to be compliance by both. Person. Except as used in the term "guest," the term "person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. Qualifying Rental Agreement. The term "qualifying rental agreement" shall mean a written leasehold agreement signed by both the operator and guest obligating the guest to pay rent for use and possession of a room or space in a hotel for a period of not less than thirty-one (31) consecutive days. The "qualifying rental agreement" shall be legally enforceable by both the operator and guest and shall include in its terms both the right to occupy and the obligation to pay for a room and/or rooms for thirty- one (31) days or more. "Qualifying rental agreement" expressly excludes: A. Any agreement, regardless of the rental term, which is terminated for any reason, by either party, or by mutual consent, prior to the thirty-first consecutive day of occupancy; or https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/htmIlNewportBeachO3lNewportBeach0328.html 3/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE` B. Any agreement that would be unlawful or constitute a violation of law. Rent. The term "rent" shall mean the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a hotel valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction. Time -Share Interest. The term "time-share interest" shall mean either a time-share estate or a time- share use (as those terms are defined in Section 11003.5 of the Business and Professions Code) and any similar form of ownership involving a right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to occupy any room, space or area in a time-share project. Time -Share Project. The term "time-share project" shall mean a structure or real property (including air space) in which a time-share interest has been sold. (Ord. 2012-18 § 13, 2012: Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.015 Visitor Services. The City, or an entity under contract to the City, shall develop, plan, carry out and supervise a program to serve the needs of visitors to, and promote tourism in, the City of Newport Beach. The City, or the entity retained by the City, in implementing this plan shall, at a minimum: A. Employ, and provide suitable quarters for, competent personnel to carry out the services described above; B. Prepare and distribute information, by way of brochures, publications, guides, direct mail and the media that informs visitors, and prospective visitors, of the resources of Newport Beach and the businesses available to serve their needs; C. Develop and implement marketing programs with an emphasis on increasing business and visitor trade during the off-peak season (October through May). (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.020 Service Fee. Each guest shall pay a fee of one percent (1 %) of the rent charged by the operator as consideration for, and to defray the cost of, the services provided by the City. The fee constitutes a debt owed by the guest to the City which is extinguished only by a payment to the operator or directly to the City. The guest shall pay the fee to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the fee shall be paid with each installment. Any unpaid fee shall be due upon the guest's termination of tenancy. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/html/NewportBeachO3/NewportBeach0328.html 4/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM 3.28.025 Use of Service Fee. Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* Funds received by the City pursuant to this chapter shall be used solely for the purposes described in Section 3.28.015. All fees received pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited into a special account designated the "visitor service fee fund." (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.030 Operator's Collection Duties. Each operator shall collect the fee imposed by this chapter to the same extent, and at the same time, as rent is collected from each guest. The fee shall be separately stated from the amount of the rent charged, and each guest shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator. However, the operator shall not be required to separately state the fee if the operator complies with the provisions of Section 3.16.050 of Chapter 3.16 related to special packages. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.035 Exemptions. No fee shall be imposed upon: A. Any person as to whom, or any occupancy as to which, it is beyond the power of the City to impose the fee specified in this chapter, and only when in the performance of official duties thereof; B. Any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty; C. A transient occupying a hotel pursuant to a qualifying rental agreement entered into prior to the first day of occupancy; D. An employee of an airline company who is occupying a hotel room in the course of his or her employment, but only when the room is rented by the airline employer pursuant to a qualifying rental agreement that has been preapproved by the Finance Director; E. Any person or guest occupying a hotel room provided without rent charged (complimentary) to the person or guest by the operator, including but not limited to: 1. Rooms provided to charitable organizations; 2. Rooms provided to meeting planners who may book future hotel rooms and provide business and conferencing opportunities for the economic benefit of the City; 3. Rooms provided to displeased guests; and/or 4. Rooms provided to hotel employees; https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/htmIlNewportBeachO3lNewportBeach0328.html 5/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* F. No exemption shall be granted except pursuant to an application filed when the rent is collected and under penalty of perjury upon a form prescribed by the Finance Director. It is the guest's responsibility to provide necessary proof of the exemption. (Ord. 2012-18 § 14, 2012: Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.040 Reporting and Remitting, Collection. The operator shall be required to report and remit all fees paid pursuant to this chapter in the same manner as required by Section 3.16.070. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.045 Penalties and Interest. Any operator who fails to remit any fee imposed by this chapter within the time required shall be required to pay penalties and interest in the same manner and amounts as provided in Section 3.16.080. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.050 Records. It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the City of any fee imposed by this chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of not less than four years, all records necessary to determine the amount of fees the operator was required to collect and pay to the City. All retained records shall be subject to audit as provided in Section 3.16.070. The Finance Director shall have the right to inspect and/or audit these records at any time during normal business hours on twenty-four (24) hours' written notice. The records shall be maintained at the operator's premises or at a location convenient to the Finance Director. The records shall include at least the following: A. Daily summaries of room occupancies; B. A record of each occupancy charge for which exemption is claimed, the City provided exemption form, if applicable, including the name of the individual occupying the room, dates for occupancy and reasons for exemption; and C. All qualifying rental agreements. (Ord. 2012-18 § 15, 2012: Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.055 Enforcement Procedures —Appeal. The Finance Director shall enforce any failure or refusal of any operator to collect the fee, or make any report or remittance of the fee, required by this chapter in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and procedures as provided in Section 3.16.090. (Ord. 2012-18 § 16, 2012: Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.057 Payment Required. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/htmIlNewportBeachO3lNewportBeach0328.html 6/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* No injunction, writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the City or an officer thereof, to prevent or enjoin the collection of fees sought to be collected pursuant to this chapter. Payment of all fees, interest and penalties is a required condition precedent to seeking judicial review of any fee liability. (Ord. 2009-17 § 2, 2009) 3.28.060 Duty of Successor of Operator. A. If an operator who is liable for any fee or penalties under this chapter sells or otherwise disposes of the hotel operation, his/her successor shall notify the Finance Director of the date of sale at least thirty (30) days before the date of sale, or if the decision to sell was made less than thirty (30) days prior to the actual sale, then immediately and shall upon withhold a sufficient portion of the purchase price to equal the amount of any unpaid fees or penalty until the selling operator produces a receipt from the Finance Director showing that the fee or penalty has been paid or a clearance certificate from the Finance Director stating that no fee or penalty is due. If the seller does not present a receipt or clearance certificate within thirty (30) days after such successor commences to conduct business, the successor shall deposit the withheld amount with the Finance Director pending settlement of the account of the seller. B. If the successor operator fails to withhold a portion of the purchase price as required in subsection (A) of this section, the successor operator shall be liable to the City for the payment of the amount required to be withheld. Within thirty (30) days after receiving a written request from the successor for a clearance certificate stating that no fee or penalty is due, the City Collector shall either issue the certificate or mail notice to the successor at its address as it appears on the records of the City Collector of the estimated amount of the fee and penalty that must be paid as a condition of issuing the certificate. (Ord. 2012-18 § 17, 2012: Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.065 Divulging Information Prohibited. Returns filed with the City pursuant to this chapter, and information regarding the amount of gross receipts, adjustments, credits, over collections, taxes, fees, penalties and interest, shall be and remain confidential. No person having an administrative duty under this chapter shall make known in any manner whatsoever the business affairs, operations, or information obtained by an investigation or audit of the records of any operator or any other person visited or examined in the discharge of official duty, or the amount or source of income, profits, losses, expenditures, of the operator, set forth or to knowingly permit any return or any abstract, or copy of the return to be seen or examined by any person, except this section shall not apply to (i) any disclosures made in connection with any hearing, appeal, or any civil action or proceeding relating to the determination or recovery of the fee; (ii) any prosecution of any person for violation of any provision of this chapter; or (iii) any criminal or civil proceeding pertaining to the fee. This subsection shall not prohibit, nor be construed to prohibit, disclosure of statistical or cumulative information derived from tax returns, when the information https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/htmIlNewportBeachO3lNewportBeach0328.html 7/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* disclosed does not identify or relate to any particular operator. This subsection shall not prohibit, nor be construed to prohibit, any disclosure of tax returns or other information when disclosure is compelled by an order of court or other judicial process. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.070 Refunds. A. Claim Required. Whenever the amount of any fee, interest or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City under this chapter, it may be refunded as provided in subsections (B) and (C) of this section; provided, that a claim in writing therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the Finance Director within three years of the date of payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the Finance Director. B. Claim by Operator. An operator may claim a refund, or take as credit against visitor service fees collected and remitted, the amount overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established in a manner prescribed by the Finance Director that the person from whom the fee has been collected was not a guest; provided, however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed unless the amount of the fee so collected has either been refunded to the guest or credited to rent subsequently payable by the guest to the operator. C. Claim by Guest. A guest may obtain a refund of visitor service fees overpaid or paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section, but only when the fee was paid by the guest directly to the Finance Director, or when the guest, having paid the fee to the operator, establishes to the satisfaction of the Finance Director that the guest has been unable to obtain a refund from the operator who collected the fee. D. Evidence. No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant establishes his right thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto. (Ord. 2012-18 § 18, 2012: Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.075 Notice. Any notice required to be given pursuant to this chapter, shall be deemed given if personally served on the operator or the operator's representative, or if deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, and addressed to the operator at the address shown on the transient occupancy registration certificate. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.080 Fee Declared a Debt —Action to Collect. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/htmIlNewportBeachO3lNewportBeach0328.html 8/9 3/12/23, 5:51 PM Chapter 3.28 VISITOR'S SERVICE FEE* Any fee collected by an operator pursuant to this chapter that has not been paid to the City shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the City and the operator shall be liable in an action brought in the name of the City of Newport Beach for the recovery of the unremitted fees. (Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) 3.28.085 Penalty for Violations. Any operator or other person who willfully (A) fails or refuses to register as required by this chapter; (B) fails to make any return required by this chapter; (C) fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the Finance Director; or (D) makes a false or fraudulent return or claim, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as provided in Section 1.04.010. (Ord. 2012-18 § 19, 2012: Ord. 2003-13 § 1 (part), 2003) The Newport Beach Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2022-28, passed December 13, 2022. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's office has the official version of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/ City Telephone: (949) 644-3005 Code Publishing Company_ https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/htmIlNewportBeachO3lNewportBeach0328.html 9/9 Exhibit D ORDINANCE NO. 82-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIME-SHARE PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WHEREAS, the City Council of Newport Beach has found and determined that time-share developments create unique problems related to transient occupancy such as increased traffic and demand for city services; and; WHEREAS, the unique characteristics of time-share projects can have an adverse impact on immediately adjacent areas and the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, construction of new time-share projects on property suitable for visitor accommodation facilities would remove usable property for use as hotel/motel or other visitor serving facilities which could contribute to a shortage of available motel and hotel facilities to the detriment of the overall good of the City; and 0 WHEREAS, the General Plan of Newport Beach encourages the preservation of affordable rental dwellings for both long term residents and transient visitors; and WHEREAS, the conversion of dwelling units within the City to time-share projects eliminates dwellings otherwise available for rental in the City; and WHEREAS, time-share projects within the City would negatively impact the existing character, economy, and values of the City, and that prohibition of such projects is necessary to protect such health, safety, and welfare of the general public. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does ordain that the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: *I SECTION 1. Chapter 20.76 entitled Time -Share Developments is hereby added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code as follows: SECTIONS: 20.76.005 Intent 20.76.010 Definitions 20.76.015 Prohibitions 20.76.020 Separability City p of Newport Beach • • �I 20.76.005 INTENT. The City Council finds that time-share projects differ in many aspects from other transient visitor facilities in types of construction, forms of ownership, patterns of use and occupancy, and commercial management; and the City Council determines that the unique features of time-share projects can have adverse affects on both the areas surrounding such use and the whole of the City. Therefore, this ordinance is adopted to protect the health, safety, peace, and welfare of the public by prohibiting time-share developments in the City of Newport Beach. 20.76.010 DEFINITIONS. The following terms used herein shall have the meanings indicated: TIME-SHARE PROJECT. The term "time-share project" shall be applied to any development wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to time-share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use, hotel/condominium, or uses of a similar nature. TIME-SHARE ESTATE. The term "time-share estate" shall mean a right of occupancy in a time-share project that is coupled with an estate in the real property. TIME-SHARE USE. The term "time-share use" shall mean a license or contractual or membership right of occupancy in a time-share project that is not coupled with an estate in the real property. TIME-SHARE UNIT. The term "time-share unit" shall mean each portion of the real property or real property improvement in a project that is divided into time-share intervals. TIME-SHARE INTERVAL. The term "time-share interval" shall mean the period or length of time of occupancy in a time-share unit. 20.76.015 PROHIBITIONS. A. The construction, sale or development of any time-share unit shall be hereafter prohibited in the City of Newport Beach. B. It shall be unlawful to sell any right of occupancy in a time-share estate. City of Newport Beach C. It shall be unlawful to sell, rent or give by contract or otherwise any license or membership right of occupancy in a time-share project which is not coupled with an estate in real property. D. It shall be unlawful to convert to a time-share project, a time-share estate, or a time-share use, all or any part of! 1. An existing single family residential unit; or, 2. An existing residential unit in a condominium project; or 3. An existing apartment or multi -family residential unit; or 4. An existing hotel or motel room or unit. 20.76.020 SEPARABILITY. if any provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be found invalid or unconstitutional in application or in interpretation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. -0 0 This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 12th day of July 1982, and was adopted on the 26th day of July , 1982, by the following vote, to wit: Ayes, Coucilmen Heather, Maurer, Hart, Strauss, Hummel, Plummer Noes, Councilmen bone Absent Councilmen Absta:,ned ' Cox ATTEST: City Clerk None 7-1=-e2/,MH/City of Newport Beach Exhibit E ORDINANCE 96- 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO ALLOW TIME-SHARE PROJECTS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS WHEREAS, Chapter 20.76 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code currently prohibits time-share projects within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the current prohibition on time-share projects was adopted in response to concerns over potential negative impacts on traffic circulation, parking and public services; and WHEREAS, further investigation has indicated such impacts would not be significant or can be appropriately mitigated by the provisions of the proposed time-share regulations; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 1996, the Planning; Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding Amendment No. 842 and recommended approval of said amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 1996, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public 0 hearing regarding Amendment No. 842; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, it has been determined that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 20.76 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 11ME-SHARE 12EYELOPMENIS 0 CHAPTER 20.76 SECTIONS: 20.76.005 Intent 20.76.010 Definitions City of Newport Beach 20.76.020 Where Permitted 20.76.030 Application Process 20.76.040 Development Agreement 20.76.050 Development and Operational Regulations 0 20.76.005 INTENT. The City Council finds that time-share projects differ in many aspects from other transient visitor facilities in types of construction, forms of ownership, patterns of use and occupancy, and commercial management; and the City Council determines that the unique features of time-share projects can have effects on both the areas surrounding such use and the whole of the City. Therefore, this ordinance is adopted to protect the health, safety, peace, and welfare of the public by providing additional land use and property development regulations for time-share developments within the City of Newport Beach. 20.76.010 DEFINITIONS. The following terms used herein shall have the meanings indicated: TIME-SHARE PROJECT. The term "time-share project" shall be applied to any development wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to time-share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use, hotel/condominium, or uses of a similar nature. TIME-SHARE ESTATE. The term "time-share estate" shall mean a right of occupancy in a time-share project that is coupled with an estate in the real property. TIME-SHARE INTERVAL. The term "time-share interval" shall mean the period or length of time of occupancy in a time-share unit. T M[E-SHARE UNIT. The term "time-share unit" shall mean each portion of the real property or real property improvement in a project that is divided into time-share intervals. City of Newport Beach TIME-SHARE USE. The term "time-share use" shall mean a license or contractual or membership right of occupancy in a time-share project that is not coupled with an estate in the real property. 20.76.020 WHERE PERMITTED. Time-share projects are permitted only in commercial districts, including the commercial portions of specific plan districts and planned community districts. 20.76.030 APPLICATION PROCESS. A. Use Permit Required. Approval of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.80 is required for the establishment of time-share project. B. Application Requirements. In addition to the application requirements contained in Chapter 20.80, an application for a time-share project shall be accompanied by the following documents which shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director: 1 Sales Plan: A Sales Plan shall address the times, areas and methods that will be used to sell the time-share project. Factors to be defined in the plan shall include, but not be limited to; the location, length, and marketing methods that will be used, distinguishing on -site and off -site marketing and signage; and an estimate of the potential numbers of individuals and automobiles expected during various stages of the sales effort. The plan also shall describe measures that will be implemented to reduce traffic during peak hours. 2. : A Management Plan shall describe the methods employed by the applicant to guarantee the future adequacy, stability, and continuity of a satisfactory level of management and maintenance of a time-share project. 3. Contingmg Plan: A Contingency Plan shall address the actions to be taken by the applicant if the time-share project is an economic failure or fails to sell 50 percent of the time-share estates or uses within two years of receiving a permit to occupy the first unit. 20.76.040 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The City and the operator of any time-share project shall enter into a Development Agreement, under the provisions of Chapter City of Newport Beach 16- 20.45 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, relating to the amount of tax payable to the City by any time-share owner for the right of occupancy of any time-share unit. 20.76.050 DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL REGULATIONS. 1. EeLty Development Regulations. Time-share projects shall comply with the property development regulations for the zoning district in which it is located. �►�l r � r� r ,� i• RAMMI. i. I. r ' r ili1iti 1i mff r r r�r i existing residential dwelling units into time-share units shall be prohibited. 3. Minimum Number of Units. Each time-share project shall be have a minimum of one hundred (100) time-share units. Time-share projects consisting of less than one hundred units, but developed or converted in conjunction with a resort hotel complex of three hundred rooms (300) or more shall be considered to be in conformance with this requirement. 4. Wig. Parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit, plus 1 per 50 square feet of banquet seating or meeting area. 5. Required Amenities, Time-share projects shall be developed with substantial recreational amenities. Such amenities include, but are not limited to, golf courses, tennis courts, and swimming pools. SECTION 2. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City. SECTION 3, This Ordinance shall not become effective until the effective date of an ordinance amending Title 3 of the Municipal Code to include provisions requiring the payment of a tax or equivalent fee to the City by any time-share owner for the right of occupancy of any time-share unit. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on February 26, 1996, and adopted on the 1 lth day of March 1996, by the following vote, to wit: City of Newport Beach 0 AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS O' NEIL, EDWARDS DEBAY. COX. GLOVER. WATT. RFDGFS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE MAYOR ATTEST: ffmU." dd'l� CITY CLERK u C' ,qL! FO�� City of Newport Beach Exhibit F ORDINANCE 96 -18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR TEVIE-SHARE PROJECTS WHEREAS, Section 20.76.050 of Chapter 20.76 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes five development and operational regulations for time- share projects; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary for the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal or call up, to modify any of the five development and operational regulations in Section 20.76.050 if it is found that the regulation modified or waived is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of the chapter; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding Amendment No. 845 and recommended approval of said amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 1996, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding Amendment No. 0845; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, it has been determined that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 20.76.050 of Chapter 20.76 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: 20.76.050 DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL REGULATIONS. 1. Property Development Regulations. Time-share projects shall comply with the property development regulations for the zoning district in which it is located. 2. Conversion of Existing Dwelling Units Prohibited. The conversion of existing residential dwelling units into time-share units shall be prohibited. 3. Minimum Number of Units. Each time-share project shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) time-share units. Time-share City of NeWport Beach projects consisting of less than one hundred units, but developed or converted in conjunction with a resort hotel complex of three hundred rooms (300) or more shall be considered to be in conformance with this requirement. 4. Parking. Parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit, is plus 1 per 50 square feet of banquet seating or meeting area. 5. Required Amenities. Time-share projects shall be developed with substantial recreational amenities. Such amenities include, but are not limited to, golf courses, tennis courts, and swimming pools. 6. Modification or Waiver. The Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal or call for review, may modify or waive any of the development and operational regulations contained in this section if strict compliance with the regulations is determined to be unnecessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this chapter. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on May 13, 1996, and adopted on the 28th day of May 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS HEDGES, DEBAY, GLOVER, NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE MAYOR ATTEST: CI Y C RK City of Nevvport Beach Exhibit G 5/13/2021 Case 3:21-cv-0249 H 02 -nl IMN AFr MtQ5a It siRawssof 47 17.112.130 Time-sharing uses prohibited. The creation of a time-share project as a means of ownership of any single-family, two-family or multiple -family dwelling or any apartment house shall be prohibited within the city. A. Findings and Purpose. There is a critical shortage of affordable housing in the city for long-term occupancies (more than six months annually), and the availability of additional residential dwelling units is substantially restricted by the growth management system. 2. The conversion of residential dwelling units within the city to time-sharing projects eliminates residential dwelling units otherwise available for long-term occupancies (more than six months annually) in the city. 3. Time-sharing projects have the same character as commercial hotels, motels and other transient occupancy uses due to their transient nature and to the multiple short-term (less than six months annually) occupancies by those participating in time-sharing projects. 4. Such commercial or quasi -commercial like use is inappropriate in residential areas due to the increased traffic generation and multiple occupancies disturbing the peace and quiet of residential neighborhoods. 5. The city council finds and determines that this section is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city. B. Definitions. "Offering" means any offer to sell, solicitation, inducement or advertisement, whether by radio, television, newspaper, magazine or by mail, whereby a person is given an opportunity to acquire a time-share interval of a residence within the city. "Time-share estate" means an ownership or leasehold estate in property devoted to a time-share fee (tenants in common, time span ownership, interval ownership) or a time-share lease. "Time-share interval" means a time-share estate or a time-share use. "Time-share program" means any arrangement for time-share intervals in a time-sharing project whereby the use, occupancy or possession of real property has been made subject to either a time- share estate or time-share use whereby such use, occupancy or possession circulates among https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/StHelena/#!/StHelenal7/StHelenal7112.html#17.112 11/19 5/13/2021 Case 3:21-cv-0249 H 02 dDcomrmV1&SN ARiJetQ5aYQA si!Ragw6sof 47 purchasers of the time-share intervals according to a fixed or floating time schedule on a periodic basis for a specific period of time during any given year, but not necessarily for consecutive years. "Time-share use" means any contractual right of exclusive occupancy which does not fall within the definition of a time-share estate, including, without limitation, a vacation license, prepaid hotel reservation, club membership, limited partnership or vacation bond. "Time-sharing project" means any real property that is subject to a time-share program. C. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this section is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. (Ord. 10-4 § 3 (Exh. B): Ord. 05-4 § 1 (part)) 17.112.140 Water efficient landscaping. A. Purpose. The city adheres to the state of California's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) or successor regulations. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum standards for the provision, installation and maintenance of landscape areas by the following means: Water conservation through xeriscape principles: promote the conservation of potable and nonpotable water by encouraging the preservation of existing plant communities, encouraging the planting of natural or uncultivated areas, encouraging the use of site -specific plant materials, and establishing techniques for the installation and maintenance of landscape materials and irrigation systems. 2. Aesthetics: improve the appearance of all areas through the incorporation of open space into development in ways that harmonize and enhance the natural and built environment. 3. Environmental quality: improve environmental quality by recognizing the numerous beneficial effects of landscaping upon the environment, including: a. Improving air and water quality through such natural processes as photosynthesis and mineral uptake; b. Maintaining permeable land areas essential to surface water management and aquifer recharge; c. Reducing and reversing air, noise, heat and chemical pollution through the biological filtering capabilities of trees and other vegetation; https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/StHelena/#!/StHelenal7/StHelenal7112.htm1#17.112 12/19 Received After Agenda Printed March 14, 2023 Agenda Item No. 12 -----Original Message ----- From: Kurt Christiansen <kurtchristiansen500@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 4:58 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council Members The City Council has no more essential duty than to protect its constituents against neighborhood dismantling that would be brought about by fractional home ownership. Self evident is the disruption of constantly changing outside visitors who come to entertain themselves and will have little or no regard for neighbors and their well being. The fabric of community is fatally flaw when home owners have no interest in local charities, schools and programs. The list goes on. I am relying upon the wisdom of those for whom I voted on the Council to be certain that the fractional home owner menace will gain no traction in the City of Newport Beach. Respectfully submitted Kurt Christiansen 412 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar CA From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: FHO Date: March 14, 2023 7:44:06 AM From: Rochelle Anderson <rochelle@mastersprogram.org> Sent: March 14, 2023 7:42 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FHO [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of the Newport Beach City Council, My husband, Scott, and I are very concerned about the possibility of approving FHOs in the City of Newport Beach. I don't know where this is coming from, but we have friends who have invested in an FHO in the Lake Tahoe area, and it's a completely different experience for them than it could be in Newport Beach. Our streets in NB - particularly on the Peninsula and in Corona del Mar are already overflowing with too many cars and trucks. We don't want to have more because of the influx of FHO's. Please consider the beautiful Newport Beach in which we live, and forget about FHO's! Sincerely, Rochelle Anderson From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fraction home ownership issue Date: March 14, 2023 10:18:16 AM From: Lisa Winter <lisa.winter@uci.edu> Sent: March 14, 2023 10:08 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fraction home ownership issue [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. H I am a Balboa Island resident and against fractional home ownership. We already live in the noisiest neighborhood in Orange County and don't need more congestion, noise and parking issues. As I write this email, I can hear a jet overhead, drilling from the new construction next door, a sub- contractor talking to someone behind the house on the existing construction project that has been going on for over 18 months and a dump truck backing up to go collect debris from the tear down that occurred yesterday in the next block up. We have four construction projects currently on our block alone. In addition, we have 2 short term rentals nearby that are constantly occupied and we haven't even had prime time for visitors yet. Soon the masses will descent including second home owners all ready to party and enjoy their vacations. Residents that love this island are already under constant noise stress. Please don't add to this by voting to allow fractional homeownership. Thank you, Lisa Winter Balboa Island From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Fractional home ownership Date: March 13, 2023 6:46:29 PM From: Doreen <sdchandler@roadrunner.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 6:46:06 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Fractional home ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello city council and city clerk, We are very concerned about the possibility of fractional home ownership gaining traction in our city. We also own a home in a private community in Indian Wells. We have several fractional home ownerships in our community there and they are a nightmare on many levels. Once they are in you can't go back. They destroy the peaceful qualities of neighborhoods and replace them with 24/7 party houses. They ultimately cause the property values to decrease which in turn affects the amount of property taxes a city can generate. Please forward this email to the city council so our objection is noted. Thank you kindly, doreen curci Chandler & dean Chandler Irvine Terrace residents 35 years Sent from my iPhone From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional Home Ownership Date: March 14, 2023 7:02:34 AM From: Scott Farber <scottfarber59@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 7:39 PM 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 members - As a long time resident and homeowner in Harbor View Homes, I am against fractional ownership. I also own a condo on Newport Peninsula, and I am really frustrated at the short term rentals. The guests are disrespectful of the full-time residents and create a very disruptive environment with raging parties, excessive number of guests, increased traffic/parking, and leaving bikes/towels in full display. Not very attractive for such a nice area. I own two other residential properties that are leased on a long-term (annual) basis. I could probably double my rental income if I moved to short-term, but it is not in the best interest of our community. I hope the City Council doesn't support any special interest groups or decides for the benefit of a few extra dollars of tax revenue. We should keep residential areas for full-time residents and allow hotels to provide short term accommodations. Please reject any fractional ownership in our city. Scott Farber 1815 Port Manleigh Place 2027 Port Ramsgate 311 Dahlia 215 1/2 34th Street From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional Home Ownership Date: March 14, 2023 7:02:50 AM From: Charles Wilson <cewilson1942@yahoo.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 7:45 PM 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. We are against this type on home ownership. Charles and Nan Wilson 1942 Port Dunleigh Circle Newport Beach ,CA 92660 Phone 949 300 5540 cewilson 1942&yahoo.com From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional Owned Homes Date: March 14, 2023 8:45:57 AM From: Gary Cruz <gdcruz1949@outlook.com> Sent: March 14, 2023 8:45 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Nancy Arrache <n_arrache@hotmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Fractional Owned Homes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of City Council. I understand if forwarding this on behalf of the writer is not within the parameters. Ms Arrache is traveling and unable to attend the meeting and has asked for me to share. Hi Gary, Thank you for reaching out to all of us. I sent the following thoughts to Jeff Herdman since I am out of town and can't attend the meeting. I thought I would pass them along to you as well. Thank you for the reminder regarding the meeting on Tuesday March 14th on Fractional Ownership (FO). Unfortunately, I am out of town but I do have many concerns regarding this type of ownership. I have expressed those concerns but if you are at the meeting please feel free to share my thoughts along with yours if they seem appropriate. FO causes concern on so many levels from property tax evaluations to timeshare issues, to property maintenance and to lack of payment for short term tourist housing taxes. FO is a Timeshare method of ownership. It clearly allows very specific amounts of time for use by each of the eight owners which equals a Timeshare. Whether it is a Timeshare for hundreds of people or just a few people does not change the fact that FO is a Timeshare program and should be seen and treated that way. There do not appear to be any restrictions on what a FO owner can do with their allotted time - use it for themselves, rent to other people, rent it to provide a party venue for other people or groups, etc. The hotels, motels, etc must pay taxes on their rentals but FO properties currently do not fall under any such rules, guidelines or taxes. Pacaso is a major participant in the FO business and they assure the communities that they will watch over and maintain the FO properties so community neighbors should not worry. As far as I can tell there is no guarantee that Pacaso is required to be retained as a management company with the FO properties. FO owners could opt for less expensive management or go to self -management to save money and Pacaso would be out. Getting eight owners to agree at the same time to pool their money to make necessary and costly repairs is difficult. The people promoting FO have specifically avoided the time and money to create an actual Condo type Homeowners Association for the FO property. There is no Condo type structure that creates an HOA where FO buyers must agree to adhere to CC&R's, By -Laws, Rules and Regulations, etc. There is no HOA which outlines care, maintenance, occasional special assessments and the means to collect from delinquent owners who do not pay their assessments. Property taxes are difficult to project when you have homes selling as FO. A home could sell for $6M and the next door property sells for $875,000 as a FO property. This makes tax evaluations much more difficult to assess. These are a few of my thoughts. I will watch to see what happens. Thank you, Nancy A. Arrache Balboa Peninsula Cell: 310.415.7941 From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership Balboa Island Date: March 14, 2023 12:47:26 PM From: Sue Sibley <suesibley55@yahoo.com> Sent: March 14, 2023 12:47 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Ownership Balboa Island [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sue and Scott Sibley - we are long term Island Residents and strongly Oppose fractional ownership on the Island - With fractional ownership and multiple people staying a minimum time each year - the existing island community will see what amounts to visitors who will take from our community but not contribute - we will see more vehicles without parking, more temporary renters when fractional owners opt for a financial return and Wear and tear on the island that we as long term residents will end up paying for - please don't allow this to happen - Sue and Scott Sibley - 20 year residents Sent from Yahoo Mail for Phone From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Fractional Ownership Comments BIIA Date: March 14, 2023 8:57:07 AM From: Lee Pearl <smartpearll@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:56:57 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Terry Janssen <fullfender32@aol.com>; Ken Yonkers <kenyounkers@ml.com> Subject: Fractional Ownership Comments BIIA [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor and Council: At the February Balboa Island Improvement Association Board of Directors meeting, the Board made a recommendation against Fractional Ownership in Newport Beach. This email reflects the position of the Board of Directors. Lee Pearl, Local Government Laison From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional ownership Date: March 14, 2023 7:00:30 AM From: Jan Hargraves <mavericktj@road run ner.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 5:24 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, Please do not allow this to happen to Newport. You had to take action against short-term rentals in the last few years and this type of ownership would be 100x worse. Constant in and out with parties galore. Please let us keep some quiet normalcy with considerate neighbors instead of dealing with timeshare type activities. We already have too many drug rehab houses that are protected by ADA regulations who are the worst neighbors. Jan Hargraves, Aralia St, NB Sent from Mail for Windows From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional Property ownership Date: March 14, 2023 12:54:48 PM -----Original Message ----- From: Shari <sharikayb@gmail.com> Sent: March 14, 2023 12:54 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Property ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attention Newport Beach City Council Members: I have lived on Balboa Island for 50 years. I especially enjoy and value the small town feeling where you know your neighbors and local merchants. It is for this reason that I OPPOSE the Fractional Property Ownership. I feel it will change our small town environment, as well as increase traffic and congestion and noise. Thank you, Shari Bjorkqvist 319 Onyx Ave Balboa Island, Ca 92662. Sent from my iPad From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance Date: March 14, 2023 7:02:21 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Amos G <amosg@nonnobis.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 7:35 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Gentlemen: Houses that are not occupied full time (or most of the time) by a household do not help with the housing shortage. They don't "filter," to use the lingo. When a household moves into a house permanently, they vacate someplace else and put it on the sale or rental market. Occupants of time shares or AirBNBs do not. So I do not encourage the building of housing that is not going to be occupied full time. That said, renting out is a historic pattern on Balboa Island and the Peninsula, so I suppose I could see allowing AirBNBs and time shares seaward of Bayside Drive and PCH. But not inland of that. Sincerely, Howard Ahmanson Sent from my iPhone NOT WHILE DRIVING From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance Date: March 14, 2023 7:00:41 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Jamie Marsh <jamielynnmarsh@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 5:27 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. There is a book entitled It takes a village. It takes place in Africa, but it shows how community involvement is necessary to raise and take care of all the people in the village. There are many necessary components to living in a community, abiding by their cultural norms, and taking care of the residence there. People who participate in timeshares are not normally aware of the culture that is in place. In addition, the support structures may be overwhelmed. Creating timeshare homes will change our community into a resort, and rob the residents of their indigenous culture. Sent from my iPhone From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: No to Fractional Ownership Date: March 14, 2023 10:44:19 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Mary Ann Soden <masoden@cox.net> Sent: March 14, 2023 10:44 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Mary Ann Soden <masoden@cox.net> Subject: No to Fractional Ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council and City Manager, Please adopt the Preferred Recommendation to broaden the definition of timeshare to include fractional ownership and effectively prohibit same in all residential zoning districts. What makes our city lovely and special is under siege. Please act to support the residents. Thank you Mary Ann Soden Masoden@cox.net Corona del Mar Sent from my Whone From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: No to Fractional ownership Date: March 14, 2023 9:35:48 AM From: Mark Markos <msm619@ymail.com> Sent: March 14, 2023 9:34 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fw: No to Fractional ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable city council members, my name is Mark Markos Newport Island Association member. I have lived on Newport Island for close to 20 years. Like most of the folks that live here we moved and settled here because of the special community neighbor feel of our island. We came very close to losing our neighborhood when short term rentals infiltrated our streets. It was a nightmare and we nearly lost the simple peace and enjoyment that should be afforded to our residents. We battled for 3 years to save our community and now we face the fractional ownership model which is just a commercial timeshare in disguise. We live in a predominantly R-1 neighborhood with a few r-2's, but either way this is and should not be a commercial timeshare area. This type of timeshare model will completely change the neighborhood make up of our community and we are asking that you put a stop to profits for the few before peace and enjoyment of the many. Thank you Mark Markos From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Oppose Fractional Homeownership Date: March 13, 2023 5:36:42 PM From: Susan Dvorak <susan_dvorak@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 5:36:27 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; jeff dvorak <dvorakjeff@yahoo.com>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Oppose Fractional Homeownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilmember Grant, I write to you on behalf of my husband and myself to express our opposition to Fractional Homeownership companies conducting business in Newport Beach because they threaten our neighborhoods and disrupt our quality of life. It is clear that Fractional Homes are, in fact, Timeshares and they are already prohibited in our City's ordinances. It is the City's responsibility to enforce our Codes to protect residents from these predatory businesses which result in degradation to our neighborhoods and our peaceful lives. I urge you to vote on behalf of residents by explicitly prohibiting these Fractional Homeownership companies from conducting business in our residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. Thank you, Sue Dvorak Jeff Dvorak NB District 4 From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey. Jennifer Subject: FW: Oppose Fractional Homeownership Date: March 14, 2023 7:01:14 AM From: Susan Dvorak <susan dvorak@hotmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 5:36 PM To: Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; jeff dvorak <dvorakjeff@yahoo.com>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Oppose Fractional Homeownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilmember Grant, I write to you on behalf of my husband and myself to express our opposition to Fractional Homeownership companies conducting business in Newport Beach because they threaten our neighborhoods and disrupt our quality of life. It is clear that Fractional Homes are, in fact, Timeshares and they are already prohibited in our City's ordinances. It is the City's responsibility to enforce our Codes to protect residents from these predatory businesses which result in degradation to our neighborhoods and our peaceful lives. I urge you to vote on behalf of residents by explicitly prohibiting these Fractional Homeownership companies from conducting business in our residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. Thank you, Sue Dvorak Jeff Dvorak NB District 4 From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Rejection of FHOs in Newport Beach Date: March 14, 2023 7:01:42 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer lebovitz <jennifer.k.lebovitz@gmail.com> Sent: March 13, 2023 7:31 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Rejection of FHOs in Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in strong protest of fractional home ownership in Newport Beach. My family and I are new and proud residents of this wonderful city and worked hard to get here. Please do not allow companies to profit off this safe and neighborly city in effect ruining these very qualities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jennifer Lebovitz From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Tarek El Moussa- HGTV Date: March 14, 2023 8:57:27 AM From: Purvi Doshi <pdoshi@pacaso.com> Sent: March 14, 2023 8:56 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Tarek El Moussa- HGTV [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tarek El Moussa Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 8:52 AM Subject: Tarek El Moussa- HGTV To: <pdoshi(@pacaso.com> To whom it may concern: My name is Tarek El Moussa from HGTV and I'm also a resident of Newport Beach. I've been in real estate for over 20 years and find that Pacaso is a benefit to our local communities and businesses. These are owners with money that pay top dollar to own this real estate in Newport Beach. When they come to the area, they spend a lot of money fueling our local economy. Pacaso is not an Airbnb. Therefore, they are not a disturbance to the community with many different people visiting at all times. These are separate owners utilizing their homes at separate times. Therefore, there are no additional vehicles or people to deal with. I approve keeping Pacaso in our local community. Thank you! Tarek El Moussa jUtPier-,_pierW- Central Newport Beach Community Association PO Box 884 • Newport Beach, CA • 92661-0884 www. MyNewportBeach.Org March 14, 2023 City of Newport Beach, City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Item 12. Code Update Recommendations Related to Fractional Homeownership (PA2022- 0202) Dear Mayor Blum and Councilmembers: Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA) wants to thank City Staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council for its willingness to engage with the residents on this topic. We want to encourage the City Council to select the "Preferred Recommendation —Broaden the definition of timeshare to include fractional homeownership," which reads as follows: 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. CNBCA would also appreciate the City of Newport Beach implementing a ban on advertising fractional homes for sale in Newport Beach like that being implemented by the cities of St. Helena, Sonoma, and Carmel -by -the -Sea. Preventing the sale for a use that will (hopefully) not be permitted seems a lot easier on all parties than trying to unwind the sale after it has happened. Sincerely, CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Maureen Cotton President From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey. Jennifer; Rieff. Kim Subject: FW: Comment on FHOs Date: March 14, 2023 11:28:23 PM From: Ginny Tadjalli <gnny@eastbluff.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:28:08 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Comment on FHOs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We live in Eastbluff and are in opposition to the city allowing FHO structures to be built. We support any legislation that would deter it. Ginny Tadjalli Sent from my iPad From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Failure Notice Date: March 14, 2023 7:27:36 PM From: Richard Simon <pleasepitchrich@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 7:27:24 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fw: Failure Notice [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. March 14, 2023 To the City Council and City Manager, Hopefully, the sentiments of my wife and myself pertaining to the consideration of Fractional Ownership will be heard and considered by all of you. From what we have read, both pros and cons on this matter, we agree with the majority of the Planning Commission that the City Council broaden the definition of "timeshare" to clearly include "fractional timeshare units," effective immediately. Language should project into the future, and should help to protect all of the cities' neighborhoods from commercialization, and help to maintain the highest standards of life for our residential communities. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard and Katherine Simon 2863 Alta Vista Dr. Newport Beach, 92660 From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: FHO Date: March 14, 2023 1:36:16 PM From: Libby <sweetpea4@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:35:53 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FHO [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of the City Council, I think you all share my sentiment against FHOs but thought I better email you all just in case you have some stray thoughts that differ from me on this issue. We cannot allow FHOs in our neighborhoods. We have a few airbnbs in our neighborhood and many times the tenants are disrespectful of neighbors and have no allegiance to the area so they sometimes trash the beach/area. It's just not right to have vacationers (especially multiple FHO tenants) fit in to a neighborhood with full time family residents living there. There is only down -side to this arrangement. Please do NOT include FHOs in our Newport Beach community, not in timeshares or anywhere. Best, Libby Huyck 220 Via Mentone Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional Home Ownership Date: March 14, 2023 3:55:07 PM From: Nancy Alston <nanalston@gmail.com> Sent: March 14, 2023 3:55 PM 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. Honorable City Council Members, Our City, made up of many beautiful neighborhoods, does not need fractional home ownership, which is another way of allowing more short term rentals or timeshares. Newport Beach cannot afford to lose any more homes that cannot be rented or owned by people who want to live here and be part of our community. Sincerely, Nancy Alston Newport Beach From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey. Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Fractional Homeownership Date: March 14, 2023 11:02:07 PM From: Mei Chang <psu007@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:01:46 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Fractional Homeownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Being a homeowner and long time resident at the East Bluff, I strongly object to the fractional homeownership in our neighborhood because it endangers our quiet and safe neighborhood. Rose And Ellen Sent from my iPhone From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional Homeownership Date: March 15, 2023 7:49:42 AM From: Paul Watkins <paul@lawfriend.com> Sent: March 15, 2023 7:49 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fractional Homeownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Blom and Honorable Council Members: Thank you for your insights and patience last evening. Thank you as well for unanimously supporting Council Member Grant's motion to adopt the Planning Commission's Preferred Recommendation as to all residential districts (which would include R-2). We are unaware of any pending fractional homeownership transactions; hopefully the number we heard last evening (twelve [12]) will not increase during the upcoming expedited drafting/adoption/effective date process. Council Member Weigand's concern regarding enforcement of grandfathered properties seems well taken; hopefully, this concern can be factored into the drafting and related processes. Thank you again for protecting our residents' quality of life in all residential districts. Sincerely, Paul Paul K. Watkins for Paul K. Watkins, APC 6408 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663-1929 and 485 East 17th Street, Suite 600 Costa Mesa, CA 92627-4705 Of Counsel: Self & Bhamre Cell: (714) 403-6408 E-Mail: daul@lawfriend.com From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional ownership Date: March 15, 2023 8:59:44 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Sherry Pollack <sherrypollack@roadrunner.com> Sent: March 15, 2023 8:59 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 I could not make last night's council meeting. I am against fractional ownership "timeshares" in the community. These are mini hotels in residential neighborhoods. I do not see a benefit to Newport Beach. Sherry pollack Sent from my iPhone From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fractional ownership Date: March 14, 2023 3:18:42 PM -----Original Message ----- From: Don and Judy Cole <lagunahouse@me.com> Sent: March 14, 2023 2:42 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. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Please vote tonight to broaden the definition of timeshare to include fractional homeownership and do not buy into Pacaso's abstruse arguments in favor of their draft ordinance. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Fractional homeownership is just like a timeshare and will result in the commercialization of our neighborhoods and negatively impact residents in so many ways. Keep it simple and ensure that fractional homeownership is prohibited in all residential zoning districts. Thank you, Don & Judy Cole 3326 Via Lido Sent from my iPhone From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Item 12 - Against Fractional Home Ownership Date: March 14, 2023 1:57:02 PM From: Richard Weiss <rickweissmd@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:56:41 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: Item 12 - Against Fractional Home Ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach City Council, I am writing to express my opposition to Fractional Home Ownership in our city. While the concept may seem innovative, it poses a significant threat to our community's stability and character. Fractional Home Ownership involves the sale of individual shares in a property, leading to constant turnover of residents and eroding the sense of community that is so important to our city. Additionally, it creates a two -tiered system of property ownership, which could lead to resentment and conflict within our community. Furthermore, it could pave the way for other commercial ventures, like short-term rentals, that would harm our neighborhoods' quality of life. Therefore, I strongly urge you to reject any proposals for Fractional Home Ownership in our city. Let's work together to maintain the character and stability of our community, ensuring Newport Beach remains a great place to live and raise a family. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Rick Weiss Newport Beach From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Item 12 - Against Fractional Home Ownership Date: March 14, 2023 1:52:55 PM From: Portia Weiss <portiaweiss@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:52:31 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: Item 12 - Against Fractional Home Ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach City Council, I am writing to express my opposition to Fractional Home Ownership, which has recently been proposed in our city. I believe that this concept poses a threat to the stability and character of our community, and I urge you to reject any proposals that would allow it to take root in our city. Fractional Home Ownership, as I understand it, involves the sale of individual shares in a property, with each owner having the right to occupy the property for a specified period of time each year. While this may seem like a novel and innovative idea, I believe that it is fraught with risks and problems that would ultimately do more harm than good. First and foremost, Fractional Home Ownership would lead to a constant turnover of residents, as different owners come and go throughout the year. This would make it difficult for neighbors to get to know one another, and would erode the sense of community that is so important in our city. It would also make it more difficult to maintain the quality of our neighborhoods, as absentee owners may be less invested in keeping their properties in good condition. Second, Fractional Home Ownership would create a two -tiered system of property ownership, with some residents having more rights and privileges than others. This would be unfair and divisive, and could lead to resentment and conflict within our community. Finally, I believe that Fractional Home Ownership would be a slippery slope towards the commercialization of our residential neighborhoods. Once the door is opened to this kind of ownership structure, it could pave the way for other commercial ventures, such as short-term rentals, that would further erode the quality of life in our neighborhoods. For these reasons, I urge you to reject any proposals for Fractional Home Ownership in our city. Let's work together to maintain the character and stability of our community, and to ensure that Newport Beach remains a great place to live and raise a family. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Appreciatively, Portia Weiss From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Item 12. Against Fractional Home Ownership Date: March 15, 2023 6:59:01 AM -----Original Message ----- From: James Ward <jrwecw@sbcglobal.net> Sent: March 14, 2023 6:56 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Item 12. Against Fractional Home Ownership [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach City Council, Our family lives in Newport Heights, the kind of neighborhood that people all over the world dream of. single family homes, trees, sidewalks where children walk to school and if one of our little ones falls and scratches her knees, a neighbor, perhaps unknown to her, will come to her rescue, see that she gets home. Why on earth would we want to change it into a place where, the single home becomes two, three;, strangers come and go, the quiet home becomes an ever changing clutch of apartments, holiday rentals, with all the noise and traffic, ever changing strangers. Please protect our beautiful city from becoming just like every other beach town - a great commercial hub, instead of neighborhoods that cherish our beautiful, very lucky way of life. Sincerely, The Ward Family - James, Elizabeth, Sean, Rachel From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance Date: March 15, 2023 6:58:12 AM From: Mary Borgia <mborgia@borgia.org> Sent: March 14, 2023 6:25 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB City Council Public Comments Fractional Ownership Ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Councils I am very concerned about the potential for fractional ownership units in residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. This product and its users do not support residential living and would a mistake in our city. It was designed to extend use and profitability of hotel units not the quality of residential neighborhoods who depend on resident support, schools, fire, police and other civic services. Please serve and protect our residential communities as you are elected to do. Thank you, Mary Borgia 710 Poinsettia Avenue