Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Code Amendments Related to Time Shares (PA2022-0202) - CorrespondenceReceived after Agenda Printed May 9, 2023 Item No. 12 From: Lynn Lorenz To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk"s Office Subject: In Favor of a Moratorium on Fractionalized Home Ownership Date: May 08, 2023 6:15:37 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the attention of City Council and the Mayor: From what I can ascertain from those who have been following more closely the whole process of eliminating fractionalized home ownership in Newport Beach, the problems that Newport Beach has consist of the following: 1. Entirely too much time has taken place (18 months) in the effective handling of the issue, allowing problems to arise that other cities have avoided by acting more swiftly. 2. The City Council, instead of issuing a moratorium on the practice, directed the Staff to work with the Planning Commission on September 27, 2022. Prior to that the City Council had directed staff to monitor FHO on Nov. 16, 2021. The 2 steps were taken, undoubtedly because the Council feared lawsuits. (Aren't most things that the city does, especially concerning property management, subject to the possibility of lawsuits?) 3. Beverly Hills had a moratorium in place for more than a year. Why not us? 4. Individuals on the Planning Commission spent time trying to appease Pacaso even after it was clear that the great majority of residents in Newport Beach were opposed to the practice of Fractionalized Home Ownership. 5. The City should have made use of « best practices » by referring to all the legal letters and documents that cities dealing with the same problems had put online to help their peers better deal with the legal issues of FHO. 6. These other cities that moved more quickly than Newport Beach undoubtedly were more effective by not providing FH owners with false hope of success. 7. The time has come for action to keep FHO from spreading before rulings by the CCC are completed. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Lorenz, Newport Heights Sent from my iPad Received after Agenda Printed May 9, 2023 Item No. 12 Timeshare fractional ownership- proposed amendments to City ordinances and LCP- Letter to City Council- via email to City Council and City Clerk May 8, 2023 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 9,2023- Item XVII — Proposed Amendments to City Ordinances regulating Timeshares Honorable Mayor Blom and Honorable Councilmembers: We understand that the Council will consider proposed Amendments to Ordinances regulating Timeshares and Timeshare Fractional Interest Ownership thereto. The session will include Public hearings, referencing Ordinance nos. 2023-4 and 2023-5, and amendments to Title 20 and 21 of the Municipal Code We greatly appreciate the Council's commitment to ensure the prohibition of Timeshare fractional ownership businesses and uses in all of our residential zoning districts, and to only allow the uses in certain commercial and mixed use zoning districts, subject to existing timeshare regulations. Staff has done a commendable job with its report and recommendations, to include that, in addition to other prohibitions, the advertisement or management of, non -permitted timeshare fractional ownership uses is also prohibited. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the CA Business and Professions Code Sec 11212z, definition of, "time share plan". We believe that the approach taken in the recommended ordinances is reasonable, responsive to the residents, and defensible. It has been adopted successfully by a number of jurisdictions. As the community Leadership group comprised of representatives from multiple neighborhoods and districts, we urge the Council to follow through on its commitment to the residents regarding prohibition of timeshare fractional ownership businesses and uses in all of our residential zoning districts as proposed in Staff recommendations. We request that the Council clarify and confirm the City's position regarding, the Effective Date of the ordinances. It has already been two years since residents initially requested relief from commercial timeshare fractional ownership businesses being established in our residential zones. Despite concerted resident voice and repeated assurances of action since September ,2022, the City did not act to enforce its ordinances in prior or updated form. As a result, timeshare fractional ownership businesses have expanded to 12 or greater locations in residential zones. We ask that the Council provide clear direction to prevent further harm by either: 1) Imposing a moratorium on any uses beyond those already fully established and operational as of present, or; 2) Establishing the Effective Date of the amended Ordinances to be as of date of vote, including provision for Effective Date to be retroactive to date of vote, if necessary. We understand that staff proposes that any Timeshare fractional ownership uses fully established as of this date be considered, legal noon -conforming uses. The community requests that, as part of such provisions should they be adopted, there be a provision for restoration of these uses to their previous residential uses/ for which they were zoned, as contemplated in the City's plans and Housing stock requirements. We respectfully request that , as the City's decision -making body with authority to act, tonight move to approve and enact: 1) Amended ordinances proposed in staff recommendation 2) Effective Date of the ordinances to be consistent with May 9,2023 Council action, retroactive to that if needed due to any CCC review deemed necessary, and 3) That Timeshre fractional ownership uses created and fully operational up to this date may be considered legal non -conforming, subject to the related provisions including those above. Thank you for your consideration and commitment to preserving the integrity of our residential neighborhoods, and the needed housing stock . Respectfully, Denys H. Oberman -Member of Leadership council -representatives from neigh borhoods,below: Balboa Penninsula Point, Balboa Penninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, West Newport and Newport Island, Lido; and Newport Heightys Cc: SPON Board of Directors Cc: S. Jurjis-Director Community Development, Y. Summerhill-Deputy City Atty.;G. Leung -City Manager OR; 2) Establish Effective Date of passage of amended Ordinances ( 30 days from Council deciding vote), including provision for Effective Date to be retroactive if necessary given CCC administrative proceeding.) It is our understanding that Staff proposes that any Timeshare fractional uses fully estyblished as of this date be considered, Legal non -conforming uses. The community requests that, as part of such provisions should this position be adopted, there be provision for restoration of these uses to their the Residential use/s for which they were zoned and which were contemplated in the City's plans, and Housing stock requirements. We respectfully request that the City Council ,as the City's decision making body with authority to act, at the May 9t" Session, approve and enact: 1. Amended Ordinances proposed by Staff in recommendations; 2. Effective Date of the Ordinances to be consistent with May 9t" Council action, with retroactiity to that date if needed with CCC proceeding, and 3. All Timeshare fractional ownership uses fully established up to this date may be considered legal non -conforming, subject to any related provisions Thank you for your consideration and commitment to preserving the integrity of our residential neighborhoods and housing. Respectfully, Denys H. Oberman- Leadership Council Member, On behalf of Leadership Council including representatives from neigh borhoods,below: Cc: Balboa Penninsula Point; Balboa Island; Balboa Penninsula central; W. Newport and Newport Island - Corona del Mar-; Lido ;Newport Heights SPON Board of Directors Received after Agenda Printed May 9, 2023 Item No. 12 May 9, 2023, City Council Agenda Item 12 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 12. Ordinance Nos. 2023-4 and 2023-5: Code Amendments Related to Time Shares (2022-0202) This is a follow-up to and clarification of the comments I was unable to complete by the 5:00 p.m. Monday submission deadline. Recommendation If the City's wish is truly to, as the staff report puts it, "expediate" the review and approval of the LCP amendment (proposed Ordinance No. 2023-5) by the Coastal Commission, I recommend the following: 1. Instead of introducing, the 300+ page ordinance provided in the staff report, ask staff to wait to weeks to bring back a version stripped down to its essentials. 2. Revise the "Whereas" declarations to concentrate on the intent of the ordinance, emphasizing that "fractional ownership" has always been part of the LCP definition, but was not explicitly mentioned in the Title 20 one, and request is simply to revise the Title 21 definition of "time share" to align with a new Title 20 definition (which has been revised to align with the current state definition of "time share"). 3. Delete Exhibits A through V from the ordinance itself. To the extent they are needed to support assertions made in the preamble to the ordinance they can be provided as separate documents in the application package. 4. Delete the proposed changes to existing NBMC Section 21.48.025 (see agenda packet pages 12-681 through 12-685). 5. In the proposed changes to Section 21.70.020 (see agenda packet page 12-685): a. Confine revisions to the existing definition of "Limited use overnight visitor accommodations (LUOVA)" to adding the note "See "Time share use'"'. Do not delete the existing definition. b. Do not delete the separate "LUOVA. See "Limited use overnight visitor accommodations (LUOVA)."" entry. 6. Revise what is currently Exhibit Y (De Minimis Findings) to emphasize this is simply a request to update a definition, and it does not change allowed land uses because no changes are being made to the coastal districts in which time share uses are an allowed use. These recommendations would reduce the size of Ordinance No. 2023-5 to a few pages with three brief exhibits (the current W, X and Y). May 9, 2023, City Council agenda Item 12 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 And in the revised Exhibit W, the changes requested for Coastal Commission approval would be reduced to: 1. Changing "Time Share Facilities" to "Time Shares" in Table 2-5 of Section 21.20.02. 2. In Section 21.70.020 ("Definitions), striking the old Time Share Project, Time Share Estate and Time Share Use definitions and replacing them with the same current state definitions that are being updated in Title 20. As to Ordinance No. 2023-4 (amending Title 20), although it is not going to the Coastal Commission for review, I would recommend similarly reducing its bulk by separating the supporting documents from the ordinance itself. Reasons 1. Processing this as a "de minimis" revision of the existing Implementation Program speeds the process of Coastal Commission approval. 2. The ordinance as presented is of overwhelming length inconsistent with the idea it is the de minimis revision that it is intended to be. 3. Worse, in addition to aligning the Title 21 definition with the Title 20 one, it proposes a number of additional changes not necessary to accomplish the public's or the Council's purpose, and whose compliance with the Coastal Act is questionable. These could result not only in unintended consequences, but as in a lengthy process of CCC-proposed modifications and City re -adoption. In the end, taking an extra two weeks to present a clean ordinance updating only the definition will speed the ultimate approval. 4. In particular, none of the changes being proposed to existing NBMC Section 21.48.025 (agenda packet pages 12-681 through 12-685) are necessary to accomplish the Council's purpose of addressing time shares in purely residential districts. a. The proposed change to Subsection 21.48.025.A (page 12-681), would "clarify" that the conversion of a residential property to time share use qualifies as "the development or creation of a new visitor accommodation," which would require a coastal development permit evaluated according to the criteria stated for new visitor accommodations in the section. i. This is unnecessary because in Title 21, time shares are not, and never have been, listed as an allowed use in residential districts. Saying a CDP is required, or not required, for a use that is not allowed anyway seems completely pointless. As a result, this would seem relevant only to the conversion of an existing residential structure in a mixed -use district or of an existing, non -conforming residential structure — neither of which appears to be a current matter of concern. In addition to being unnecessary to address the present concern, the proposed language creates at least two unintended consequences: 1. Adding the words "development or creation" of new visitor accommodations, and listing the conversion of a residence to a May 9, 2023, City Council agenda Item 12 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 time share as an example of such development or creation, would suggest the conversion of a residence to a short term lodging would be another example, requiring the processing of a CDP for each of the 1,550+ short term lodgings in the City. It seems unlikely the City would want to do that. 2. The proposed language would make the conversion of a multi -unit residential structure to a time share use subject to the CDP requirement. But imposing such a requirement on residential structures with more than 10 units is explicitly prohibited by the Coastal Act (specifically, Public Resources Code Subsection 30610 ON'). If caught by the CCC, this would invalidate the de minimis approval process and require the much slower modification and consent process. b. The proposed change to Subsection 21.48.025.C.5 (page 12-683), is unnecessary since the existing language already mentions "timeshares" and "fractional ownership." The proposed introduction of a new Section 21.48.025.E (page 12-684), prohibiting the conversion of existing dwelling units to time shares (whether or not a CDP is required) is unnecessary both because this is prohibited by Title 20 and because time shares are not an allowed use, anyway, in the districts of current concern. 5. In addition, other than adding the comment "See "Time Share Use," I see no reason to alter the "L" definitions as proposed on page 12-685. a. The acronym "LUOVA" is used in the Title 21, so the cross-reference to the existing definition of it seems useful and needs to be retained. b. Replacing the current definition of LUOVA with a "See "Time Share Use" note (rather than simply adding the note), adds unnecessary confusion and uncertainty to the code. For while there is much overlap between the two definitions, when the reader goes, as directed, to the definition of "Time Share Use" they find nothing there to explain if they are synonyms or merely very similar, but slightly different, things. I don't think the redundancy, or the slight circularity of "time share use" appearing in the definition of LUOVA, is a problem. In short, after the proposed changes, the term LUOVA will remain in the code, but with no certainty as to what it means. Why would we want to do this and have the CCC wonder why? At the very least, the direction should be "Same as "Time Share Use," if that is the intent; but, again, why give the CCC one more thing to weigh the accuracy of? 1 A provision added to the Coastal Act by Chapter 43 of the Statutes of 1982.