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