Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Parking Requirement for DuplexesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 October 11, 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 -010 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not located within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit. (PA2005 -201) RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 2005 -_ amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not located within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit. DISCUSSION At the September 27, 2005 City Council meeting, the City Council introduced an ordinance amending the parking requirements of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code, requiring all R -2 zoned properties to provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit (including 1 covered), in an effort to achieve a consistent application of the parking standards. The Council will recall that the effective date of the ordinance was extended to 180 days from second reading. Additionally, a provision was added to allow any complete building permit application submitted to the City prior to the effective date of the ordinance to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment. Prepared by: Jaime Murillo Associate Planner Attachment: Ordinance No. 2005- Submitted by: r- a "Po Patricia Temple Planning Director ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 20.66 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR R -2 PROPERTIES NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE OR OLD CORONA DEL MAR FROM 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT TO 2 SPACES PER UNIT (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -010). 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, on August 4, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held duly noticed public hearings regarding this Code Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this Code Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 27, 2005, held duly noticed public hearings 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 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). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 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: 11 Off -Street Parkin and Loading Spaces Required Use Classification RESIDENTIAL Ordinance No. 2005- Off-Street Parking Spaces Off - Street Loading Spaces TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R -1.5 District: 2 per unit with a - -- minimum of 2 enclosed per site. All other districts: 2 per unit, including 1 covered. All other provisions of Chapter 20.66 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: Completed applications submitted to and accepted by the Building Department for the issuance of building permits prior to 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 September 27, 2005, and adopted on the _day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: N NOES; ABSENT; 9W. ATTEST: CITY CLERK 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ` °.;�q;u'r? CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 15 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 -010 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not located within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit. (PA2005 -201) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -010 by introducing the attached draft ordinance. DISCUSSION Background At the June 28, 2005 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a change to the parking requirements for residential condominium conversions. During the meeting, the Council indicated their concern with the current parking standards for duplexes not being consistent citywide. The Council suggested that the parking standards be made consistent requiring 2 spaces per unit for all R -2 properties. Staff prepared this Code Amendment pursuant to this direction, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on August 4, 2005. The differing parking standards for R -2 zoned properties evolved over time, beginning with the enactment of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Prior to this event, all duplexes required a minimum of 3 parking spaces (1.5 spaces per unit). Properties located within the coastal zone were then required to provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit in order to avoid Coastal Commission review. In 1990, the parking standards for R -2 zoned properties located within the area delineated as Old Corona del Mar was then increased from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2 spaces per unit. And, as part of Parking Standards for Duplexes September 27, 2005 Page 2 the 1997 reorganization of the Zoning Code, the requirement to provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit for R -2 zoned properties within the coastal zone was finally codified to reflect the Coastal Commission requirement. To date, R -2 zoned properties not located within the coastal zone, or within the area of Old Corona del Mar, require only 1.5 spaces per unit. Analysis The change to Chapter 20.66 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations) will simply require 2 parking spaces per unit for all R -2 properties. There are 3,622 R -2 zoned properties within the City and only 136 of those properties (3.8 %) are located outside the coastal zone and outside of the area of Old Corona del Mar. These properties are all located within the Newport Heights Area, Statistical Division H of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (See Exhibit 2 — Map of Affected R -2 Properties). The construction of a new duplex on any of the 136 properties will require 4 total parking spaces, with 2 of these spaces being covered, identical to the construction of a duplex in other areas of the City. The change will also affect those of the 136 properties that presently do not provide 4 complying parking spaces. Additions to these nonconforming structures would be limited pursuant to Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) and no new habitable rooms could be added without providing the additional parking spaces. Converting these nonconforming duplexes to condominiums would also be limited should the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the condominium conversion parking standards (appears as a separate item on this agenda). Environmental Review The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the local Daily Pilot newspaper and mailed to the 136 property owners affected by the proposed change to the R -2 parking amendment. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Parking Standards for Duplexes September 27, 2005 Page 3 Altematives The City Council can choose not to adopt the proposed amendment. Prepared by: Submitted by: fair- -e Murillo Patricia . Temple Associate Planner Planning Director Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance approving Code Amendment No. 2005 -010. 2. Map of Affected R -2 Properties 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -1675 4. August 4, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 5. June 28, 2005 City Council Minutes ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Ordinance No. ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 20.66 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR R -2 PROPERTIES NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE OR OLD CORONA DEL MAR FROM 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT TO 2 SPACES PER UNIT (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -010). 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, on August 4, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held duly noticed public hearings regarding this Code Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this Code Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 27, 2005, held duly noticed public hearings 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 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). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 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: 7 Ordinance No. 2005- 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: 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 September 27, 2005, and adopted on the _day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: In1 NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 6 ATTACHMENT 2 Map of Affected R -2 Properties 1 I m N Q w 2 1. rURNING BASIN I 3y\ A4 sr z" A WI SN O uoo I ISLE ir,H rsr H q Sr W% P� ABC FR (F JI Coastal Zone Boundary Vicinity Map Location of Properties Zoned R -2 that are Outside the Coastal Zone and Not a Part of Old Corona del Mar S �Fr rs� 0 445 890 Feet N` ATTACHMENT 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -1675 Q 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 `b City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the current condominium conversion regulations of Title 19 (Section 19.64.070.A) allow the conversion of a duplex to comply with the minimum number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction, provided there is a minimum of 1 covered space per dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, by maintaining the current minimum parking regulations for the conversions of duplexes, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and constructed to older building code standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 20.66.030 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required), specifically related to the minimum parking requirements for Two - Family Residential uses as follows: Off - Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required Use Classification 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 l 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 1. Residential Conversions. The minimum number, and the design and location of, off - street parking spaces shall be provided in conformance k� 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, Toerqe, Tucker. McDaniel and Henn NOES: ABSENT: BY: Michael T e, Chaifman O i 13- ATTACHMENT 4 August 4, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 13 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 arking standards for duplexes Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 (PA2005 -168) .ode Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal ;ode to increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not ocated within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 Spaces 'er Unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal ,ode (Subdivisions) related to minimum parking standards for the ; onversion 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 conversior 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 propertieE 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? Harp answered it would be effective 30 days after the second reading. 1s. Temple added that in the prior action on the condominium of three nits or more, the Council adopted a fairly substantial period before which to ordinance would become effective and that any application received nd deemed complete prior to the time frame would be allowed to move )rward under the rules in existence today. I would expect that the Council could take a similar action on this. Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 5 PA2005 -188 Recommended for approval 6 htto: / /vA w.city. newnort- heath .cn.us /PlnAeendas /mnOR -n4 -n5 htm _. _._ 09/29/205 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 ie Commission would make recommendations to the City Council on nendments to the Zoning Code and in this case they ask also for your view of this particular amendment to the Subdivision Code, which does 1t require your consideration. Normally, we would consider the effective ate of the ordinance to be something that the Council establishes as a after of policy and that would come forward with similar suggested action hen the ordinance is introduced at the City Council level. However, if the ;tablishment of a similar grace period is important for your consideration id recommendation of this change, then you should ask staff to add that as an additional section in the resolution. mmissioner Tucker noted it is important for him as there are people out ;re who have some desire to convert and maybe this is last call. If we !re to do that, the language that was in the Council's resolution, an plication was deemed complete by a specific date. Could you tell us at deemed complete means, if we are going to include that language as II? 1s. Temple explained that'deemed complete' is a technical identification f a step contained within the California Permit Streamlining Act. Usually, Then 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 leemed 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 CEQA art of an application? The deemed complete part of this, unless someone les an application that didn't require any additional information, so there is timeframe beyond filing the application. ;. Temple answered if a project also required an environmental termination and information was needed in order to make that termination such as it was a larger project needing an initial study or an R, then we would deem it complete when we had all the information we eded to proceed with the study as well. It is very specific wording in ate planning law. ommissioner Tucker asked if we adopted this and someone came along nd had an application that was deemed complete and therefore qualified nder the prior law, how long would they have under that permit to actually Dnclude that conversion? How long do they have once they have the ght to convert in which to complete the conversion before the conversion 3ht lapses? Page 2 of 8 k� httn- / /www city newnnrt -hPnrh rn nc/P1nAaPnAnc /mnnR_nd_nc U,f— nR /70 /�nnc Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 s. Temple answered that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the City tc ke final action at whatever body level is required within a period of 180 lys. The Subdivision Map Act has a three year horizon for an approval. ie added that our Code allows for extensions of not only maps but all ou scretionary applications beyond the 24 months that are specified. ommissioner Tucker asked if an extension was requested would the pplicant have to comply with the all then parking requirements? In other ords, your approval would no longer comply, am I wrong on that? answered they would have to check that. .ommissioner Tucker noted this would be of interest because typically peaking when I come up against one of those type of issues, the fear I ave is the new requirements that are out there. One of the findings for xtension is that the approval complies with all the requirements. Harp noted our Code does not have any findings for an extension. Is. Temple added that we have always considered our extension rovisions to allow the extension of the approval as approved originally Ilows a total of 5 years and then there are no further extensions. Harp noted that typically ordinances are effective 30 days after the ;ond reading so if you are going to make modifications it would have to expressed in the enabling ordinance. .ommissioner Hawkins noted in connection to the change to the off street arking and loading spaces required, the proposal is to change from 1.5 tc , what is the effect of the current code requirement of 1.5? Do you get 2 ars in the 1.5, a big car in 1.5, or more storage? Temple answered that in those areas that still carry the zoning which i ally limited in town that if someone chose to implement their project in at fashion, you would end up with one 2 -car garage that would serve one the units and one 1 -car garage or carport serving the other. nmissioner Cole stated his understanding there are R2 properties that not in the Coastal Zone, is that all we are in effect dealing with just se units outside of the Coastal Zone? Murillo answered yes, for this part of the amendment. airperson Toerge noted there is another part of the amendment being isidered too a change to Title 19 of the Municipal Code which would uire that condominium conversions be required to have current code -king at the time they are converted whatever that current code is. is comment was opened. Page 3 of 8 1� httn- / /txnMxi r;ty ,e /Pln AaanAac /mnOR_nd -n5 htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 rly 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. nnette 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. 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. comment was closed. issioner Tucker asked if it is feasible to notify everybody with an R -2 property? s. Temple noted that we did direct notice all property owners whose irking 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 Dmmissioner Tucker noted it is important that we have notice put out ere. I don't want it to be a legal requirement of this, I just think as a Atical matter everyone ought to have a chance to weigh in on this and iow what is going on. The reason I don't want the legal part of this I don't ant 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. be considered a community outreach. ner Hawkins asked that the notice for this hearing complied Page 4 of 8 11 htto: / /www.citv.newnort- beach .ca.us /PlnAeen(ia.c /mnoR -oA -n5 htm nR/Jq/�nn5 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 law and our own Code, correct? Harp answered yes. scussion followed on MFR and R -1.5 properties, the mailing will be sent R -2 property owners. Tucker noted: 'deemed complete'- I would took 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. ;ommissioner McDaniel asked how long it takes an applicant to get an pplication deemed complete? Ir. Campbell answered that typically an application comes in and we :view it within two weeks and it might take a couple of days or a couple of iinutes to review the application. An application with additional submittal om and applicant can range anywhere from two weeks to sixty days epending upon the complexity of the application. For a condo conversion, tate law requires a 60 day prior notice of the tenants that you are itending to convert. So people need to understand that if they are going rush in and bring an application, they need to provide notice to the ;Hants 60 days in advance of filing the application. mmissioner McDaniel noted that 6 months is ample time yet no matter /v long we give, I agree, there will be problems. We have done the best can and I support 6 months. ;hairperson Toerge noted that the current Code that was amended in 994 essentially preserves older, non - conforming structures with under - upplied parking. I don't know anybody that feels a condominium today /hether existing or not existing should have only one car parking. It oesn't make sense. I am baffled on the inequity our Code places on new onstruction when in fact it allows a conversion to have just one parking pace. I am in favor of this modification. He then noted that other coastal ities in our vicinity all require with a condo conversion that it be Page 5 of 8 littn• / /anx city nP. xmnrt_hPnrh rn nc/PlnA aPnAne /mnn52_0d_0r Afm nRn4nnnt Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 ccompanied 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 robiem which was largely identified to be in West Newport but yet the reatest bulk (75% roughly) of the conversions have appeared in Corona el Mar. I respect the speakers tonight because those people who have lade an investment in their real estate with the expectation of employing ie codes we have should be a part of the process and should be down ere and involved in protecting their investments. The Newport Heights rea that represents only about 4% of the current duplexes in the city, I see o reason why they should not be two per unit. As for the effective date, I gree that no matter how much time is given, there is going to be a ottleneck at the end of that period of time. I think that six months might e more than I was going, I was thinking more of 90 or 120 days to give verybody the opportunity to go through the process. I support this rdinance primarily due to the incremental erosion of the quality of life that ny one of these projects tends to impose on the community. We are coking at the overall impact of this across the entire city and on that basis iat I am more concerned with the quality of our environment and the living onditions in our community. ommissioner Eaton noted his agreement with the Chairman. He noted tie need for the conversions to have two car garages. Re -doing a project ito a condominium is perpetuating the existing problem present in many uplex areas and that is insufficient parking. The concern I have is of erpetuating the nonconforming buildings. It will be impossible for two wners to agree on when to rebuild and how to rebuild and how to allocate ie 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 wnership 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 0 years old starting out with only a one car garage, that is not moderate ost housing in my opinion. I endorse this ordinance. Considering the leemed complete' requires a month or so at the end and the prior otification requires two months in the beginning, six months probably is ,ommissioner Hawkins noted this will increase the parking requirements or a condo conversion, but I think the parking situation and the parking supply in the city will be quickly exhausted if we stay with the current code equirements. I do believe that our recommendation in connection with thi )rdinance is important and will preserve and enhance the parking supply. im sympathetic with the burden it will impose upon property owners both n 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 esources. I will favor this recommendation. The timing issue focuses on he end point, when an application is deemed complete. There may be another way to calculate the timing and that is when the application is iled. Is there a difference in work load if we do it on the day the application is filed, does that alleviate staff of some work compression that vas addressed earlier. Page 6 of 8 1� i�4fn• / /vmnn ;t­ 4.._.d. -- _Ml_ A n ns I, . nninn/nnne Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 1s. Temple answered the real answer depends on the knowledge and iligence of the applicant and how interested he is in achieving short term olution. I can foresee that someone just files a piece of paper to say he as filed an application, with virtually no supporting requirements. It may it and embark on an every 30 day correspondence of what is needed, or, ie application will die after a period of time. I don't know if it makes much ifference. If we get a lot of applications in right before the timeframe all it oes is make the compression a little further out. There is no time savings lus the Council has already adopted an ordinance that specifies a omplete application and I would not want to have two different :quirements. The difference between the two unit condos and the other ondos related to the general sophistication of the applicants is in fact ifferent. You will see more of an individual mom or pop, not one of those pecialized 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 -i 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? 1r. Campbell answered they could look at that as a possibility. He is oncerned that about the time this gets to the Council and it may be ontentious that 60 day prior notice period might get a little tough so it may eed to be effective after the effective date of the prior amendment of the :ouncil adopted. We will take a look at that too. ff clarified that the noticing is to be done prior to the City Council ating. )tion 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 spaces 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 )uncil. missioner Tucker asked if we need to do anything for the non - ersion aspect of this, is six months too much? We really have two to this. >. Temple noted that we do not have to break apart your resolution of :ommendation.. However, that is a good point and we will likely forward the Council two separate ordinances so that one would be effective in "c ys and one would be effective six months from the date of the second 3ding. followed regarding people applying for condominium Page 7 of 8 0 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 onversions having the 6 months and the difference from someone coming i for a building permit for new construction or a major remodel to one of ie existing buildings and the plan review requiring two spaces per unit ming. nissioner Eaton noted the motion is the amendment to Title 19 would the effective date of 6 months for applications deemed complete. he maker of the motion aoreed Page 8 of 8 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker and Noes: Henn bsent: None bstain: None None httn: / /www_ city newnnrt-hench ca.uc/P1nAvPn(lnc /mnnR_nA _ n4 t,+ nO1110/7nnC City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 • Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Nichols N. CONTINUED 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 nonconforming 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 INDEX (100.2005) i ON City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 oil B� local developer, Barry Saywitz, expressed concern that the data m 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 piojects 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 332 C. J a3 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 since iaao, 61% are owner - occupied and 39% are renter - occupied. H, stated that they compared that to the owner - occupancy rate for al 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 thi; 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 rondos and possibly even more if she bulldozed them and built them to the maximum. However, she would like the option to leave them as is and do a slight conversion to maintain their character. She noted that she doesn't object to bulldozing properties if they're dilapidated, but she doesn't want the City to do anything that's going to encourage people to bulldoze and build to the maximum so old Corona del Mar isn't lost any faster than it has to be. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that, if a property doesn't meet the property standard that Council sets, the property owner would have the option to retain it as a duplex and rent out one unit, or they would need to redevelop the property if they wanted a condominium if there was no way to provide the additional parking. Barry Saywitz took issue with 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 333 INDEX O�� City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 INDEX 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 that have single family or multi -family units. She indicated that there was still ample parking this morning even when 40 cars were parked on a flower street and 20 to 30 cars were parked on the school streets. She believed that staff needs to look at parking policies and how they affect parking behavior. She agreed that owner - occupied or converted condos have fewer residents. She believed that, if owners cannot convert their existing units to condos, they're more likely to keep them as rentals. Further, a permit parking policy might encourage landlords to rent to fewer people. She asked how many parking spaces would be added to each area if all rental units were rebuilt as conforming spaces. She stated that this policy also changes the value of duplexes that could be converted. She requested that existing owners have the opportunity to be grandfathered with the current policy until the property is sold or allow them one year to submit a conversion application. She encouraged staff to put out more notice about this because she only found out about it by reading the minutes. Marilyn Gill indicated that she found out about this issue when she called to get a condo conversion package and believed there should've been a mailing to everyone in Corona del Mar. She stated that she was planning to fund her retirement by converting her property to a condo and then selling one unit. She requested an extension of the effective date from 60 to 90 days from the date of adoption of the ordinance. BJ Johnson expressed concern that notices weren't sent to Corona del Mar since this would affect their pocket book and a lot of people are planning to convert their properties. She stated that this would change the aesthetics of their village and suggested that this be postponed. She reported that, of the 37 condo sales that were done on the flower streets since December, five of those would not meet the proposed requirements. Jim Hildreth believed that this amendment tells people that their property is worthless to be resold as is. He noted that there are parking issues on Balboa Island and the Peninsula, but isn't sure if there are complaints in Corona del Mar. He stated that there may be a reason to have allowances for certain areas in Newport Beach in the interim. He recommended grandfathering these in but not allow them to do any type of remodel down the road unless they conform to the new standards. Alexander Bronna expressed his opposition to the amendment and believed that the parking issues in Corona del Mar have little to do with homeownership. He stated that there is a midrange of properties that could be cost effectively converted to preserve some of the character of the area, rather than tearing them down. He believed that the amendment is Volume 57 - Page 334 0 n.5 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, it's questionable if this will put a dent in the parking problem. She stated that she sees this ordinance as a tear down ordinance which will change the community aesthetics and make them larger as they get developed. She believed that this is a good ordinance to spur discussions about parking issues, but not be a mechanism to resolve them. She indicated that she could possibly support 1.5 spaces per unit, but not 2 spaces. City Attorney Clauson clarified that the proposed 60 day period extension relates to any application that is in process. She received confirmation from Council Member Selich that the one year extension means that a condo conversion permit would have to be issued within the year. She reported that pursuant to the City's Charter, in order to enact an ordinance, four votes are needed. Motion by_ Council Member Selich to approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standard to the current standards with an effective date of the ordinance to be one year after the date of its adoption, and that any condominium conversion applications deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment; and pass to second reading on July 26, 2005. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked, if the City changed the parking requirement for condominiums to two spaces per unit, does this ordinance need to be modified. City Attorney Clauson indicated that, since the ordinance references current standards, that is what they would follow. Further, this action clarifies the existing code because they've just been using the standard that was in effect when the building was built. • Council Member Daigle suggested that there be 1.5 spaces per unit across the board. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City is able to do Volume 57 - Page $36 INDEX aU 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 Tern 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 Selicb—amended his motion to approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standard to the current standards for projects that are three units or larger with an effective date of the ordinance to be one year after the date of its adoption, and that any condominium conversion applications deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment; and pass to second reading on July 26, 2005. Council Member Selich amended his motion to change the effective date of the ordinance to be 90 days after the date of its adoption to have any condominium conversion application deemed complete. Council Member Selich explained that most of the comments he has received are from duplex owners. He said that there aren't that many triplexes and four - plexes. Mayor Pro Tern 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 Tern 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 336 INDEX (100 -2005) i