HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1972/09/19 Item 18 Item No. 18
September 19, 1972
Ordinance No. 1423 C�.ty Az�onney : PQeaoe paepane ,the neee.seaiy (aeao.Cu.t�,onj on Iondtina:2ez1 .
Sta£f Commentary on Agenda Item No. 1S
CHliLA VISTA CITY COL"NCIL MEETING OF SEPTL�IGGR 19, 1972
I tem Title : Ordinance No. 1423 - Amending Sections 35.401 and 35.40s of Article IN,
Chapter SS of the City Code requiring payment of residential construction
tax at the rate for multiple family d���elling units upon convcrsion of
apartment buildings or projects to condominium o�anership - Second reading
and adoption
Initiated by: City Attorney
Atcached is a copy of Resolu'tion [ ] Ordinance ( ' :�reer��n� [ 1 Plat [ J
Backyrnund -
Thi.s ordinance, relating solely to the residential con- '
struction tax, was placed on first reading at the meeting
of September 12, 1972. It is now ready to be placed on
second reading and adopted. "
See EXHIBITS � ] No,
Financial
Stacement: N.A.
Commission-Board
Recommendation : N.A.
Department Head
Recommendation: Place Ordinance on second reading and adoption
City r!anager
Recommendation : ' Concur
A- i13 ISend one co��� .to : Ad�y.en�.e.tnaztion; C�:ty Ck ��h; C�. tj A.C.[i1r�,lL(ji De��.t. ,
/��'3 ,
�a�----
,� �s�—�
. - . . • /,
'C.�.ty 'A.t.tu.z�ie�: Pfeaae pnepane �thc �ieceaha.zy (ac�ee.Cu��:c�ii� un ( ond�ria�tcc) . `,
Staff Commentary on Aqenda Ztem No. 7
CHiJLA VISTA CITY COUNCIL i�IEETING OF SepCe��nber 12, 1972
Item Title : Ordinance - Amending Sections 35.401 and 35•403 of Article 4 of Chapter 35
of the Chula Vista City Code Requiring the Paymen� of the Residential Con-
struction Tax at the Rate for Multiple Family Dwelling Units upon the Con-
version of Apartments to Condominium Ownership - First Reading
Initiated by : � ity Attorney
Attached is a copy of Resolution [ J Ordinance [ �] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ]
Background:
For background information, see attached memo dated August 8, 1972 from the
City Attorney to the City Council regarding conversion of apartments to
condominiums. �
The ordinance presented here relates solely to the residential construction
tax. Additional regulations wiil be forthcoming as soon as the matters can
be processed through the Planning Commission relating to undergrounding,
landscaping and parking requirements.
See EXHIBITS [ Xj No. 2
Financial
Statement : N/A
Commission-Board
Recommendation: N/A
Department Head
Recommendation : P 1 ace Ord i nance on F i rst Read i ng
City Manager
Recommendat=on : Concur
A- 113 �Se�td o�te co�� .tu : Adm�.n�e.t2a.t�.on; C�..t� CX.c-Yh; C�..t� A.t.ton,ney; De.pti..
�. �
�czy nz;on�tey: vc�n.se pnepa•te r_rie i�eceaanty ��eeoCu.t.coiil �.t �ond( inncc�
� , , ' Staff Commentar}' on Aqenda item No,
. : . CH�LA VISTA CITY COWCIL MEETZ1dG OF September 5, 1972 •
Item Title: Ordinances (3) - See Below
Initiated by: City Attorney .
- - A£tached is a copy of Resolution [ ] Ordinance [ ) Agreement [ ] Plat [ )
� Backqround: � -
1. Ordinance - Fimending Section 34.201, Article 2, of Chapter 34
of the Chula Vista City Code Relating to Reguirements for
Undergrounding of Utilities - First Reading �
2. Ordinance - Amending Section 33.901 of Article 9 of Chapter 33
of the Chula Vista City Code by Adding Thereto a new Subsection
37 Relating to Landscapiag and Parkinq Requirements for Condo-
� minium Conversions - First Reading
3. Ordinance - Amending Sections 35. 401 and 35.903 of Article 4 of
-_ Chapter 35 of the Chula Vista City Code Requiring the Pa}m.ient
of the Residential Construction Tax at the Rate for Nultiple
� • - Family Dwelling Units upon the Conversion of Apartment Buildings
or Projects to Condominium Ownership - First Reading �
For background information, see attached memo dated August. 8, 1972
from the City Attorney to the City Council regarding conversion of
apartments to condominiums.
� See ExHIaITS [ ] No.
' Financial
Statement: N/A
� Commission-BOard �
Recom.�nendation: N/A
Department Head
Recommendation : Place OYdinances on First Reading
City Planager - .
Recommendat?on: �
� �A� 113 fS2�id oiie coyy .Lo : Adm.i�t.LSZnat.ioit; C�Zy CCenh; C�iZJ Aitor,�;c�r; Dep.�
��
1 r
. . � �� .
?�: � ' �,a.; c a i� a � ,.�'�:. ` \' , . .
�:. y
:,..;�.���•v..,.;;.t.c�:. Y ' �•.Ili.n ;•�.u:qnA�:my:•`.�n�q Yp {
_ . •� •%���_. .. .' l .:.�., :.;:flfi;P�Nt�iqr"�i��.�n�q'P�(Ai1L. 511�q��i
. •. ` .:".ii�o.� ' ���: . .�. .I.�..•. `
�'t• ::.. •.'. i u{ . •. :i. ��hne.t�.�oN.f:::. o ,,., .. ' .. .�� 'It
� ... . � � - . . . t ": l•1:!::: •:. ��1`�411:..�1�)
_I f1. ,F'-' t."'' � I ' p � ; i�' ' " ' •1 '�: :' .1 '��`o: j �'�� `ti{ f�� �P .
.�- f� Iq 'F� N 1'.�`..:!i�,.....:....� ,�:�::..
.�r_.i).�..+::d_.� `..i::�..i;1y. - :�:- _si"..:�.%-`��- '� (� � 1:..1�=�(�,Z. � �`9�-- y� _'�a -
_ . ..
... ..t ' �'4• .r�..��i-�'
- ' . Z.�+�..�'l . - _.'
. C�ty o� C(�«�a �U�sta
or•eicL ot T216 CALIF'03iNIA
C1TY :1TTOli\EY
DATE: August 8 � 1972 ' '
TO: The Honorable rtayor and City Council of the City
of Chula Vista, John R. Thomson, City Pianager, and
Bruce H. ��arren, Director of Planning
FRON: George D. Lindberg, City Attorney
SUBJECT: CONVERSION OF APARTP��NTS TO CONDOt-?ItdIUh15
On two occasions the City Council has been confronted with the
necessity of reviewing and approving subdivision maps of already
constructed apartments which are being converted to condominium
ownership. Several questions have arisen which are apparently very
troublesome to the City Council and investigation by this office
indicates that similar concerns have beeri voiced in other conmunities .
It is essential that several matters be resolved since the probability
is extrer„ely strong that several other apartment buildings in the
City of Chula Vista, cvithin the immediate future , tiaill be converted
from a single or corporate ownership to a condominium form of owner-
ship.
In discussing this matter �aith rir. Alan Perry, an attorney generally
regarded as the leading real estate attorney- in San Dieqo County, I
am informed that rir . Perry' s firm alone has, within the past year ,
provided the legal advice and assistance in more than a dozen of
such conversions. i'he reasons are very �simple. Those persons �aho
oi�rn apartment buildings or completies find that they have substantial
amounts of. caoital tied up in projects which could produce a qreater
return in different enterprises; however, because of the tremendous
prices F�hich they would demand for such buildings or complexes , it
is very often impossible to obtain a buyer even after several years
of placing such projects on the market. On the other hand, there is
an increasing market for individual unit ownership; i.e. condominiums ,
anci the conversion of such projects clearly is a profitable venture.
Problems Created bv Conversion to Condoniniums '
Several mem}�ers of the Council have expressed concern over the con-
, version of apartment buildings to condominiums based upon their
apprehension for continued maintenance , prospective deterioration
in naintenance and a general feeling that the apartments , in fact,
do not lend theriselves to a condominium form of o�anership. These
feelings arc not at all unusual.
�3 27G Puunh :la•cuuc, Chula \'ista. C.A 92010 (i 14) 4?7-}300
Conversion of Apartments to Condo�iniums
August 8 , 1972
Page T410
In discussing this matter caith the City Attorney and Planning
Director of Torrance, California, I �aas infornied that the initial
reaction to the conversion of apartment buildings_ to conciominium
ownership was precisely the same; hocaever, they indicated that the}�
had substantially changed their viec•rs regarding this and could 'not
see any objections to tne form of ocanershio.
Distinction Betc•�een Standard Apartments
And Condominiwas
In riarch of 1971, the Council had raised the question concerning
any possible distinction betoreen condominiums and aoartments. This
office had previously indicated that there was essentially no differ-
ence betU�een condominiums and multiple family dcaelling units since
the whole issue is one of form of ocenership and not in the physical
layout.
The law is quite clear that a condominium is a legally permissible
method of o�•*nershio. Any attempt to differentiate bet�aeen projects
being constructed in a multiple fa:�ily zone basen upon the method of
ownership would, I believe, be clearly unconstitutional. I'urther-
more, any attempt to inhibit the conversion of already existing apart-
ments to a condomznium form of ownership would clearly constitute a
restraint or alieaation of the right oi a propert}� oa�ner to legally
dispose of his property in any manner he chooses. There are , of
course, regulations and requirer�a.nts that must be met as will be
discussed hereinaf ter.
Subdivision Controls
As pointed out in a League of California Cities Attorneys Paper
prepared in 1968 , the heart of the diler.u-na regarding condcminiur,is
relates to subdivision control. The State Subdi��ision Ptap Act
declares that a condominium is a subdivision. IIased upon that
assertion, some title companies , lendin, institutions and nunici-
palities have held that. in all cases , �a}iether nev� construction or
conversion of etiisting buildirgs, a subdivision map must be filed.
Several e>:amples are of interest . In 19G6 , after the adoption of
that language in the State lac:�, �i;e City nttorney for the City of
Los Angeles ruled tllat condominiums were not subject to the filing
I�� .
. , • . • ��
Conversion of Apartn�ents to Condominiums
August 8 , 1972
Page Three •
of subdivision naps if , in fact , the property proposed for develop-
ment had previously been subdivided and he refused to process sub-
division maps . In 1972 , that position has been substantially changed
and the City of Los rinceles noca adopts subclivision maps and i:r.poses
all conditions relating to subdivision development, including park
land dedication fees.
As Council is aware , legislation was introduced which �aould specifically
exempt such conversions wherein subdivision maps were �iled from the
park land dedication in lieu fee requirement. That bill is still in
the local go��ernnent co*nmittee . Further , the City of Los Angeles '
City Council rejected local legislation to that effect.
Ho�aever, as previously indicated , it is the opinion of this office ,
shar.ed by the attorneys in the League of California Cities , that
the par}: ,land dedication requirements ia.ere never intended to reach
to the situation of the conversion of a form of o�•.=nership on e�isting
structures. As indicated hereinafter alternate proposals for treat- _
ment of condominiums are suggested.
Several of the lending institutions and title companies in San Diego
County, up until last year, have insisted that a subdivision map
was required botli for the construction of ne�•: condominiums as well
as conversion of- existing apartment buildings. That position has
been totally reversed, except in the case of FHA financing . FHA
does require the filing of a subdivision map. Again, t�ir. Alan Perry
indicates that FHA is not properly apprised of the la�a and he is
confident that they could be persuaded to drop that requirement.
The City Attorney in San Diego has ruled that no subdivision map
is required if either (1) the new condominiuri or proposed conversion
is being underta}:en on property that is a lot of record, or (2) is
a legal buildirg site by virtue of- eaistence prior to subdivision
require;nent. It is the opinion of both P•ir. Perry and myself that
that etiemption is too broad and contrary to law.
A subdi��ision map should be required unless the building site is
already a lot of record . This noca seems to be the majority point
of vie�•: throughout the state. '1'herefore , as in the case of the
Continental Apartments, a subdivision map would not legally be
required . In the case of the Tree Haven project, Ft�A has imposed
that as a requirement. •
k�3
. � . . � �
Conversion of Apartments to Condominiu,-ns
August 8-, 1972
Page Four •
Proposed Regulations of Condominium Conversions
It has previously been noted that the City of Torrance , California
has been presumed by many commentators to possess the most stringent
regulations of condor�iniun orojects to be found. However, an e�:amin- '
ation of the so-called condominiun regulations of Torrance indicates
that they sin�ly have a planned unit development ordinance , similar
to that which e�ists in our o�an Zoning Ordinance, but it makes specific '
reference to the condominium forn of ocanership. As this office has
previously indicated, such a reierence is meaningless; therefore, it
is the opinion of this office that the City of Torrance in fact has
no direct re,ulation of condoninium projects and , as mentioned herein-
above, it is not possible to imnose differing regulations on condomin-
iums than apartment buildings, insofar as zoning regulations such
as floor area requirements, side yard requirements , etc. -
Regulations can and should be enforced in three areas primarily :
1 . Unclergrounding of Utilities .
It is the opinion of this office that the imposition. of a
requirement to underground utilities at the time of the
conversion to a condominium project, subject to the same
regulations as for any neFr construction, would be desirable
primarily because of the probable acceptance of such a
requirement as a desirable sales feature , as well as the
public interest of- early undergrpunding of' all utility lines.
2. Park Land or Capital Imarovement Fees
Since a subdi��ision map is not legally required in the
conversion of e>:isting apartments to condominiums under the
circumstances set forth above , parY land fees could not be
obtained and even wliere a subdivision map is filed, it was
never intendecl that such dedication or in lieu fee require-
. ments be inposed. Therefore , it is recommended that the
Ne4� Construction Tax Ordinance be amended to require payment
of fees for th� development of public facilities at the time
the condominium form of oc,nership is instituted .
3. Landscaping and Parking.
Special provisions should be imposed for landscaping and
par;:ing at tlie time of conversion to condoniniums to insure
that any deficiencies �:�hich may e�:ist in older apartment
developments are corrected .
k�'3
Conversion of Apartments to Condominiums
August S , 1972 •
Page Five '
It should be noted that none of these suggested regulations would
be any different from regiilations currently iriposed upon ne��
construction of multiple family dwellings or new construction of
condominiums of any nature. .
Attached are proposed ordinance revisions.
GDL: j ss
Attaclvnents
� .
�
-1.a-�