HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/07/16 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, July 16, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 & 3
1. Discussion of the conversion of apartments to condominiums
(see attached report to City Council dated 6/10/80)
2. Discussion of regulations regarding the conversion of garages to
living space (see attached memo dated July 2, 1980)
3. Discussion of recent court cases related to land use planning
(materials will be mailed to the Commission on
Thursday, July 10)
4. Discussion of regulations governing the parking of recreational
vehicles in residential zones
5. Commission Comments
6. Director's Comments
UNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 6-10-80
ITEM TITLE: Follow-up Report on Condominium Conversion
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__ No X)
A. BACKGROUND:
After reviewing and discussing a report on condominium activity given to the City Council
in November of last year, the Council asked the Planning Department to prepare a six month
follow-up report outlining the number of multi-family units converted to condominiums.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
D. DISCUSSION:
1. From 1971 to November of 1979 the City had authorized the conversion of 833 apart-
ment units to condominiums. This represents 7% of the total multiple-family dwelling
stock of 11,828 units as of the end of calendar year 1979. As of June 1, 1980 an additional
108 apartment units have been approved for conversion and building permits have been issued
for 203 apartment units. These totals increase multiple-family housing stock to 12,031
and the number of condominium conversions to 941, representing almost 8% of the total
units.
In addition, tentative maps have been recently filed (but not yet acted upon by the
City Council) for the conversion of 220 existing apartment units. If these maps are
approved, 9.6% of the multiple-family housing stock will have been authorized for con-
version from apartments. (See attached table for a complete breakdown.)
2. In addition to the units being converted, subdivision maps for 1,390 oew condo-
minium units have been filed since last November. New and converted condominiums will
comprise approximately 25% of the total multiple-family housing stock with the completion
of the pending units. This compares to approximately 14% in November of last year.
3. For the past ten years (1968-1978) the City averaged over 400 apartments con-
structed each year. However, in 1979 only 144 units were constructed and permits for
203 units have been issued so far this year. (One permit for 183 apartments was just
issued on June 2, 1980). Virtually all new multi-family developments are recording
subdivision maps (the developers of the 183 apartment complex have indicated that a
subdivision map will be filed shortly) as protection against the threat of rent control.
(continued)
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 6-10-80
E. CONCLUSION:
If the maps which are now pending before Council for the conversion of apartments
to condominiums are approved, the number of authorized conversions during 1980 wilt
approach 300 units, the largest number in any year so far. (In 1979, 238 conversions
were approved and in 1978, 248 were approved). However, the total number of con-
versions still account for less than 10% of the multiple family stock. This percentage
will continue to increase unless market forces once again make the construction of
rental units attractive. Of course, a certain number of condominiums are rented out
and in the current economic climate, some new condominium developments are being
offered for rent.
DJP:KGL:cb
CONDOMINIUMS RECEIVING TENTATIVE OR FINAL MAP
APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL
NEW CONVERSION
1971 46
1972 20
1973 233
1974 105
1975 35
1976 - _
1977 141 16
1978 361 248
1979 321 238
1980 942 68
TOTAL 1765 1009 : 2774
Pending - No
action by
City Council 376 220 = 596
TOTAL ~ 1229 3370
Approved since
Nov. l, 1979 lO14 108
Pending 376 220
TOTAL 1390 328
July 2, 1980
To: Members of the City Planning Commission
From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Subject: Parking requirements of local agencies
In response to a recent request by a Planning Commissioner for information
as to how other nearby cities treat the conversion of garages into living space,
we conducted a telephone survey of several local jurisdictions to compare stand-
ards.
The attached table outlining the requirements of seven local agencies
appears consistent in several areas:
1. Each jurisdiction requires a minimum of two offstreet parking spaces
with initial construction; four require a garage or carport and three
allow open parking.
2. Each jurisdiction allows conversion of the parking; however, those
agencies which require the initial construction of a garage or carport
also require the construction of a replacement garage or carport.
3. None of the other agencies allow required parking to be located in the
front setback.
It is apparent that Chula Vista's regulations regarding the conversion of
garages to living quarters are more permissive than those of the cities which
were surveyed. Such conversions oftentimes mark the first step in the decline
of a residential area. It appears appropriate for the Commission to direct
that an ordinance amendment be prepared to bring Chula Vista's regulation more
into line with the regulations of other cities in the county.
D. J. Peterson
Director of Planning
DJP:KGL:hm
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
Required Parking Conversions
City Conv. Conditions Parking in
Allowed front setback
Carlsbad 2 spaces uncovered must Yes 2 uncovered spaces to No
meet all setback standards meet all setback standards
La Mesa 2 car §arage Yes Must replace with No
2 car garage
Escondido 2 car garage or carport Yes Must replace with 2 car No
garage or carport
E1 Cajon 2 spaces uncovered must Yes 2 uncovered spaces to meet No
meet all setback standards all setback standards
San Diego 2 spaces uncovered must Yes 2 uncovered spaces to meet No
meet all setback standards all setback standards
Coronado 2 car garage or carport Yes Must replace with one car No
garage or carport and one
open space
National City 2 car garage or carport Yes Must replace with 2 car No
garage or carport
InTv,~ation pertaining to Item 3
on July 16, 1980 Planning Commission Agenda
RECENT MUNICIPAL CASES
LAND USE
County of Fresno v. Malmstrom, 94 C.A.3d 974.
Special assessments and bonds levied pursuant to the Improve-
ment Acts of 1911 and 1913 are neither property taxes nor
special taxes so California Constitution A~t..XIII does not
apply.
Furey v. Sacramento, 24 C.3d 862.
Not inverse to down classify in General Plan but down zoning
to open space might not be applicable to lands burdened by
1911 Act bonds for urban use unless reassessment made.
EWAP, Inc. v. L.A., 97 C.A.3d 179.
May "regulate" sex oriented businesses so that violations of
law are not likely (no concealed viewing booths) but may not
deny a license to a party because of violations within past
two years.
Horn v. Ventura, 25 C.3d 383.
Involved a lot split into four parcels; negative declaration
and tentative map approved without no~ice or public hearing;
plaintiff claimed problems with access~ traffic congestion
and pol!ution~ court held tkat exercise of judgment add halancin~
of interests are involved with potential for deprivation ~f
substantial property interest so must give notice and hearing.
Only applicable where "significant" or "substantial" deprivations
of property involved and not by agency decisions having only a
de minimus effect on land or involving only the nondiscretionary
application of objective standards.
"The general application of due process principles
is flexible, depending on the nature of the competing
interests involved. The extent of administrative
burden is one of the factors to be considered in
determining the nature of an appropriate notice.
However, where, as here, prior notice of a potentially
adverse decision is constitutionally required, that
notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated
to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity
to protect their interests."
Recent Municipal Cases - Land Use
Page Three
Penaat v. North Coast Regional Comm., 97 C.A.3d 964.
Must exhaust administrative remedies even if seeking an
exemption (well and septic tank installed without permit).
62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 663:
"Fee" charged per Government Code §66484 as c~ndition of
approval of subdivision map for bridges or thoroughfares
of benefit to land being divided is not a "special tax"
requiring 2/3rds vote.
62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 673:
In-lieu fee on building permits for low cost housing is
a "special tax" requiring 2/3rds vote.
Bakman v. Dept. of Transportation, 99 C.A.3d 665.
Interpretation by those charged with administration of
regulations entitled to "great weight". Finding that EIR
was properly prepared and circulated leads to implication
that it was also considered by the appropriate governmental
entities. Hearing officer may require "offer of proof" to
avoid irrelevant issues. Findings adequate if interested
parties and courts are apprised of rationale.
No fundamental vested rights of adjoining property owners
involved ~n grant of CUP or variance so court review is
not independent weighing but substantial evidence test.
L.A.v. Silver, 98 C.A.3d 745.
Interpretation of zoning ordinance phrase "penny arcade"
by City Attorney, City Council and common sense accepted
by court.
Santa Ana v. Garden Grove, 100 C.A.3d 521.
General Plan changes subject to CEQA. Administrative
interpretations (State guidelines) entitled to great weight.
Recent Municipal Cases - Land Use
Page Five
Toso v. Santa Barbara, 101 C.A.3d 934.
General Plan showed property as resort hotel; zoning was
single-family. Rezoning denied. Initiative passed to
acquire property for open space. Negotiations begun. City
decides not to acquire and rezones PUD. Court holds these
actions do not constitute inverse and zoning is legislative.
Chaplis v. Monterey, 97 C.A.3d 249. Q~.~
County erroneously issued building permit before CUP obtained
for use; when error discovered revoked same causing loss
(50% complete). Court held county immune from liability
because damages were result of owner's failure to get CUP.
Owner presumed to know law that permits are required.
Hughes v. So. Cal. Edison, 100 C.A.3d 480.
City may require utility to relocate for subdivision.
Walnut Creek v. Contra Costa, 101 C.A.3d 1012.
Applican~ prhibited from raising issue in court which was
not raised at hearing (consistency of apartment complex
with General Plan). If finding made that adverse impacts
are mitigated, court will apply substantial evidence test
and only overturn if there is abuse of discretion.
Mason v. City, 468 F.Supp. 737.
City may be sued in anti-trust for DDA which promises
"protection" against competitors.
Metromedia v. San Dieqo, 26 C.3d 848.
City may prohibit offsite sign (billboards - except as to
signs within 660 feet of federal highway). Does not violate
free speech because it does not suppress content of message
and adequate alternative means of communication available.
Regulation based on aesthetics is valid.