HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/06/10 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 new 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)
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
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 will
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 2141 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 Parkin§ 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
In]v,~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 pollution; court held tkat exercise of judgment add balancing
of interests are involved with potential for deprivation Df
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 Two
Kennedy v. City of Hayward, 105 C.A.3d 953.
Senior planner approved lot split into four parcels after
determining it would have no significant environmental
effect per Admin. Code, Title 14, §15060. Sent on to
Commission although not required by ordinance to do so.
Contiguous owner learned by accident and challenged on
environmental grounds (land subsidence). Court held
notice and hearing required under Horn.
Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 C.3d 123.
Ordinance restricting number(s) of unrelated persons who
may occupy dwelling in R-1 violates right of privacy
and substantive due process; court also cast suspicion
on CUP procedure where city officials have wide discretion
to deny the permit - "to be valid it should be limited
to those uses only for which it is difficult to specify
adequate conditions in advance."
Save E1 Toro v. Days, 74 C.A.3d 64 & 98 C.A.3d 544.
City, which had not adopted open space plan pursuant to
Government Code S65560-65570, could not approve a sub-
division map and was liable for attorney fees of associ-
ation which opposed approval.
Edwards v. Steele, 25 C.3d 406.
Appeal may be heard after appeal time if delay caused by
city; i.e., applicant not deprived because of delays by
city.
Rockdale v. Mitchell, 254 S.E.2d 846.
Mandatory fencing of junk yards valid.
Brigss v. Calif., 98 C.A.3d 190~
Denial of a building permit while "planning" is not a
"taking" nor is "expressing an interest in condemning".
Moratoria are valid - only remedy is mandate.
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 a~ 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 an 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 Four
Tosh v. Calif. Coastal Comm., 99 C.A.3d 388.
Possible to secure vested right other than by exercised
building permit (e.g., tentative map or CUP but no vesting
if conditions precedent are unfulfilled.
Karlson v. Camarillo, 100 C.A.3d 789.
Amendment to General Plan is legislative action and will
not be set aside unless council acted arbitrarily or
without any evidentiary basis. CEQA "guidelines" are just
that; courts will not treat them as "standards" requiring
a rigid and precise application.
Walnut Properties v. Long Beach, 100 C.A.3d 1018.
Business license doesn't make use preexisting if not actually
used. "Adult Biz" not vague or invalid classification. Ordi-
nance prohibiting adult business in specified areas upheld.
Stanson v. San Diego, 101 C.A.3d 38.
Where owqer obtained building permits, expended substantial
sums of money to remodel his building, entered into leases
with rentals hinging upon the restaurant opening, all in
reliance uoon the Regional Commission agent's representation
that a coastal permit was not necessary, the owner has a
fundamental vested right based on principle of estoppel and
independent judgment test applies (not substantial evidence).
Ezer v. Fuchslock, 99 C.A.3d 849.
"Abuse of discretion" means "exceeding bounds of reason,
all factors considered - or based on no evidence at all."
"View obstructing" is not vague. Based on CC&Rs court
ruled tree trimmed to one story level to protect view.
Ventura Gulf, 601 F.2d 1080: ) Federal ownership, use
California~v. U.S., 433 U.S.__: ) or project preempts local
Environmental v. East Bay, 26 C.3d 183: ) control over tenants and use.
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. (~~
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.Ao3d 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 Diego, 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.
Recent Municipal Cases - Land Use
Page Six
Pla~gmier v. San Jose, 101 C.A.3d 842.
Mailed notice of EIR must be to actual owner not per latest
roll; else notice is no good and action on application invalid.
San Francisco v. U.S., 78-1701
If permit is issued with conditions whic% miti~at~ all
adverse impacts no EIR under NEPA is required (CEQA follows
NEPA).
Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council, 26 C.3d 938.
Necessary to secure all conflicting views prior to preparation
of even a draft EIR.
A~ins v. Tiburon, 79-602.
Ordinance, which placed land (5 acres) in a zone limited to
single-family dwellings (5), accessory buildings and open
space uses, did not constitute a taking. Court refused to
consider whether damages for inverse available when zoning
constitutes a taking.
TJH:jss ·