HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-19; City Council; 5137; South side Laguna Dr Between Jefferson and I-5CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. ^/^7 Initial:
: Dept.Hd. Rp/s/
DATE: July 19, 19, 1977 ^ Atty.~
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING c. Mgr.
Subject:TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL, CT77-11, APPLICANT: LACUNA PROPERTIES
South side of Laguna Drive between Jefferson and 1-5
Statement of the Matter
The subject property is a 1.8 acre parcel situated on the south side
of Laguna Drive between Jefferson and 1-5. There is an existing
45 unit apartment development and 74 parking spaces (49 covered,
45 uncovered, existirig on the site). This application is to convert
these rental units to a condominium for an air space sales program.
Although the City does not have a condominium conversion ordinance
' at this time the staff has recommended that this conversion be denied
for not meeting basic condominium standards. The Planning Commission
concurred and has recommended denial as per Resolution No. 1379.
The applicant for the tract map explained that approving the map would
not change any physical development in the area but would provide for
ownership of homes. He anticipated that the ownership cost would be
relatively low.
The Planning Commission also requested that the City Council develop
interim guidelines in anticipation of more condominium conversions.
Exhibit
Staff report dated 6-22-77
Exhibit 'A1 dated 4-29-77
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1379
Supplemental information submitted by applicant dated 6-22-77
Staff Report regarding condominium conversion dated 7-11-77
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended that CT77-11 be denied. Staff
concurs and recommends that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
documents denying CT77-11 as per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1379
It is further recommended that a draft ordinance be prepared on
condominium conversion for consideration of the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
Council action
7-19-77 See Page 2.
AGENDA BILL NO. 5137
7-19-77 Following the public hearing the City Attorney was directed to
prepare documents necessary for denying the approval of
tentative map for Carlsbad Tract 77-11. without prejudice and
without fees.
The staff was directed to prepare a condominium conversion
ordinance for the Council's consideration.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 22, 1977 •
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
11
CASE NO: CT 77-11
APPLICANT: LACUNA PROPERTIES. (GORDON M. DENYES, AGENT) '-•
REQUEST: TRACT MAP TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVERSION OF 45
EXISTING APARTMENT UNITS INTO CONDOMINIUMS.
SECTION I. RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends that CT 77-11 be DENIED based on the following
findings:
1) The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the General Plan because:
a) The design and improvement of the project do not provide .
development criteria necessary to warrant the granting
of the maximum allowable density of the General Plan.
1. No guest parking is provided.
2. Adequate additional storage is not provided.
3. Adequate open space and/or recreational facilities
are not provided.
4. Fire resistant construction, to condominium standards,
is not provided.
5. Separate utility systems for each unit are not
provided.
2) The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan because:
a) The density requested for approval exceeds the maximum
allowed for the subject location; i.e, the.request is for
approximately 25 dwelling units per acre and the General
Plan Land Use Plan Map shows the area for 10-20 dwelling
units per acre. . '
" ti
b) The conversion will eliminate low-moderate income housing
from the City.
c) Under moratorium conditions, the low-moderate housing will
not be replaced.
d) Those individuals working in the City that are forced to
move out will experience additional expenses in transportation.
SECTION II. BACKGROUND
Location and Description of Property
The 1.8 acre parcel is located on the south side of Laguna Drive
between Jefferson Street and the 1-5 freeway. The parcel is flat
and surrounded by urbanization.
A 45-unit apartment development, including 74 parking spaces (49
covered, 25 uncovered) exists on "the site. The applicant has in-
dicated on the subject application that no alteration of the existing
structures or facilities are planned. No recreational facilities
exist on-site.
Existing Zoning:
Subject Property: R-3
North: R-l
South: R-3 ' -
East: R-3
West: R-3
Existing Land Use;
Subject Property: Apartments
North: Single-Family Residences
South: Apartments
East: Apartments
West: Single-Family Residences
History and Related Cases;
The City Council has directed staff to develop a condominium con-
version policy and/or ordinance of number of times in the past.
Staff developed a draft condominium conversion ordinance as a part
of the recently adopted Planned Unit Development Ordinance. However,
because of the complexity of the PUD Ordinance, staff did not feel
that it would be appropriate to submit the PUD and Condo-conversion
processes together.
Environmental Impact Information;
The subject request is exempt from the Carlsbad Environmental
Protection Ordinance of 1972 (Section 19.04.090 c.4 (1)).•i
General Plan Information;
The General Plan Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property
as Residential Medium-High density (RM-H), 10-20 dwelling units
per acre).
The General Plan Land Use Element states the following in regard
to density ranges: :
-2-
"The density ranges established for the medium, medium-
high and high density residential categories are NOT
meant as "minimums" and" "maximums". The lower figure
for each of these categories represents a "guaranteed"
density and the higher figure represents a potential
maximum that could be located in each area if certain
criteria are met. The criteria shall be reviewed on a
project-by-project basis and shall include such things
as slope of land, soil stability, compatibility with
surrounding land uses, flood plain protection, adequacy
of public facilities, on-site amenities and preservation
of unique and desirable natural resources. In other
words, the density allocation for any project starts at
the low end and, if a higher density is desired, the
proposed development must prove itself worthy of the
higher designation."
General Plan Residential Guidelines (Land Use Element), state the
following:
7. Achieve a variety and choice of housing in all economic
ranges throughout the City.
16. Encourage the provision of low and moderate income
dwelling units to meet the objectives of the City's
Housing Element.
Public Facilities;
No change in the necessity for public facilities is required by the
subject project.
Major Planning Consideration:
Can the necessary findings be made as required under the State
Map Act?
Is this condominium conversion desirable,, given the applicable
priteria in the General Plan?
SECTION III. DISCUSSION
One of the mandatory findings required for subdivisions under the
State Map Act is one that assures General Plan consistency. The
most obvious nonconformity of the subject; request is the density of
the existing apartment development as allowed under the R-3 zone
versus the.maximum density allowed for the subject site, as specified
by the General Plan. The existing apartment project exceeds the
maximum General Plan density by 5 dwelling units per acre (existing
apartment density = 25 d.u's per acre - General Plan density 10-20
d.u's per acre).
Staff feels that even if the subject apartment development did not
exceed the General Plan maximum density, General Plan consistency
could not be found. This is .based on the opinion that the project,
as it exists, does not provide the on-site amenities and/or facilities
— 3—
that warrant maximum allowable density. The General Plan spec--
ifically states that a project must "prove itself worthy" of a
higher than the guaranteed minimum number of dwelling units.
Although no specific criteria are established in the General Plan
text to allow increased density, staff feels that a good set of
guidelines to provide these criteria are outlined in the PUD
(Planned Unit Development) section of Title 21. Basically, the
PUD criteria applicable in the subject case are the following:
1. Availability of additional guest parking;
2. Availability of storage areas;
3. Availability of usable common open space and/or recreation
areas;
4. Provision of basic building construction standards:
a. fire-resistant construction (1 hour)
b. separate utility systems for each unit.
It is the opinion of staff that to warrant additional density over
the General Plan guaranteed minimum , a project should provide some.
or all of the above criteria. The subject project provides none
of the above four criteria.
The basic standard for condominium conversion projects should be
the provision of basic building construction standards (number 4
above). The Uniform Building Code requires 1-hour fire walls for
new condominium construction, but not for apartment construction.
Condominium conversion should not be used a method of circumventing
Uniform Building Code requirements. In a structure or structures
owned by a single property owner (i.e, apartments), common utility •
systems are workable since there is no question as to who is
responsible for repairs and maintenance. However, under multiple
individual ownership, common-wall structures pose potential problems
in regard to repair and maintenance of sewer lines, water lines,
electrical facilites, etc. Also, although a homeowners' association
will be formed for maintenance, there will be no immediate maintenance
fund (reserve) provided for emergency repairs. It would undoubtedly
take a number of years to build a substantial fund.to cover extra-
ordinary repair costs. Since the units have been in existence for
in'excess of four years, major repairs may be more immediate than
in a new development.
In addition to the General Plan density and development criteria,
staff is also concerned about the effect the subject condominium
conversion will have on the provision of low and moderate income
housing. Two of the General Plan Residential Guidelines state
the City should "achieve a variety and choice of housing in all
economic ranges throughout the City" and "encourage the provision
of low and moderate income dwelling units to meet the objectives
of the City's Housing Element."
-4- .
. .
Apartment units, such as the subject development, provide a nec-
essary housing type for the community. Apartments provide housing
-for individuals or families who wish to purchase a permanent res-
idence and are accumulating a cash down payment; or those who do
not wish to purchase a permanent residence but prefer to live"in the
City. Staff feels that these people will be forced to live else-
where if the project is converted to a condominium. Because of
present sewer moratorium restricts building permits for virtually
all construction, the availability of replacement apartments will
be extremely difficult in Carlsb,ad. The result will be possible dis-
placement of the existing residents to areas outside the City where
apartments are more readily available.
Low and moderate income residents depend on a centralized location
for the provision of excess to goods, services and place of employ-
ment. If these residents are forced to move out of the area, they
will probably experience additional costs in transportation; primarily
the home-to-work trip. Housing, food and transportation constitute
a high percentage of the expenses incurred by low-moderate income
citizens, therefore, an increase in any one of these categories could
significantly affect their quality of life.
Because of the rising property values in the area and the current
sewer moratorium, staff anticipates condo-conversions to be requested
more frequently. Staff"should be prepared to deal with these requests
in a uniform and equitable manner.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission request the City
Council to direct staff to prepare a comprehensive report on condo-
minium conversions to accompany a draft ordinance dealing with specific
development/conversion criteria.
TH: ar
6/15/77 .
Attachments;
Exhibit "A", dated April 29, 1977
Location Map
-5-
*; .COUNCIL
,General S-jbject: Condominium
Specific Subject:Condominium Conversion Policy
Date Issued:
Effective Date: ""'
Cancellation Dote: \
-.^
Supersedes Mo.
Copies to:
BACKGROUND; ' . • "...
Due to the increasing number of requests to convert apartments to condominiums
and the resultant need to provide logical and reasonable criteria for
conversions,.the City Council has determined that it is in the public interest
to adopt a policy for condominium conversions, according to authority given
in Section 34091-1 of the Government Code.
PURPOSE: To establish a policy to insure the satisfactory conversion of
apartments to condominiums, and to maintain quality housing for all the
citizens of Carlsbad, the City of Carlsbad requires that:
1) All. proposed apartment conversions to condominiums meet the
Public Facilities Policy/
2) All proposed Apartment conversion to condominium include provisions
for a Homeowners Association. The CC & R's of the Association
shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
3) All proposed Apartment Conversion to Condominiums shall provide
for Recreational Facilities and Open Space equal to or greater
than the facilities existing at'the "time of Conversion.
4) All proposed Apartment Conversion to Condominium must meet current
zoning ordinance and parking ordinance requirements.
mrnl, A
iLAGUNA DR
COsjrn
[ *
I Case No.£T 77-K Date Rec'd: 4/^/^7 DCC Date: c^/14/77 PC Dat,
Description of Request: £g>ndo — rAAx/^r<^(^^> erf* ^>^>^t"tnq
3 x^ VJ
Address_c^r"L.ocation^of" R'e'guTst:* j<;
J^t-App'ncantEngr. OP T.PCtK
Brief Legal:
Xl-o(.
* "2,01 Parcel:Assessor Book:
General Plan Land Use Description:
Existing Zone: R-3 Proposed ZoTTe: f^-3
Acres: 1.7^2. No. of Lots: | DU's 4 5~ DU/Acre'• . > t *School District: <^<i(-teka
Water Sanitation District:
Within Coast Plan Area:
Ontftg.4"
DOAo.
-bod
Coast Permit A r e a:
1
2
3
4
5 CASE NO: CT 77-11
APPLICANT: LACUNA PROPERTIES
6
11
12
13
17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1379
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE CON-
VERSION OF 45 EXISTING APARTMENT UNITS INTO
CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
LACUNA DRIVE, BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND 1-5
FREEWAY .
WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to
wit:
Parcel B in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, as shown on Page 442 of Parcel
Maps filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, January 29, 1971 and commonly known as
935 Laguna Dirve, Carlsbad, California.
has been filed with the .City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, this application constitutes a request as provided
by the "Carlsbad Municipal Code;" and
WHEREAS, the public hearing to consider the subject request
was held on June 22, 1977, at the time and in the place specified
in the public hearing notice, pursuant to the provisions of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired
to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the Tentative Tract Map request (CT 77-11) and found the following
facts and reasons to exist:
22
23
^4
25 1) The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the General Plan because:
26
a) The design and improvement of the project do not provide
27 development criteria necessary to warrant the granting
of the maximum allowable density of the General Plan.
28 Although the General Plan doesn't list specific require-
ments, the lack of the following items' generally
1 provided by current standards, justifies this finding;
2 1. Guest parking.
2. Adequate additional storage
3 3. Adequate open space and/or recreational facilities.
4. Fire resistant construction.
4 5. Separate utility systems for each unit.
it
5 2) The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan
because:
6
a) The density requested for approval exceeds the maximum
7 allowed for the subject location; i.e, the request is for
approximately 25 dwelling units per acre and the General
8 Plan Land Use Plan Map shows the area for 10-20 dwelling
units per acre.
9 ' -
b) The conversion will reduce the present amount of low-
10 moderate income housing in the City.
11 c) Under moratorium conditions, the reduced low-moderate
housing will not be replaced.
12
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
13
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
14
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
15
B) That the action of the Planning Commission is to DENY
16 Carlsbad Tract Map (CT 77-11), on property located on
the south side of Laguna Drive, between Jefferson Street
17 and 1-5 Freeway.
18 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
19 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on June 22, 1977, by the
20 following vote, to wit:
21 AYES: Commissioners Larson, Rombotis, L'Heureux,
Jose, Woodward.
22
ABSENT: Commissioner Fikes
23
NOES: Commissioner Watson
24
25 .
ERIC LARSON, CHARIMAN
26 ATTEST:
27
28 JAMES C. HAGAMAN, SECRETARY
ADDRESS
A. 2730 Jefferson St,
B. 955 Laguna Drive
C\ 975 Laguna Drive
D. 954- Hone Ave.
E. 874- Home Ave.
F. Home & Hope Aves.
DENSITY OF PROPERTIES
SURROUNDING 955 LAGUNA DRIVE
DUMBER Off UNITS SIZE OF PARCEL DENSITY(UNITS/ACI
26
19
21
12
24
21
.83 Acres
.98 Acres
.61 Acres
.38 Acres
.63 Acres
.63 Acres
31
19
34-
31
38
33
935 Laguna Drive.1.80 Acres 25
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 11, 1977
TO: PAUL BUSSEY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
BACKGROUND: Presently Carlsbad approves condominium and condominium
conversions only as technical matters through subdivision maps and EIRs:
design, circulation, and other planning and engineering matters are done
administrative meeting ordinance requirements. The City Council can
only modify or deny request if there is a technical problem with the map
or place mitigating measures on the EIR to direct development. The City
Council never has been satisfied with this method and has requested
development standards and processing methods to be developed.
At different times the City Council and/or staff has considered condo-
miniums and condominium conversion separately even though they are
related matters. Most recently the City Council directed staff to study
the processing of condominiums. However, we cannot study one aspect
without the other since if standards were established only for condo-
miniums a loophole would be created by allowing the development of
apartments that later would be converted to condominiums. This report
will trace the history of the matter and give alternative solutions.
History
Early in 1974 staff presented an interium regulatory device, known as
the condominium conversion policy (see Exhibit "A"). This policy was
approved by the Planning Commission but tabled by the City Council so
that a condition could be developed that would provide a cut-off date
for those units that could or could not be converted. This date was to
correspond with some logical or major amendment with the Building Codes.
Staff could not find a logical cut-off date, since changes in the
Building Codes have occurred in a somewhat continuous manner. During
this review, staff came to the opinion that the policy would be in-
effective and suggested that an ordinance be drafted that would give
specifics to requirements and processing. In the drafting of the PUD
process the Planning Commission inserted criteria for condominiums and
processing of condominium conversion. Basically, this ordinance said
that condominiums are Planned Unit Developments and shall meet PUD
standards; there were some exceptions to conversion. In the final
draft of the PUD Ordinance these sections were deleted because it was
felt that there would be opposition from developers to such regulations
and that such opposition would confuse the main goal of adopting PUD
regulations. Although staff has kept condominium regulations in our
work program other priorities have kept the project from being completed.
Recently, however, the City Council again directed staff to review
condominium regulations. This was precipitated when the City Council
reviewed a condominium tract map that showed only the one lot with no in-
formation-of how the condominium was to be developed. It was pointed out.
to the City Council and citizens that the Map Act only requires the
ploting of the lot, not the air space. Although development plans were
submitted as information, there is no method to require development to
those plans. This was not satisfactory to nearby residents and the City
Council. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare methods
to insure site plan review.
PLANNING CONCERNS: Condominiums, especially condominium conversions, are
areas of planning concerns. A synopsis- of some of the more apparent
concerns are as follows:
A. Social Factors:
1) Condominium conversion reduces the availability of rental units.
2) At conversion, renters, many which are of lower income, are
required to leave without relocation aid. Though they are given
first choice of buying, many cannot because of the down payment
and higher cost of the mortgage.
3) Studies indicate that conversion to condominiums generally raise
dwelling unit costs 10% to 15%.
B. Community Factors:
1) Poorly designed or managed condominiums have a detrimental affect
on the community.
2) Many condominiums are second homes, thereby requiring more dis-
ruption to environmentally sensitive lands to construct homes for
the residents.
3) Condominium failures reduce neighborhood housing values.
C. Condominium Factors:
1) Apartment maintenance is done by a single owner or manager. If it
is not done, the major loser is the apartment owner. With condo-
miniums, however, maintenance is by a homeowner's association.
If the association does not vote to spend more money, maintenance
will not occur. If the condominium is not designed properly,
poor maintenance may hurt some owners and not affect others.
2) Generally property owners demand more amenities than renters
(they have an investment and live in the unit longer than renters),
Therefore, facilities and construction techniques that are
acceptable for a renter are not acceptable to a buyer. For
instance: sound proofing, guest parking, storage and recreation
areas are generally insufficient in apartment construction to meet
needs of a condominium.
-2- •
POLICY DECISION: To begin with, there are numerous forms a condominium
and condo conversion regulatory device can take. It can range from
doing nothing but the basic requirements of a subdivision map and
environmental impact report or to an ordinance that strictly forbids
condominium conversions.
Following are discussions on some types of devices that can be used:
rt
1. Requirements that the "Social Factor" need be considered are used in
some California cities. Generally, findings must be made as to:
a) Impact on rental market
b) Relocation programs
c) Determining percentage of units available for low income families.
•*
Through in many cases these are valid requirements, staff rejected
this type since:
a) There is no data base at this time to make such findings.
b) The problem does not appear to be significant at this time in
Carlsbad.
2. Requirements that condominium and condo conversions meet special
development criteria to reduce possible community problems. Generally,
findings must be made as to:
a) School facilities must be guaranteed.
b) Special requirement on parking, storage and recreation facilities.
c) Units must meet all present codes.
Staff believes some of these factors are not only valid, but practical
to apply with limitation, since:
a) Staff believes that school facilities must be guaranteed, since
presumably condominiums will be purchased by families, placing
more demands on the school system than apartments do.
b) .There is evidence that tenure is longer by homeowners, since
they are made up generally of families and they entertain at
home more. This means there is greater need for storage, parking
and recreation. Without providing it on site, a condominium
could -be detrimental to a neighborhood by overloading street
parking, outside storage and community recreation areas.
c) Bringing units to present code, however, is difficult and in
many cases of dubious value. For example, is the cost-benefit
-3-
ratio workable to increase the width of doorways to meet present
code. Staff believes what is important is that the structure be
safe and structurally sound, which is judgmental in many cases.
Therefore, an inspection for safety without reference to meeting
present codes seems more reasonable.
3. Requirements that condominium conversions meet special requirements
to promote ownership satisfaction. Generally, findings must be made
as to:
a) Privacy at a level of "home ownership" must be guaranteed.
b) The individual units be more independent to other units of the
development than apartments are.
c) The Home Ownership Association is workable and viable.
Staff believes some of these are valid also and can be applied, since
a) Soundproofing and added fire protection can add to privacy and
greater independence.
b) Separate utility systems gives independence and relieves the
association of maintenance.
c) City approval of landscaping and maintenance programs approve
chances of properly cared for open or common areas.
d) City review and approval of C.C. & R's improves chances of a
viable Home Owner Association.
ALTERNATIVES: Creating a new set of standards and methods of pro-
cessing appears to be unnecessary, since the City already has methods
in the ordinance. Those appropriate methods are as follows:
1. Zone Code Amendment that requires a Conditional Use Permit for
condominiums and condominium conversions. This would require a
site plan and Planning Commission public hearings. However, Planning
Commission is final action on CUP's and therefore it would not accom-
pany Tract Map to City Council. Also, the CUP process does not
have development guidelines.
2. Zone Code Amendment that requires Planning Commission and City
Council approval as per the Site Development process as contained in
the Qualified Development Overlay Zone. (SDP's are final action by
the Planning Commission, but this could be modified for condominiums),
This method would give both Planning Commission and City Council
review with the Tract Map and some general development guidelines.
However, there would be no regulations or policies as specific to
condomini urns.
-4-
3. Zone Code Amendment that require Planning Commission and City Council
approval by the Planned Unit Development regulations for both condo-
minium and condominium conversion. This method already has an estab-
lished public hearing processing to both Planning Commission and
City Council, and'contains development standards.that are appro-
priate for condominiums.
Staff recommends that Alternative Np. 3 be followed. However, we
recognize that this process may have opposition since the Planned Unit
Development regulations require recreation areas, visitor parking and
other standards not required in development zones. Staff however,
believes that condominiums need more amenities because owners generally
demand more in their living environment than renters.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council direct staff
to prepare a draft ordinance for City Council review that requires pro-
cessing of condominium and condominium conversion as Planned Unit Develop-
ment with special development criteria that is necessary to assure proper
condominium development, as stated in this report.
BP:jp
7/8/77
Enclosure