HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-21; City Council; 5340; 25 Apartment to Condominiums ConversionCITY OF "RLSBAD
f
»AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE; February 21, 1978
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
Inl tia!_:
Dept. "Hd.
City Atty
SUBJECT:
Conversion of 25 existing apartment units to condominiums
Case No.: CT 77-17
Applicant: Hal Pollard
STATEMENT Or »'\!F MATTER , :.
The property "is located on the north side of Chinquapin between the
railroad right-of-way and Garfield Street.
This action is exempt from the condominium conversion moratorium
ordinance since it was in process prior to its adoption, and exempt
from the planning moratorium since no new sewer demand is being
generated.
At the meeting of the conversion moratorium, staff indicated that the
subject application had merit and should be processed. However, staff
subsequently recommended denial (See attached memo to City Manager
dated February 15, 1978) and the Planning Commission agreed.
Staff's recommendation for denial was drafted pr,ior to the adoption
of a new State law that requires specific General Plan objectives
before a City could .deny a conversion. Therefore, the finding listed
in the Planning Commission resolution appear invalid at this time.
This was explained to the Planning Commission and the applicant, and
they were told that this matter would be further investigated. (Reference
attached memo to the City Manager dated February 15, 1978).
EXHIBITS
Planning Commission Resolution 1432
Memorandum to City Manager from Planning Director dated February 15, 1978
Staff Report dated January 11, 1978
Staff Report dated January 25, 1978
Exhibit "B" dated January 17, 1978
Location Map
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare
documents approving CT 77-17 with the finding and conditions contained
in the memorandum to the City Manager dated February 15, 1978.
Council action
2-21-78 At th.e request of the applicant the matter was continued
to the next regular meeting.
3-8-78 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving
CT 77-17 with the finding and conditions contained in the
memorandum to the City Manager dated February 15, 1978, with
modification of Conditions 2 and 6 as proposed by the applicant.
FORM PLANNING 73
w
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISS.IOlSt RESOLUTION NO. 1432
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING'COMMISSION OF THE
CITY- OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE CON-
VERSION OF 25 EXISTING APARTMENT UNITS INTO
CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
CHINQUAPIN AVENUE, BETWEEN THE AT&SF RAILROAD
AND GARFIELD-STREET.
CASE NO: . CT 77-17
APPLICANT ; HAL POLLARD •
WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to
wit:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1313, recorded February 16, 1973
as Recorder's File No. 73-042929 of Official Records,
being a portion of Lot 4, Block "S" of PALISADES NO. 2
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof No. 1803, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, this application constitutes a request i'-s provided
by Title.21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 25th day of
January, 1978, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; 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
CT 77-17, and found the following facts and reasons to exist:
1) The proposed map is not consistent with the Carlsbad policies
and goals.to provide'decent housing for all economic ranges
in Carlsbad, and to insure viable condominium projects because
a) Conversion of apartment units will reduce the availability
of rental un.its in the City of Carlsbad, and that these
rental units ceinnot be replaced because of the present
sewer- moratorium.
XXX . . ..'. '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
(.0
< • 1 .b) The amenities of visitor parking, recreation areas and
storage provided in this development are insufficient
for proper livability by tne eventual homeowner-s of this
project.
f
c) The conversion of apartments to condominiums increases the
cost of housing, but does not increase the livability or
amenities.*
d) Homeowners demand greater amenities, services, and
generally better living conditions than the transient
renter'who can easily move out if dissatisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That the action of the Planning Commission is to DENY
Carlsbad Tract Map (CT 77-17), on property located on the
north side of Chinquapin Avenue, between the AT&SF Railroad
and Garfield Street.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on January -25, 1978,
by the 'following vote, to wit:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Rombotis, Larson, Jose Woodward,
None.
Commissioner L'Heureux, Fikes.
•None.
JERJJY ROMBOTIS', "Chairman
ATTEST:
^..JA'MES C. HAGANAN", Secretary
c
MEMORANDUM T
DATE: February 15, 1978
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: CT 77-17, Condominium Conversion Moratorium
and Subdivision Map Act Revisions
Condominium Conversion Moratorium: At the meeting of the adoption of
the moratorium on accepting applications for apartment conversions to
condominiums (January 3, 1978), staff indicated that the subject application
and one other was in process and they should be allowed to continue.
Staff felt that both of these processing conversions had merit and should
at least be permitted to process.
However, upon further review during writing of the staff recommendation
for the subject application, staff recommended denial. The structures
do have merit for conversion, which was pointed out in the January 11, 1978
staff report and the applicant was willing to make some changes to improve
the development. Nevertheless, staff felt that with the recent concerns
of loss of rental units the application should be denied.
The Planning Commission on January 11, 1978 apparently did not agree with
staff and continued the item and asked staff to prepare conditions of
approval (See report dated January 25, 1978) . However, on January 25, 1978
the Planning Commission recommended that the map be denied for the reasons
given in Resolution No. 1432. There was additional dissatisfaction
because the two story four-plex building (south west corner of the site)
was not conducive to proper condominium units and that the units are
built as single floor apartment and individual water meters are not
provided at any unit.
Hal Pollard, the applicant for CT 77-17, has indicated that he felt that
the Planning Commission action denying his request for conversion of
apartments to condominium was not legal due to the recent revisions to the
State Map Act. I assume that Mr. Pollard will discus's this with the
City Council in an attempt to have the Planning Commission's recommendation
overturned. For your information I am submitting the new legislation
that I believe Mr. Pollard is referring to:
66427.2 Unless applicable general or specific plans
contain definite objectives and policies, specifically
directed to the conversion of existing buildings into
condominium projects, the provisions of Sections
66473.5 and 66474 shall not apply to condominium projects
which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing
structure, unless new units are to be constructed or added.
This section shall not diminish, limit or expand
other than as provided herein, the authority of any City,
County, or City and County to approve or disapprove
condominium projects.
(Added, Chapter 923, Statutes of 1977)
The two sections that are referenced in this particular section deal
with findings that must be made prior to City approval. This new
legislation means that the denial of a condominium conversion cannot be
based upon consistency with the General Plan or those findings normally
required for subdivisions. These two sections are as follows:
66473.5. No local agency shall approve a map unless the
legislative body shall find that the proposed subdivision
together with the provisions for its design and improvement
is consistent with the general plan required by Article 5
(commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division
1 of this title, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to
Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of
Division 1 of this title.
A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a
general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency
has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed
subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in such
a plan.
66474. A legislative body of a City or County shall
deny approval of a final or tentative map if it makes
any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the
type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the
governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternative
easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and
that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements established by judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legis-
lative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
(Amended, Chapter 24, Statutes of 1975)
- 2 -
Normally tract maps must meet all requirements of the General Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinanbes. • In the past condominium conversion
decisions were primarily based on the General Plan, i.e., housing
stock, rents, quality of units, etc. The new State subdivision
regulation will not permit the City from basing decision on the General
Plan unless the General Plan is amended to include definite objectives and
policies, specifically directed to the conversion into condominiums.
As always a map can only be denied per the zoning and subdivision ordinance
if it is conflict with those regulations.
The subject tract map meets all requirements of zoning and subdivisions
and therefore could not be denied based on these regulations.
However, conditions could be applied to an approval to improve the
project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that CT 77-17 be approved with the finding that the
application meets all requirements of zoning, subdivision, environmental
and public facilities and with the following conditions:
1) Approval is granted for the land described in the application and
with the attachments thereto and as shown on the tentative tract
map submitted, labeled Exhibit "B", dated January 17, 1978.
2) A two hour fire rated wall shall be provided separating each dwelling
unit. This wall shall continue through the attic to the roof.
3) Each unit shall be provoided with fire detecting and warning devices
to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
4) Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City to the satisfaction of the
Parks & Recreation Director.
5) Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks
and Recreation Director
6) Each unit be provided with an individual water meter.
BP:s
2-15-78
>TAFF REPORT
January 11, 1978 •>
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
PROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE NO: CT 77-17
APPLICANT: HAL POLLARD
REQUEST: CONVERSION OF 25 EXISTING APARTMENT UNITS TOCONDOMINIUMS".
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
Location and Description of Property
The property is located on the north side of Chinquapin between
the AT&SF Railroad, and Garfield Street. The property is generally.
flat and is approximately 1.19 acres. There are 25 units
on the property with a density of 21 du. per acre. The buildings
wer.e constructed in 1974.
Description of^Si/te
1. Building Design; 21 of the units are constructed as townhouses,
(2 story), with small front and rear yards. The remaining 4
units are 1 bedroom flats; the 2 downstairs units have yards, the
2 upstairs units have balconies. The plan submitted (Exhibit A")
shows a 30' rear yard. However, there is only 12^ existing at
. the deepest point. The code requires 16'. Building plans are
stored in'microfilm and were not traced, but staff assumed the
plans were approved at 30' rear yard, but field inspections did
not find the discrepancy.
Construction:
Utilities:
2. Parking;
The building is constructed with 1 hour separation
walls between units. Building Department believes
2 hour walls are necessary for sound insulation
as well as fire protection.
Sewer and water utilities are common, electricity
and gas are metered individually.
Required; 42 (48 provided, 4 of which are covered).
If this project was a PUD, .67 spaces would be required, 25 of which
for visitor parking, 38 of the 67 spaces would have to be covered. ....
.Screening;If this pS^iect was a PUD, all parka^; areas would .
have to be screened from abutting residential properties,
3. Storage;Each unit has an outdoor' storage shed of approximately
150 cubic feet situated in rear yard of each unit.
RV Storage;If this project was a PUD, 1,000 square feet would
be required under PUD Guidelines for RV Storage.
4. Open Areas;
There is roughly 6,340 square feet of open space along
the entrance drive which currently has no recreation
facilities. An existing storage room is proposed to be
converted into a recreation room of approximately 500 sq. ft,
Small patios are also existing for each unit.
If this project was a PUD, it would have to provide
2,500 square feet of usable open space which contains more
some form of recreational facilities. The applicant has
indicated that recreational facilities are being considered.
Existing Zoning;
Subject Property:
North:
• • . South:
East:
West:
Existing Land Use;-
Subject Property:
North:
South:
East:
West:
RDM
RDM, R-l
RDM. R-l
R-l
R-l, RDM
Apartments
SFR
SFR
AT&SF Railroad
SFR & Apartments
History and Related Cases;
CT 77-11 (Resolution No. 1379), Laguna Palms; A proposed condominium
conversion from apartments was denied because the city felt that
certain amenities should be provided in shared ownership that are not
necessary in apartment dwellings. PUD requirements were used as
guidelines for determining proper amenities. Lack of recreation areas,
visitor parking, separate utility systems and fire resistant construction
were sited as reasons for denial.
CT 77-13- (Resolution No.! 1408) , Harry Fries: The Planning Commission
denied a request for 15 unit condominium conversion. Building permits
had been issued for apartments but no construction had taken place.
The Planning Commisssion felt.that the project was not consistent with
the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan in that there was
insufficient parking, no RV Storage, and a lack of recreational
facilities on the site to make this project viable for home ownership.
.2
The-City Council overturned^ie denial (Resolution No^>207) of the
Planning'Commission and approved CT 77-13 for 15 unit, since the . '
building had not yet'been completed, and many condominium amenities
were being built onto .the plan. Also, Mr. Fries had attempted to rectify
the findings of the Planning Commission prior to presenting the items
to the City Council.
Condominium Conversion Ordinance; On January 3, 1978, the City Council
established a public hearing for January 17', 1978, to consider placing
a moratorium on accepting applications for condominium conversions, pending
adoption of condominium conversion standards. The City Council is con-
cerned about the impacts of allowing poor quality and designed apartments
belr'q converted to home ownership, and the loss of rental units during the
sewer permit moratorium.
Environmental Impact Information;
The subject apartments are existing and were exempted from the
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance by Section 19.04.090, C.4
(1) .
General Plan Information:
The General Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as
Residential High Density (RH-20-30 du. per acre). Project density is
21 du. per acre. The Housing Element contains the following goals:
1. That all residents of Carlsbad .have access to adequate housing Vi.thin
a price range they can afford.
2. . That current housing problems be met with programs for remedial action
without wholesale displacement of residents.
3. That current trends in housing development be understood and problems
met with preventive action.
4. That causes of housing problems be understood by the community and
considered as the primary deterrent to the availability of adequate",
housing.
5. That environmental quality be established and enhanced to provide the
necessary amenities and services for the residents of Carlsbad.
6. That priorities be based on the critical nature of housing needs as
certain people are affected.
Public Facilities:
There will be no significant change in the demand. All public fac-
ilities are existing, except school agreements have not been reached
at this time. .
.3
Major Planning Considerations
— -^ - ; -- - - — -- ">•/• ' . '
1) Is this condominium conversion desirable given the applicable
criteria in the general. plan?
i ' ,
2) Will the project meet. appropriate development criteria for proper
condominium development? .
3) How would this project compare to common housing built under PUD
standards?
Of the' two recent condominium conversion requests (see related cases),
this application is similar to the Laguna Palms, which was denied.
Like Laguna Palms this development is an apartment house for renters. _
It was built as an apartment house with common water and sewer utilities
and 1 hour fire walls. However, electricity and 9as is metered individually
and 21 of the units have small front and rear yards of approximately 150
square feet. The front yard has a small porche and some landscaping
near the front window. The rear yard has a cement slab, and outdoor
storage shed. There is a possibility of using the large landscaped
areas along the entrance driveway for some kind of active recreation.
Unfortunately the area is poorly shaped for active use, and the location
is inconvenient. Also, this open area sides upon existing residences.
The lack of individual water meters will be a cause of occupant concern.
•With a one common meter all occupants will pay the same fee regardless
of water use.
This condominium conversion appears to be of a stop gap measure to provide
homes for purchase- during the sewer permit moratorium. The problem of
course is that the rental units which are necessary to provide homes for
people who wish or must rent are taken off the rental supply. With the
present moratorium, the rental inventory cannot be replaced. Conversion
will mean to many people of the subject apartment that they will have to
move out of the community while new people who can afford the cost of
purchase will move in.
By State Law the present tenants must be notified of the conversion prior
to final map and be given a chance to purchase. The City has not notified
the tenants of this conversion action.
The Council will consider on January 17, 1978, a moratorium on accepting
future requests for conversions of existing apartments to condominiums.
If adopted, this moratorium will be in effect unit! the City adopts a
condominium conversion ordinance policy. Presumably this ordinance of
provisions for maintaining a rental unit inventory.
This tract. map application meets the technical aspects of the State Map
Act. However, the Housing Element contains goals that state that all
residences of Carlsbad have access to adequate housing within a price
range they can afford, and that environmental quality is such to provide
the necessary amenities and services for the residences. Studies have
shown that conversion to condominiums substantially raise the cost of
housing while not providing any higher quality (except the intangible
of home ownership) . In fact poorly constructed condominiums can increase
the cost of housing to point of failure of the condominiums. This is
particularly true of concersion such as the subject application. As an
.4
•'•.'.'• • c 'apartment all repairs and complaints are the responsibility of a single/
owner/manager. If not satisfactorily handled, the tenant has the option
of moving our - a disadvantage to the owner. In condominiums, however,
repairs and complaints are.the responsibility of an association and moving
our is a financial consideration and time consxiining - a disadvantage to
the occupant. Therefore, condominiums of this nature generally will
deteriorate quicker than an apartment or high maintenance costs are
carried by the association adding to the already high cost of condominium
Recommendation; .
Tt is recommended that CT 77-17 be DENIED for the following reasons:
1) The proposed map is not consistent with the Carlsbad policies and goals
to provide decent housing for all economic ranges in Carlsbad, and to
insure viable condominium projects because:
a) Conversion of apartment units will reduce the availability of
rental units in the City of Carlsbad, and that these rental
units cannot be replaced because of the present sewer moratorium.
b) The amenities of visitor parking, recreation areas and storage
provided in this development are insufficient for proper liv-
ability by the eventual homeowners' of this project.
c) The conversion of apartments to condominiums increases the cost
of housing but does not increase the livability or amenities:.
d) Homeowners' demand greater amenities, services, and generally
better living conditions than the transient renter who can easily
move out if dissatisfied. . •
2} The request, has not complied with the Carlsbad Public Facility Policy
because:
a) Agreements have not been reached with the school district guaran-
teeing that school will be available with need.
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this request, staff recommends
that conditions covering the following items be made part of the rec-
ommendation:
1) Each unit have individual water meters.
2) A two hour fire rated wall between each unit.
3) Park and Recreation fees to be required.
4) Active recreation area be constructed along the easterly side of the
drive, near the recreation room.
«
Attachments;
• V •
Location Map ' ?'
Exhibit "A", dated November 15, 1977
Article - San Diego. Union, dated December 28, 19,77. . ^
. «
BP;CDG:ar
.' . .5
I.. STAFF REPORV
>
DATE: • 'January 25,. 1978 • ' ' ' .1 . i •
TO: Planning Commission • . •
FROM: • Planning Department ' '
CASE NO: CT 77-17 .* .
APPLICANT: Hal Pollard, representing Escondido Pine Associates.
The Planning Commission heard this item on January 11, 1978, and continued
thfe hearing to January 25, 1978, to allow the applicant to revise plans to
chow the recreation area that he proposed and to add parking stalls if possible.
Staff was instructed to prepare conditions of approval for Planning Commission
information if the Planning Commission wished to approve.
Attached is the new plan submitted by the applicant (Exhibit "B", dated
January 17, 1978). It contains the recreation area as suggested by the
applicant along the entrance drive. The area connects with the recreation
and laundry rooms and other open landscaped areas.
The new plans show 53 parking spaces for an increase in 3 spaces. This was __ ,
accomplished by eliminating some walk ways that separated stalls. The proposed
stalls scale at 9' width. This distance should provide ample distance for
pedestrian access. ' . .
The applicant discussed the proposal to place a sign at the street to give
identity to the units. Staff believes that this is generally appropriate for
developments of this nature to have special identity, but the sign regulation
only permits attached signs, not freestanding signs in residential zones.
Therefore, the proposed sign cannot be approved as part of this application.
The conditions of approval that the Planning Commission requested are as follows:
1) Approval is granted for the land described in the application and with
the attachments thereto and as -shown on the tentative tract map submitted,
labeled Exhibit "B", dated January 17, 1978.
2) A two hour fire rated wall shall be provided separating each dwelling unit.
This wall shall continue through the attic to the roof.
3)' .Each unit shall be provided with fire detecting and warning devices to the
satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
4) Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City to the satisfaction of the
Parks & Recreation' Director.
5) Street rees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation
Director.
The Planning Commission's motion also included suggested conditions that are
not appropriate conditions. One was not to require individual water meters;
simply by excluding a condition on water meters suffices. Another was to
, require school fees. City policy is to insure public facility policies will
be met prior to approval, not to condition them. The school district has
indicated by letter that the applicant has complied with school agreements and
the board will accept it at their meeting of January 18, 1978, (this report
was prepared January 17, 1978). '
Also, the Commission requested that we give .consideration to requiring RV Storage
areas in a private off site storage yards. Staff believes this would be too
difficult to police for an individual development such as this. Although, it
may be appropriate for large master planned areas such as La Costa.
Attachments .
Staff Report dated, January 11, 1978, Revised Date, January 25, 1978.
Exhibit "B", dated January 17, 1978. '?
BP/ar
1/18/78
Q
.J
UJ
. G:
TAMARACK
?»; • .'
Ut
CHINQUAPIN
CT-77-17
POLLARD
12-28-77
o
AVE
&
CO •• •. /
n
AVE
X*
r
Case No.CT-~n-|~7 Date Rec'd: unui
t
Description of Request: Corner s'tov> «
i ' « *
Address or Location of Request: tvUr-iv
''-' o*M 6ar-tre.Iel , ST •
-Applicant: (4a\ p^lUrd
Engr. or Arch. Sckor'^. F^n* •«• Ass
Brief Legal: NA«^ 1^01 - pni;^aA*% i
• •
Assessor Book: aofe Page:
General Plan Land Use Description: (\
Existing Zone: RO-M
Acres: i.\*\ . No. of Lots: 3
School District: C,truwi
Water Sanitation District: cQrU«ic.J
l-litbin Coast Plan Area: Yes•
i DCC Date: lafiof-n PC Date la/a^m
•> -V av^ <x/1nA-t nv^i/d" ^QTv^pV^v -Vo ra
t.'cte «/ -cUttouAorM b/LT^f~ AT -fr.r R™ttL«>H• - ' • -> - « •
v)o. i - BH< s
00.0 Parcel: ae^oi^o
H '
Proposed Zone: NI\
.. DU's.. a iT DLi/Acre .-' /
X
> ,
Coast Permit Area: YC.S. « • . . .