HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-08-01; City Council; 5181-2; Condo conversionsCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGEN.DA Bl.ll NQ. 5181, Supplement No. 2
DATE: August 1, 1978
. DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
SUBJECT:
CONDOMINIUM/CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
. .CASE NO. ZCA-94 . (Public Hearing)
Statement of the Matter
On September 6, 1977, the City Council reviewed the Planning Director's
report regarding the development standards and approval processing for
condominiums and condominium conversions. City Council directed staff
to prepare ordinance amendments and submit them to the Planning Commission
for hearing.
Subsequently, the city received many inquiries and some requests for
conversion of apartments to condominiums, some of which appeared to be
very poor projects for condominiums. Therefore, on January 3, 1978,
staff requested that a moratorium be enacted by the City Council pro-
hibiting conversions to condominiums pending the completion of the
condominium/condominium conversion ordinance. This moratorium was
adopted with the proviso that it would be lifted as soon as the city
completed action on the proposed condominium/condominium conversion
ordinance.
The Planning Commission held four hearings on the completed ordinance
amendment and reviewed it thoroughly'with the public. Nevertheless,
some citizens are still not satisfied with the ordinance or find little
reason for special condominium regulations. For your information,
staff has prepared the attached memorandum that summarizes Planning
Commission actions, citizen's concerns, and history of the case.
EXHIBITS
Memorandum from Planning Director, dated July 25, 1978
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1449, with Attachment "A",
dated June 28, 1978
Letter from Fred Morey, La Gosta Land Co., April 25, 1978
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney
to prepare documents approving ZCA 94 as per Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1449, and direct staff to conduct a fee study of
costs to process a condominium.
(See Page 2 for Council action)
FORM PLANNING 73
AGENDA BILL NO. 5181 - Supplement No. 2 August 1, 1978
COUNCIL ACTION
8-1-78 The public hearing was continued to the next regular meeting
in order for interested persons to respond to the proposed
ordinance.
8-15-78 Following the continued public hearing the City Manager was
instructed to set the matter for a Council workshop meeting.
10-24-78 Council returned the matter to staff for drafting of a new
ordinance in accordance with the discussion at the meeting.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JULY 25, 1978
TO: PAUL BUSSEY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ZCA-94, CONDOMINIUMS/CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
HISTORY
Many cities throughout the nation have recently or are presently
reviewing condominium/condominium conversion regulations.
Condominiums, an alternative home purchase method gaining in
popularity, are subject to particular problems and considerations.
One relatively unique problem is that our
processing requires a public hearing for tract maps and the
state requires tract maps for condominiums. A tract map for
condominiums, however, need only be a one-lot subdivision.
Therefore, public hearings are required, but the city has
limited discretionary abilities. For example, citizens have
indicated that drainage and traffic problems exist at the site
of proposed condominiums, but the city has no ability to
modify or condition the actual design of a development on a one
lot subdivision.
Another problem is that some developers have made condominium
proposals on lots of two to three acres in size that are zoned
multiple-family residential. These proposals were for condominiums
in technical terms in that there would be common area and a
homeowner's association. However, for practical purposes, the
development would appear to be a normal detached single-family area,
PAGE TWO — _
This is achieved by constructing a private street in the
multiple-family condominium lot. The street being constructed
appears to be a city street with some reduction in city
standards, and each of the units is detached with frontage
onto the private street. The development standards, as per
zoning and subdivision, are for the lot itself, as it relates
to the public street, not to the condominium lots. Therefore,
the projects have been designed with substandard development
regulations; for example, front yard setbacks from a private
street have been as low as five feet and there is little or no
visitor parking. The reduced setback means that autos parking
on the garage apron extend into sidewalks and the street itself.
It is possible that these private streets could become very
cluttered with automobiles parked in whatever areas available
making the street impassable for safety vehicles. Another
possibility is that the homeowner's association will request the
city to police and maintain these private streets. This has
already occurred at the Tanglewood condominiums in north Carlsbad.
It has been noted that conversion of existing rental units to
condominiums reduces the rental units within the City of
Carlsbad without possibility of replacement because of the present
sewer moratorium. Also, because of the sewer moratorium, the
desire to convert apartments to condominiums is attractive due to
the lack of housing units on the market. This could lead to
marginal apartments being converted that may not be successful
in the future when there is more competition from units built after
the sewer moratorium is lifted.
The Carlsbad General Plan Housing Element indicates that the city
;PAGE THREE
should provide housing for all economic levels and people of
the community. This means that we need to provide rental units
as well as homeownership units. Unfortunately, conversion
of apartments to condominiums increases drastically the cost of
housing. There are arguments that condominium conversion
decreases the cost of housing, but this is not true in that it
only provides for a lower cost ownership home because of generally
lower standards. Actually, conversion increases the cost of
the unit at a rate at least double and sometimes triple. The rent
of a unit is generally far lower than the combined cost of
equity, mortgage, insurance, taxes, and association maintenance.
Also, many of the new owners would be second home buyers, thereby
reducing housing for people living in Carlsbad.
In addition, staff recognizes that there is a difference in
expectation between renters and owners in relation to the quality
of living. The major difference is that apartment administration
is handled by one person or organization, while condominium
administration is handled by a homeowner's association and is
generally far less effective. The higher the quality of a
project, the stronger the association will be as there will
be less maintenance and fewer problems. Should a homeowner fail
to maintain a condominium, a health and safety problem may occur,
thereby requiring city intervention. In an apartment complex,
maintenance is handled by the owner/manager who is under pressure
from the market system to keep the units in good repair.
Condominium owners are under no such pressure.
Generally, condominium owners have longer tenure at the unit
and acquire more material possessions than apartment residents.
PAGE FOUR — —
1 ' -v%^.
They expect more from the cities they live in.
I
Staff was concerned that the minimum development standards
for apartments may not be adequate for condominiums, and
therefore suggested an increase in development standards. While
it may be possible to justify minimum development standards for apart-
ments because seme apartments are built for the lower income
levels of the housing market, the same cannot be said for
condominiums. Those who purchase condominiums generally are
in the middle to high income bracket. The purchase of a
condominium likely is their largest investment thus far in
their lives, and they expect a certain level of quality
that may not be provided in apartment living.
The City Council has considered all of the above issues and
directed staff to study the matter further and prepare an ordinance
for Council review. Simultaneously, Council established a
moratorium on conversion of apartments to condominiums, pending
the completion of said ordinance. Practically speaking, a
moratorium on construction of new condominiums was already in
effect due to the sewer moratorium.
INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION
There is some concern by certain citizens that the city may
be in conflict with the State Map Act dealing with condominiums,
(See Attached Chapter II, Article 1 - General Provisions,
especially Section 66427) The section in question is somewhat
ambiguous and, unfortunately, no court cases are on record to
clarify the meaning. The first sentence of the section states,
"the condominium map need not show the building or the manner
PAGE FIVE —
in which the building or airspace is to be divided." The
i
Draft Condominium Ordinance does not require that the manner
of division be shown on the map, but if the applicant wishes to
show this division, it is permitted as per the State Map Act.
The second clause of the sentence states, "nor shall the
governing body have the right to refuse approval on account of
the design or location of a building not violative of local
ordinances." Staff believes that the subject condominium
regulation is the "local ordinance". This is strengthened
by the last sentence in the section that states, "nothing herein
shall be deemed to limit the power of the legislative to regulate
the design or location of building such a project by or pursuant
to local ordinances." In this sentence, it clearly states that
the city does have the ability to regulate design or location
of building if governed by a local ordinance.
Staff also reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of
condominium/condominium conversion regulations in other cities
and how they are enforced. This study was discussed in a
memorandum, dated April 30, 1978, with Attachment A, dated
April 18, 1978, submitted to the Planning Commission at their
April 26, 1978 meeting. (Copies Attached) The City of La Mesa
was also preparing condominium conversion regulations during our
investigation. They adopted regulations in June, 1978, which
require that conversion meet present code on parking, trash areas,
open space and all building codes. La Mesa did not feel condominium
standards should be greater than apartment requirements because
their apartment standards were already relatively high. In addition,
the City of La Mesa adopted a provision, in its subdivision
regulations, which limits the number of units that can be converted
PAGE SIX —
to 50% of the yearly average number of apartments constructed in
the previous two years.
CITIZEN CONCERN
Based on state law, Carlsbad's particular needs, and regulations
from other cities, staff prepared the subject ordinance amendment.
It was distributed to interested citizens for review and then
forwarded to the Planning Commission for public hearing. During
the four public hearings held, changes were made as suggested by
the Commission, staff and citizens; however, some citizens still
are not satisfied with the ordinance. During the Planning
Commission hearings, citizens spoke in opposition to certain
aspects of the ordinance and questioned the need for such regulations,
Their primary question was why should condominiums be treated
differently than any other type of residential development? As
noted in this memorandum and attachments hereto, staff feels that
condominiums should be treated differently. We also feel that
the ordinance we are suggesting is not overly restrictive of
condominiums; rather, it requires a relatively low minimum develop-
ment criteria of condominiums which is slightly greater than that
required of apartments. We feel this slight increase in
development standard requirements is necessary and desirable in
order to provide some basic amenities for the homeowner and
occupant.
Another question raised was whether there is a need for
discretionary approval for condominium projects. It was
argued by some citizens that the discretionary process is
not only time consuming and costly to both the applicant and the
PAGE SEVEN — _
city, but that it gives the Planning Commission undue power to
regulate the design of a development. There was a fear that the
Planning Commission would re-design projects during the hearing
process or deny projects based on personal biases. It was felt
that the developer would build to the desires of the market place
and therefore, the quality desired by the buyer would be provided
by the developer.
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE ORDINANCE
The ordinance contains three basic methods for regulation.
The first and, in staff's opinion, most important, is the
discretionary process. This provides a mechanism for review
of site plans during the condominium tract map hearing.
Discretionary approval provides a means for the city to solve
problems on an individual, site-by-site basis which could not
possibly be regulated through written ordinance. Staff believes
the city has been neither capricious nor arbitrary in past
discretionary actions and, in fact, the input gained through the
public hearing process has produced superior projects.
The design criteria section is an attempt to give guidelines
for applicants to follow in designing their projects and for the
Planning Commission to follow in reviewing same. The Commission
recognizes that it is impossible to state in exact written
terms, what is desired for all projects.
Requiring development standards for condominiums means recognizing
that condominiums are different from rental multiple-family
residential units and should be treated differently. The
Planning Commission and staff believe that increased development
standards for condominiums, especially in the area of individual
PAGE EIGHT — —
utility meters, are justified.
DETAILED REVIEW OF THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE
The following are staff's comments, section-by-section, of
the proposed condominium ordinance. Please refer to Exhibit A,
dated June 28, 1978, attached to Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1449.
Chapter 21.47; It is preferable to have a separate chapter
for condominiums rather than combining same with planned unit
developments. A condominium, as provided in this ordinance
amendment, is intended to be a development meeting all zone
requirements, whereas, a planned unit development process is
voluntary with trade offs among reductions in zone standards
for higher quality projects.
Section 1. Intent and Purpose; A major concern with
condominiums is that the quality of development be reasonably
consistent with other forms of homeownership developments.
This is desirable in order to insure that the condominium project
will be successful, that the city will not be requested in the
future to solve maintnenace or administrative problems, and
to maintain the high quality of development in Carlsbad.
Sections 2 through 9, Administration; These sections are
administrative and are based on present regulations contained in the
code for the processing of site development plans and planned unit
developments. The Commission's major concern with this part
of the ordinance had to do with filing fees, Section 4. Originally,
staff had recommended a low filing fee, commensurate with the site
development plan. The Commission felt that this was not appropriate
and suggested that fees be commensurate with the cost of processing.
;PAGE NINE
Section 4 was, therefore, modified to indicate that the
City Council would establish the fees. The Planning Commission
did emphasize, however, that City Council should analyze the
actual cost of processing prior to establishing this fee. Staff
has not yet attempted such an analysis, pending the adoption
of subject ordinance. Should the ordinance be adopted, however,
a fee study will take place prior to the effective date of the
ordinance.
Section 10, Exception; This exempts condominiums of four or
less units from the processing of a condominium plan; however, a
site plan is required. Said site plan must include all of the
criteria required by the code and is submitted to the Planning
Director for approval. Appeals are taken to the Planning Commission.
The duplex condominium prevalent in the La Costa area, therefore,
will not be required to go through the hearing process.
Section 11, Design Criteria: The basic language for the
design criteria section comes from the PUD regulations, but has
been amended specifically for the condominium development concept.
Design criteria is set up to serve as a guide for the applicant,
as we realize that many factors of design criteria cannot be
adequately regulated by strict standards. There was a concern,
however, that such guides could be very subjective and subject
to individual interpretation and differences of opinion.
Nevertheless, staff feels that design criteria does serve as
a useful guide for the applicant and is helpful to the city staff
and Planning Commission in evaluating the merits of any one project.
Design criteria has been used in PUD processing and the city
has not been capricious or arbitrary in its application.
PAGE TEN — —
Seption 12, Development Standards - Nonresidential
Condominiums: It was felt that special development standards
for nonresidential condominiums were not necessary in that the
present codes were sufficient. However, nonresidential
condominiums would be required to process a condominium plan and
meet all design criteria.
Section 13, Development Standards, Residential Condominiums;
The need for this section was controversial. Some citizens felt
that there should not be any difference in development standards
for rental multiple family units and condominiums. Some
cities do not, in fact, distinguish between the two in their
regulations. However, Carlsbad staff felt that because our
multiple family standards are relatively low, minimim standards
for condominiums are necessary in order to insure that homeowners
receive the high quality they expect. Mr. Fred Morey, La Costa
Land Company, indicated in a letter dated June 14, 1978 that
the cost of condominiums will be substantially increased by
the adoption of condominium regulations. Staff, however, feels
that these special standards will have little economic impact on
condominiums and that most newly built condominium will meet
these standards anyway. Mr. Morey also made mention of special
condominiums such as the La Costa Spa which are built around
recreational areas and indicated that he felt these, especially,
do not need all of the proposed amendments. He feels that these
condominiums are not intended for family orientation and are for
recreation oriented purchasers. The Planning Commission discussed
this and determined that Mr. Morey's example was a limited
example and the proposed development standards should not be
a hardship.
PAGE 11 ~ _,
DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Setbacks: These special setbacks are desirable because
developments built on private streets and driveways has caused
some design problems in the past. Staff feels that this
particular standard is one of the more important development
standards in this ordinance. We feel it will insure proper
circulation of traffic and safety within condominium developments,
These setbacks affect design primarily when a development has
a private street. If the development simply has a driveway with
a parking lot, as in most high density multiple family units,
then these standards will have very little design effect.
2. Parking; The parking requirements are an increase
over non-condominium developments in that:
a. Two spaces per unit are required regardless of
the number of bedrooms.
b. The required parking must be covered.
c. A certain amount of visitor parking is also
required.
These additional parking requirements are desirable to
insure that parking at a condominium is generally similar to
that provided for detached single-family residences. In
single-family areas, two car garages are provided and the
public street provides for visitor parking. Apartments do not
need as much parking because generally the residents are more
transient, without as many vehicles or visitors, and there is
generally a vacancy factor which provides unused parking spaces.
Visitor parking can be at least partially met on-street and
there is a small sliding scale that reduces the amount of
visitor parking required as the condominium increases in number
of units.
PAGE 12 '•
3. Construction of Parking Areas: The code presently
does not require paving other than to eliminate dust and mud.
A poorly constructed driveway and parking area could be a
great financial liability on a homeowner's association.
4. Screening of Parking Area; This development standard
is desirable to protect the surrounding property. It probably
should be a requirement of all developments, regardless of
whether it is a condominium or not. The Planning Commission
felt, however, that it should be placed in the condominium
regulations at this time since it is a public hearing and
the adjacent property owners are interested in how the proposal
will affect them.
5. Refuse Area.: This is also a standard that should be
required for all development. The Planning Commission felt that
thisshould be made part of the condominium requirements especially
because it is necessary and if it is not put in by the developer, the
homeowner's association will have to construct something in
the future. The standards will reduce the cost of repairs for
homeowners.
6. Storage Room; There is little opportunity to build
storage areas in most condominium developments; therefore, the
Planning Commission felt this should be part of the original
construction. We have found that in existing condominiums,
many people build small storage areas in open space areas or convert
garages to storage areas because the original development did not
include this space. Condominiums differ from apartments in this
regard, since condominiums generally have some form of private
yard to maintain and their tenancy is usually longer than renters.
-PAGE 13
7. Laundry Facilities; This section does not require
laundry facilities, but indicates that if they are proposed, the
plumbing and utilities for the laundry shall not be located within
a common wall.
8. Open Recreation Areas; Some form of outdoor activity
area is necessary for a condominium to approach the quality of
living which homeowners desire in southern California. A
200 sq. ft. ratio is very low but will give design flexibility.
Permitting balconies and private patios to be considered as open
areas will also give design flexibility.
9. Landscaping: Landscaping standards will insure proper
landscaping to reduce homeowner association costs for maintenance.
10. Signs: This is a permissive requirement that will permit
a condominium to identify as a community.
11. Utilities; Separate services and meters will insure that
individual owners only pay for what they use. Also, it
reduces the inconvenience between units of repair or changes being
made in any one unit. The California Public Utility Commission
specifically requires separate premises not be supplies to the
same meters. (See letter from SDG&E dated June 1974). Both
the city's water department and CMWD find it very useful
to have separate water meters for condominiums. (See letters
from CMWD, dated April 18, 1967, and from Roger Greer, dated
May 24, 1978
Some citizens feel, however, that the cost of separate
services, especially water, is very high in both the initial
construction and monthly rates, and, therefore, objected to the
requirements of separate water services. The PLanning Commission
PAGE 14
considered these issues, but felt that the condominium owners
and the water districts would be better served if each unit had
a separate water service. According to Roger Greer, the metering
can be on-site and therefore the mains could be placed in private
streets or on the site close to the units being served. Therefore,
the problem of individual lines from the public street to each
unit can be avoided.
Additional Note on Development Standards
Walls: During the original discussions with the City Council,
staff had indicated a desire to have 2 hour fire walls separating
condominium units. Although some cities have required the 2 hour
separation wall between condominium units in the past, our building
and fire departments both now feel that this is no longer necessary
because of recent changes in the uniform building code that requires
sound attenuation walls for all new construction. (See letter from
Fire Department dated June 19, 1978, and Building Department dated
June 16, 1978). Although it does not serve the same function as a
firewall, it does, in most cases, slow fires down and importantly
it does reduce noise between units which is desirable for privacy.
Section 14. Maintenance: This provision permits the City
to place a lien on the property for its maintenance if the home-
owner association is derelict. This is the same as requirements for
planned unit developments.
Section 15. Conversion of Existing Buildings to Condominiums:
This section provides for conversion of existing buildings to
condominiums. It requires, that all condominium standards be met
for conversion of building construction after the date of adoption
of this ordinance, with exception by the City Council for building
PAGE 15
constructed prior to adoption of this code amendment. It is
intended that such conversion would only be permitted if the
units were conducive to condominium ownership. The major changes
in the building code that would effect older apartments are
the present requirements for sound reduction walls between units.
Wiring and energy insulation requirements may be a problem, but
not an impossibility, to meet in some older units. However, they
are important to give proper privacy, safety and reduce maintenance
of operating costs.
It is important to note that this draft ordinance does not involve
the social or economic aspects of conversion of apartments to
condominiums which include the possibility of denial. It was not
suggested, the the City adopt such guidelines within the general
plan. If the City Council is interested in social or economic
consequences of conversions, then they should direct staff to pre-
pare a General Plan Amendment to the Housing Element for such
reason. Only after the general plan has been amended giving
guidelines, may the City adopt zoning regulations for such control.
Therefore, the regulations as proposed by the Planning Commission
deal only with location and design as permitted in the State
Subdivision Map Act.
Attachments
Section 66427 - State Law
Memo dated April 20, 1978
Letter from Fred Morey dated June 14, 1978
Letter from SDG&E dated August 6, 1974
Letter from CMWD dated April 18, 1978
Letter from Utilities Maintenance dated May 24, 1978
Letter from Fire Department dated June 19, 1978
Letter from Building Department dated June 16, 1978
JCH/BP/lc/ar
IJ!«il Kit!!!wl^il i^Sc
jpl!J
•S-fi,-8S*^l -§§21S':II
sfsts •s:§1Iil ?
•»8
eg1
•- -s =f v ,,
t^l-JS&teSjr:ll!f
g-lll?
I F*l«
Ito
I