Fractional Ownership
In May, the City of Newport Beach presented a small Local Coastal Program (LCP) change to the California Coastal Commission. The change was to define fractional home ownership as a form of timeshare clearly. Since timeshares are banned in all residential zones, this would restrict them to commercial zones. The hearing was scheduled for the August CCC hearing but was postponed at the request of Pacaso. It was initially feared this postponement could be up to one year, but the commission held the hearing in October. The commission unanimously agreed with the City of Newport Beach.
The city staff, namely Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, and the City’s outside counsel, did an exemplary job of representing the City’s position and request.
The outside counsel rebutted Pacaso’s contentions very skillfully.
- Fractional ownership uses are commercial Timeshare uses. These uses are not the same as co-ownership between family or known friends. They felt this distinction is clear.
- These types of Timeshares do not offer an “affordable housing” solution. In fact, they detract from the City’s inventory of housing stock for residents who live, work, vote, and engage in community functions. (Commissioners objected to Pacaso’s contentions that they were providing “affordable housing” or “affordable visitor serving solutions”
- These uses create additional adverse impacts on the residential communities, particularly in the coastal area, and it was appropriate to prohibit the uses in residential zones (note- they are permitted in commercial or mixed-use zones, subject to CUP approval)
- Pacaso had, in evidence, corresponded with the CA Dept of Real Estate, confirming that they were a “timeshare business.”
Highlights of the Coastal Commission findings and Commissioners’ positions courtesy of Denys Oberman.
Newport Island Bridge
Mark Markos has continued to be the point person for the bridge improvement project and received the email below regarding the project.
“Unfortunately, I’m still working on the scoping to see the budget. There will probably be a little more delay so I can get the budget secured and ensure we don’t have to go through Coastal for permitting. I’ll update you as soon as I can.”
Given the delay in the project, I followed up with our council member Joe Stapleton about getting some relief from the bridge congestion.
“Island residents have been hoping for the bridge improvement and this message indicates another summer of bridge jumping and significant congestion with kids congregating, parking their bikes on the street and sidewalk area between the bridge and the street. Access to cars and pedestrians is limited when the kids are present. I know you have a boat on the island, and you must have experienced the issue I’ve attached some photos that fairly represent the situation. Residents tell me the Newport Island Bridge is identified as a “place to be” on Tic Tok. I hope we can get some resolution. Every year, we speak to the council, and once upon a time, we have lifeguards assigned. Then we had the occasional volunteer. This summer, we had no presence. At the very least, I hope we can get the wall cleaned up that the kids have destroyed climbing over to get to the bridge. I hope the NO JUMPING sign can be replaced. It needs to be bigger and needs to reflect NO JUMPING, NO CONGREGATING, NO BIKE PARKING. A few of the photos show the launching pad for the jumpers. It is a small space between the rails and water. Let’s take that away from them with fencing, planters or ??? We hope to work with the city to find a resolution before someone gets hurt. Should we address it at a council meeting under Non-Agenda Items or work with staff first?”
He spoke with Dave Webb, who sent me the following email
“Councilmember Stapleton asked me to see if I could maybe help with your questions below and provide some further insight and/or assistance. Let’s start with the beach/wall improvement project (we are not looking to do improvements or modify the bridge). The City is in the process of developing an improvement plan to redo the beach wall and beach frontage along 38th Street to improve the look as well as provide some level of deterrent to the jumping. However, I need to caution that this plan will not solve the jumping, maybe just reduce it somewhat as was well as try to reduce the sand trafficking a bit. I also want to apologize for any delay as this project is a bit behind our original schedule due to a couple of things, but mainly we have had and continue to have several engineering staff vacancies that are affecting our workload delivery, as well as a very large workload and many competing priorities. Tom Sandefer will try to keep you posted on it progress.
With regard to the “No Jumping” sign, we will get that replaced. I also do understand your frustration with this issue, and please know that we are frustrated with it as well. I will say from experience that a larger, or more signs will not stop the activity. The kids know the sign is there and that they are not allowed to jump.”
My reply
“Thank you for the prompt reply and understanding our frustrations. I agree with your assessments of the issues, but I do think some changes in the verbiage on the sign could provide some relief by providing something the police can reference to issue citations.
Truth be known the bridge jumping is secondary to the congregation and the parking of the bikes. Most residents have a threshold before they call the police. Mine is when I ask them to move the bikes and they demonstrate attitude.
From my observations the police seldom issue citations. For one thing they must see them jump. If it was stated clearly that they can’t congregate or park their bikes in the street or on the sidewalk (and no bridge jumping) a citation could be issued.”
-Gary Cruz