13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 13. Continued from April 7, 2009 Public Hearing: PAP 133 /PMCC -2, Gilchrist Rutter, Vineyard Villa Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an application for a Vesting Tentative Map converting a 208 -unit mobile home park located at 3263 Vineyard Avenue into residential condominium units Community Development Director Brian Dolan gave the staff report, described the location of the project, said the mobile home park was originally approved in 1968 and the current rent stabilization agreement runs through 2012. The application, which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, is for a Tentative Map with the understanding that residents could purchase their space, thereby owning their mobile home as well as the land occupied by the mobile home. The application only affects the legal arrangement of ownership and poses no physical changes. Mr. Dolan discussed the Subdivision Map Act, stating that the law limits review to two major requirements: 1) Whether the applicant has submitted a survey of support to the residents; (see Attachment 10, which showed 41 of the residents in favor, 38 not in favor, and 40 responded with no opinion); and 2) Whether the applicant has submitted a report on the economic impact of the conversion; (see Attachment 11, which include statements and explanations regarding the fact that no one can be evicted when the conversion occurs, the purchase of the land is optional, residents can continue to rent, low income residents are protected, and those that choose not to buy but are not low income and want to continue to rent will have their rent raised to market level but over a five year period. Mr. Dolan said the Planning Commission reviewed and denied the application for two reasons: 1) the law is not that clear as to what is required by the survey of support, and the Planning Commission had issues with the vote of support, non support, and no opinion. With 208 total units and only 40 in support, the Planning Commission was not convinced that this met the test as required in the law; 2) the loss of affordable rental housing within the City. Eventually every unit would no longer be under a rent control situation because they would either be purchased or, as to households that not lower income, after five years, there would be no protection on rent. Mr. Dolan said that while the law is unclear, staff's understanding is that what has been submitted is adequate. Staff acknowledges concerns about the loss of affordable housing stock in the City, but staff is not sure whether the law provides protection for this resource. Those who live in the park will fall into one of three categories: they will desire to and /or be able to purchase, they don't want to purchase but are low income and will continue to be rent protected, or they are not low income but not in the position or desire to buy and will have their rents increased over a five year period. In addressing the last group, staff discussed whether this could be mitigated and requested an additional condition as outlined in the City Attorney's memo dated May 1st which would require that the rent stabilization agreement provisions be extended to the year 2025 for all residents regardless of their income if they were in a rental category. He also learned today that representatives of the applicant heard from the owner who is amenable to this additional condition. Mr. Dolan concluded by stating that staff's recommendation is to uphold the appeal with the additional condition as outlined in the May 1 memo. Councilmember Thorne questioned whether or not the mobile home park resident ownership program or financing plan referred to in the staff reports survived the State budget process. Mr. Roush said he was not sure and suggested the applicant be posed this question.