SR 06:263 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT ATTACHMENT E In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether staff anticipated a rush of applications to convert because of the tightening housing stock, Mr. Bocian did not believe that would be the case. He noted that the City Council decided to look at this in August 2005 because of significant interest in condominium conversions throughout the region. He noted that 525 rental units in Stoneridge Apartments recently converted to condominiums. The City Council expressed significant concern about losing this rental housing and drafted an ordinance to protect the interest of the owners while trying to maintain some of the affordability with the current rental stock. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that some friends who lived in Mountain View underwent condominium conversions of their apartments, and the new owner asked the existing residents to leave immediately. The complex became a blighted property, and the buildings were ultimately proposed to be bulldozed in order to build high-end luxury condominiums. She inquired what protections within the Ordinance would prevent that from happening. Mr. Bocian replied that the entire public process would prevent that kind of occurrence and added that the City Council must approve the conversion with a very detailed plan. There must also be adequate notification of the tenants, who would have the right to have no rental increases, an opportunity to purchase the unit, and relocation assistance. In response to an inquiry by Acting Chairperson Fox regarding whether a converted property must be retroactively made ADA-compliant and meet the open space ordinance requirements, Mr. Bocian believed that may be possible and that it may be more of a Planning question than a process. He believed that in the application process, a variance may be requested for those sorts of issues. In response to an inquiry by Acting Chairperson Fox with respect to people with vouchers for Section VIII housing, Mr. Bocian replied that the Section VIII vouchers generally go with the tenant rather than with the development. It would be possible to get some unit-based vouchers, but he did not know of any developments in town that met that criterion. The Ordinance did eontain provisions that those tenants, depending on their income level or their age, have the opportunity to stay in the unit for a certain period of time. For instance, a senior may stay in the unit for nine years. Very-low-income tenants may stay for an additional three years. Acting Chairperson Fox inquired what would happen if an existing apartment complex in Pleasanton already has reserved below-market-rate affordable housing units within the City's affordable housing plan. Mr. Bocian replied that the change proposed in the Inc1usionary Zoning Ordinance indicated that if there was an existing affordable housing agreement on the development that exceeded the required affordability within the existing development, that agreement would have to be extended to the converted project as ownership units. In response to an inquiry by Acting Chairperson Fox regarding whether this Ordinance applied to seniors in the mobile homes in the area, Mr. Bocian replied that it was possible to have a common interest development in a mobile home park; he noted that they did not exist in Pleasanton at this time. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 18,2006 Page 3 of9