Laserfiche WebLink
the unit, and because the price for the unit will depend on the age and size of the unit, it <br /> would be even more speculative to know whether the sales price (land and unit) will fall <br /> within what will be considered "affordable" in ten years. <br /> These uncertainties as to the sales price in the future combined with the certain loss of <br /> affordable rental housing for seniors provided additional grounds for the Commission to <br /> deny the application. <br /> City Council Action <br /> Notwithstanding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this application, staff <br /> recommends that the Council overturn the decision of the Commission and approve the <br /> application. Based on existing case law and the language of Section 66427.5, staff is of <br /> the opinion that the Council's scope of review is limited to whether the applicant has <br /> complied with Section 66427.5. Staff has listed the required findings in bold with staff's <br /> response in italics. <br /> The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobile <br /> home park for the proposed conversion. (The survey shall be by written <br /> ballot, and the results of the survey submitted to the City, to be considered as <br /> part of this hearing.) <br /> In early 2008, a survey was sent to all residents. A copy of that survey is included in <br /> Attachment 10. City staff and a resident committee negotiated with the Park owner's <br /> representative the wording of the Survey. Residents were provided three options: <br /> support for the approval of a future change of ownership of the Park to a <br /> resident -owned condominium; decline to respond; and do not support the change of <br /> ownership. Residents were directed to return the survey directly to the City. (Only <br /> one response from each space is permitted under Section 66427.5). <br /> The statute (Attachment 8) is unclear on what the requirements are, if any, <br /> concerning the level of support that the residents must indicate in order for the <br /> conversion application to be approved. The appellants take the position, with some <br /> support from case law, that no particular percentage of residents needs show <br /> support in order to approve the application. Others believe that the purpose of the <br /> statute is to allow conversion to residential ownership only where a true majority of <br /> residents favor such conversion, and, therefore, there must be majority support of <br /> the residents in order to approve the conversion. Legislation has been introduced <br /> on several occasions to clarify this ambiguity, but none has been signed into law. <br /> Therefore the ambiguity remains. Of those who responded to the survey, a bare <br /> majority (52 percent) were in favor of the conversion. Accordingly, staff concludes <br /> that there was majority support for the conversion and recommends that this finding <br /> be made. <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br />