13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 6 Memo to Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 19, 2009 But those rents are just for the "space" and do not include any amount attributable to the unit itself, which is owned by the resident. Some factor would need to be applied in order to determine what the rent would be if both the space and the unit were part of the equation. (And it would be somewhat difficult to determine that factor because there is the wide disparity in the age and size, and hence the value, of the units within the Park. Some have been in the Park for over 30 years, are small, and have little resale value; others of more recent vintage are quite spacious and cost in excess of $100,000.) Assuming a unit could be rented [and the Park rules prevent that], there would be a considerable range in the rents. Accordingly, whether the "real" rents translate to amounts above or below affordable rents cannot be said for certain. In terms of for sale affordable housing, currently our negotiated sales price for households of 80% of the median income is about $200,000 and for households of 120% of the median income, about $300,000; we have not negotiated a sales price for households of 50% of the median income in some time but it would probably be in the range of $150,000. Because we don't know at this time what the initial sales price for the lots to existing residents (ten years in the future) will be, it is speculative as to whether the price just for the lots will fall within any of those ranges. Complicating this matter is that when lots begin to sell and an existing resident moves out (or dies), the new resident does not have the option to simply move into the unit and continue to pay rent. The new resident must purchase the lot and the unit. As in the rental situation described above, the price for the unit will depend on the age and size of the unit. Because of these uncertainties, at this point it would be even more speculative to know whether the sales price (land and unit) will fall within what will be considered "affordable" ten years hence. Moratorium I have also been asked whether the City could impose a moratorium on these conversions. The answer depends on whether a city has the legal authority to adopt land use regulations to residential conversions above and beyond those authorized by Section 66427.5 but, even if the answer is yes, such moratorium would not be applicable to this particular application. The City Council may impose more stringent temporary land use controls based on documented health, safety and general welfare concerns. Often a moratorium is imposed in order to allow a city the opportunity to review land use regulations and determine whether new or revised regulations should be enacted. Here, of course, a park owner will contend that because the city does not have the legal authority to enact or impose regulations beyond those imposed by state law, no purpose, other than for delay, would be served by adopting a moratorium. Some cities, such as the City of Vallejo, have apparently adopted such a moratorium; that action has been challenged by park owners in that city. So, depending on the conclusion drawn as to whether the City could adopt local regulations concerning these residential conversions will drive any decision as to adopting a moratorium. The vesting tentative map application for this conversion was deemed complete last year and, under the Subdivision Map Act, only those ordinances and land use regulations then in effect may be applied to the application. Because a moratorium was not in effect when the application was deemed complete, the moratorium could not be applied to this application.