RES 09316 - Laserfiche WebLink

1. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan. The Subdivision Map Act provides that the City shall deny approval of a tentative map if it finds the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan. This project is inconsistent with the General Plan in the following respects: it is contrary to Goals 5 and 6 of the Housing Element (and the policies and programs thereunder) in that it does not encourage, nor result in, the retention of a sufficient number of moderate, low or very low income housing units for Pleasanton seniors. Currently, the rents at the Park are between $500 and $950, rents which are deemed affordable for moderate, low or very low income households. The owner of the Park has not indicated what the price of the lots will be once lots begin to sell nor has the owner of the Park indicated what the rents for the spaces will be for those residents who do not qualify as lower income households. Accordingly with this conversion, the City will lose a number of affordable rental housing units (for those seniors who now pay "affordable rents" but who, due to their incomes, would not after conversion) and, because the owner has failed to provide any information about what the lots might sell for, there is no evidence in the record that households of moderate, low or very low income will be able to purchase the lots. 2. The application is premature. The park Owner has stated in writing that he does not intend to begin selling any of the lots for ten years. For residential projects, the City's policy is that the recorded document that creates lots of record must be created within a relatively short period of time from the time the Council considers the project. By the lengthy passage of time, conditions within the City may change such that an approval in 2009 might not be granted for the same project 10 years later. It is unfair to the community and unwise for an approval to be granted so many years prior to when the project would actually be undertaken. 3. The proposed conversion is not a bona fide resident conversion. State law is ambiguous about what weight the Council may give to the support or opposition of the residents as to a conversion that has been initiated by the property owner. Although Section 66427.5 itself does not use the term "bona fide resident conversion the legislative findings that were made when that Section was last amended provide that the Legislature's intent was to ensure that all conversions under this Section were "bona fide resident conversions." Here, nearly 90% of the residents oppose the conversion. A conversion that has the support of such few residents cannot reasonably be understood to mean a "bona fide resident conversion." (aj:mydocs /mhdrea dny vst map app -vvmh) EXHIBIT P