PC 101806 - Laserfiche WebLink

i-- language to provide flexibility in that regazd and reads as follows: "The City Council may also waive particulaz requirements of this chapter or any other section of the Code if it finds that meeting a particulaz requirement would cause an undue hardship or if the conversion, despite the failure to meet all the requirements, is consistent with the General Plan, any specific plan policies, and the Inclusionazy Zoning Ordinance, and conforms to the purposes of this chapter." She believed the City Council could weigh the pazking issue in that situation. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether it was State law that 25 percent of all new housing be affordable to low- and very-low-income households, Mr. Bocian replied that it was not. Commissioner Olson noted that the moderate-income household was left out of that guideline. Mr. Bocian noted that the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was directed towazds very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Because the Condominium Conversion Ordinance was linked to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, staff decided to retain those three income levels. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regazding whether it would be acceptable for developers to propose that 25 percent of the units be affordable to moderate-income households, Mr. Bocian replied that they typically do. Commissioner Blank inquired why the Ordinance did not specify that a minimum number of units, within 25 percent, must be affordable to low- orvery-low-income households. Mr. Bocian believed the reason was the variability in economics on different projects, especially with new development with different funding sources. If the developer could not afford that, the City may decide that the proposed affordable housing allocation within the project would meet the intent of the Ordinance. Commissioner Blank believed it sent the wrong message not to have at least one very-low- and one low-income unit. Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioner Blank's comments. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Peazce regazding the cities examined by staff to develop this Ordinance, Mr. Bocian replied that staff looked at a number of cities, including Berkeley, Dublin, and Santa Monica. 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 apartrnents, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 18, 2006 Page 13 of 22