CCMIN042181 - Laserfiche WebLink

263 Mr. Chuck Wiedel, speaking on behalf of the'SouthernAlameda County Board of Realtors, stated it was this group's position that condominium conversion should be fostered rather than prohibited or restricted. He added that realtors have the same concerns as City Council with regard to affordable housing for the elderly and for young people. Mr. Wiedel requested that the following changes be made in the draft condominium ordinance: (1) Section 2-4.47(c) - change "date of approval" to "date of filing"; Section 2-4.47(f) - "Total Rental Stock" should include all rentals in Pleasanton, especially rented condominiums; Section 2-4.49 "Conversion Permit Re- quired; Council Action on Applications" - Mr. Wiedel asked if this paragraph gave City Council flexibility in deciding for or against the merits of a project - the City Attorney advised this paragraph does give the City Council flexibility in de- ciding on the merits of a project; and Section 2-4.53. Standards - change wording of "Uniform Building Code" and "uniform construction codes" to "general health, safety, and welfare". Mr. Wiedel stated he felt Section 2-4.54 - Tenant Provisions was especially well written. Mr. Marshall Perry, Modesto, owner of Vista Del Sol Apartments, reiterated his position in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He stated he had met with tenants of his apartment complex to explain the elements of condominium conversion and the benefits to tenants. Mr. Perry stated he felt the draft condominium conversion ordi- nance is restrictive and a violation of the use of private property. He added he did not like "ordinancing" (sic), and felt that guidelines were all that was needed. Mrs. Mary Ann Whelan, representing the Livermore-Amador Valley League of Women Voters, presented a written report from this group in support of the proposed condo- minium conversion ordinance. Mr. Harry Fish had a question regarding the rent increase protection clause re- lative to "no application for conversion shall be approved if rents have been raised on any unit within 6 months prior to the Council hearing date". Mayor Mercer advised that with the yearly allocation of condominium conversion permits, a potential con- vertor will know one year in advance whether his project is sufficiently high on the list so it may be eligible to conver~ and, thus, he can adjust his rent increases accordingly. Mr. Fish then asked how Council would handle the situation when a pro- ject is more than 5% of the total rental stock. The City Attorney advised this was covered in Section 2-4.50 Approval Procedures of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Duncan Matresort, managing partner of a company which developed apartments in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties and with some interest in a project in Pleasanton, stated it is very difficult to get any kind of financing for apartment buildings. He added that there are elements in this proposed ordinance that will make it impossible. He felt it was wise to have the clause "tenants should have first right of refusal to- purchase", but that the credit for tenants who buy should be increased. He stated that a lifetime lease for senior citizens/handicapped persons was out of the question- that five years is adequate, adding he felt the City can be over-involved in protect- ing tenants and that this is against free enterprise. Mr. Matteson stated that most owners only increase rents once a year and that the condition of "no rent increase during six month period" is arbitrary and should be deleted, and that low-income rentals as well as rented condominiums should be included in the total rental stock. He disagreed with Special F~,emption for Pr.ojects - "applications for conversion which have the unanimous consent of the tenants", stating that it is impossible to get unanimous consent on any issue; that no more than 80-85% tenant consent is appro- priate. Mr. Matteson stated he felt the Standards under Section 2-4.53 with regard to storage space were impossible to comply with and that it was unreasonable to expect this standard to be met. He stated he felt the uniform building code should be com- plied with so far as is possible, but that it would be better to require the building be repaired to its initial condition. He added he felt the cost of living for the 3. 4/21/81