CCMIN060981 - Laserfiche WebLink

387 It was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that Resolution No. 81-188, approving the application of the Pleasanton Council Chambers, Inc., for design review approval which would allow the construction of an approxi- mately 2800 sq. ft. council chamber and conference room to be located on the north- eastern portion of the Civic Center located at 200 Bernal Avenue, the property is zoned "P" (Public and Institutional) District, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmenbets Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None Ordinance addin~ Chapter 15 (Condominium Conyersion PreJects) to Title II (Zoning ~.nd .DevelopmeU~} of the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton Mr. Levine presented his report (SR 81:194) dated June 4, 1981, regarding this matter. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open. Ms. MarcellineMahern, Chairperson for the Human Services Commission, presented a letter from the Human Services Commission dated June 4, 1981, which read as follows: "On behalf of the members of the Human Services Commission I would like to express in strongest words our dismay over the May 26th, 1981 action of the Council concerning the Condomtnium Conversion Ordinance. The Commission was stunned by the elimination of that part of the ordinance that denied conversions when the rental stock dropped below five percent of the total housing units. That action removed the element of the ordinance that the Commission considered absolutely essential. The Commission felt a strong sense of betrayal by the Council action as it came after it appeared that the ordinance had had all major revisions completed. "The Commission has not been made aware of any new evidence that would suggest that the removal of the yearly limit on approved condominium conversion projects would encourage the building industry to build apartments. Surely the single act of removing the yearly limit of projects could not effect the building industry sig~ificantly. The only rationale that would make any limit unattractive to the industry would be their desire to convert units in large enough numbers to drop below that limit. "The Human Services Commission urges the Council to carefully reconsider their action of May 26th, 1981 regarding the condominium conversion ordinance. Please review the letters and testimony of those organiza- tions, agencies, and individuals who have made every effort to represent the interest of all segments of the community. They are concerned that the City protect its very limited rental stock in order to provide a housing mix making it possible for the young and the old, and those of modest means, to live in Pleasanton. The interests of the developers, the realtors, and the building industry must be weighed against the interest of those people who will no longer be able to live in Pleasant= ton if rental units are not available." Ms. Mahern concluded by stating that this group is not against free enterprise, but feel that the rental stock in Pleasanton should be protected. 20. 6/9/81