CCMIN092005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton should have available if the City's not going to be in compliance with state laws. She believed it made sense to address the issue on how to maintain and preserve the City's stock of rental housing in which it would produce housing that is affordable without subsidies from the government all the way down to the lower-income levels so that the City could use the Affordable Housing Fund to assist property owners and focus on very low-income housing which is the City's biggest deficit and would do more to bring the City's housing stock into balance then allowing condominium conversions that take away rental units that force our workforce out of town to other communities. She believed having a banning on condominium conversions would speak positively to the City's seriousness about meeting its obligations while keeping in mind the City's housing limit, which was the original intention of the housing limit when it was passed. She asked that Council consider supporting option 4. Ron Winter, a Pleasanton resident, desired to create affordable housing for young people. The majority of the apartments that are considered low income are considered low maintenance and become run down. He volunteered to work with staff and other business owners to allow these tenants to stay in their homes, as he did now want to see elderly residents pushed out of their homes onto the streets. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Mayor Hosterman asked for Council direction as it pertained to Option 3. She would prefer to send this item back to the Housing and Planning Commissions for its review prior to Council making any decisions. Mr. Thorne preferred to have this matter go back to the Commissions. He supported Option 3 but would like additional options included such as preferred by Mr. Winter to bring the private sector into the picture to see if the City could develop a plan to assist those individuals interested in purchasing some of these units and maintaining them for residents for as long as they are needed. In addition, he requested staff to provide a report of what the impact would be if the City did ban condominium conversions, as currently 83% of the multiple family housing stock is rental stock. He would support Option 3 if these two stipulations were included. Mr. Roush was unsure whether Council could technically ban condominium conversions as the Condominium Conversion Ordinance basically imposes upon a condominium application certain requirement that typically accrues to the benefit of the current tenants. A condominium conversion is really a form like a subdivision of a property and the entire condominium scheme is under the Subdivision Map Act. What would probably have to occur is that Council would have the discretion to deny the condominium application itself based upon certain findings. The Council might eventually adopt a general plan policy for example that might indicate that the City would need to retain a certain number of housing stock as rental, and to allow the continued converting of rental apartments into condominiums would run afoul of the general plan policy for example as grounds to deny the condominium application. He believes it is stating the same thing and it is not just an outright ban on condominium conversions it's looking at the whole concept about maintaining rental housing within the community. Mr. Sullivan asked why the City could not ban condominium conversions? Mayor Hosterman stated it was unconstitutional. Mr. Roush said that a person like any other development application can come in and ask to subdivide his or her property and tum it into a condominium the same way a person could Pleasanton City Council Minutes 13 09/20/05