CCMIN092005 - Laserfiche WebLink

As part of the review process, Ms. McGovern wanted to know if the apartment owners were aware that there would be a 15-20% inclusionary number of units built into the conversion rights and whether or not that would lessen the number of applications to convert. It was moved by Mayor Hosterman, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to approve Option 3 of the staff report and forward potential modifications to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, to the Housing and Planning Commissions, simultaneously with the review of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and to direct staH to work with Mr. Winter in bringing the private sector into the project. Mr. Bocian said staff would discuss the project Mr. Winter. It is interesting to note that the existing ordinance has provisions for the elderly who are able to occupy that unit for at least nine years after the conversion takes place and that is one of the issues staff would like to consider because maybe the nine years needs to be extended. Mr. Sullivan said he is concerned about the condominium conversions and agrees with other councilmembers as the City would be losing a significant amount of housing that may not fall in the official definition of affordability or give the City the credit the it needs to meet the regional needs allocation. It would be housing that is more affordable then if these were converted to condominiums and the City would lose that diversity of housing and the city's population as those residents would move from Pleasanton. He also mentioned items he would like the Housing and Planning Commissions consider such as general plan policies the City could potentially put into place to restrict and/or inhibit this type of conversion. He would prefer to keep the apartments in better condition by using some of the city's Affordable Housing Funds. and the direction he would like the City to proceed with is to maintain this type of housing and not lose it. Since the City is currently working on the General Plan update, Mr. Brozosky wondered if the City could place a moratorium on this type of conversion until the City completes the review of its policies. Mr. Fialho said what could come out of the Housing and Planning Commission's review are recommendations on modifications or additions to the General Plan policies. If Council accepts, their item could be placed on hold and integrated into the General Plan process. Part of the recommendation before Council in addition to forwarding and proposing potential modifications to the Conversion Ordinance would be to place this kind of conversion on hold until Council has the opportunity to weigh in on it. Council could take action on it in the future but the polices coming out of that process would be incorporated into General Plan process. Mr. Brozosky said he would support the delay; however, there are other priorities that Council has set. He wanted to confirm that this would not interject itself in the process and increase the Council's priorities. Mr. Roush noted he was reviewing the City of Livermore's ordinance amending its Condominium Conversion and how it addresses not approving an application for a residential condominium conversion unless certain findings were made. The language is very general and is similar to what the City is discussing. The requirement of the Condominium Conversion chapter is consistent with the Livermore General Plan and its current zoning regulations. The City could look at something similar to see whether or not the under the existing General Plan if those policies are such the City would not have to change anything in the existing general plan in order to approve or deny a particular application depending on what the numbers were. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 16 09/20/05