PC 022509 - Laserfiche WebLink

in the low-income category. He noted, however, that his problem is that Section 66427.5 is unclear and not definitive with respect to what the requirements are concerning levels of support. He indicated that he has to assume that those who did not vote are not in favor, and that would mean less than 20 percent in support, which was way too low. He added that since the statute is not clear about the required level of support, he looks at it as being nowhere near the level of support he would be comfortable with and, therefore, could not support the conversion. Commissioner Olson stated that he had made his views clear earlier, and while he cannot support the conversion, his reading of Section 66427.5 tells him the applicant has met the conditions. He noted that Section 66427.5 states that the scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. He stated that there are four points, all of which the applicants have done, and the Commission can only debate the degree to which they have been done. He added that based on this, he would have to conclude that the map should be approved, but he indicated that he did not like it. Commissioner Narum agreed with Commissioner Olson and stated that in reading Section 66427.5 and what the Commission is supposed to be deciding, she thinks the applicant has met them; however, she indicated that she does not feel good about it and the thing that bothers her is the fact that there was no pro forma done about the economics for the residents.She added that she understands not wanting to spend $30,000 for an appraisal, but it is hard to believe that they could not have done a pro forma and be reasonably accurate as far as what the costs would be to low-income and non-low-income residents. She noted that she has struggled with many different ideas to identify deficiencies, and the only thing she would try to do is craft the approval to ensure that this would be an age-restricted park. She acknowledged that the intent of the owner is to hold the park for ten years and then convert it, but things can happen, and ten years is a long time. Commissioner Olson stated that part of the problem is fear of the unknown. He indicated that it might help to ask the applicants to show the residents what their rent would look like today based on the new structure, taking the last five years to the present and applying those last five years to the new structure.He stated that he felt this might reduce some fear on the part of the residents; however, he did not see the Commission conditioning the approval on that basis. He agreed with Commissioner Narum regarding having a condition to restrict the park to seniors. Mr. Close stated that he had sent a letter to Mr. Roush a few days ago with information on what the rents would be if the State law provisions applied in 2009; however, due to timing constraints, that information had not been provided to the Planning Commission prior to tonight’s meeting. Chair Pearce stated that she cannot support the proposal because she thinks Section 66427.5 is much more limited in scope than has been discussed. She stated that she does not think the intent is to make the Commission’s task PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 26 of 29