15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox continued that the other issue is that some sections of the State law in the Subdivision Map Act state that there are some specifications for non-purchasing residents regarding what types of protections they have for rent in the future, but it does not specify that State law protections only concern a portion of the current residents. She indicated that she had questions regarding whether it was a bona fide survey of support, issues with the findings required under the Subdivision Map Act itself going over structures, and issues with the current affordability of the units in the park. She noted that the City's General Plan includes goals regarding affordability of units, and she does not want to lose affordable units. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he personally thought this was a good opportunity for the residents, assuming that 85 percent or higher would be included 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 thie 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 believes 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 EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 17 of 19