My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
050509
>
13 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2009 12:02:52 PM
Creation date
5/1/2009 11:48:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/5/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
13 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the unit, and because the price for the unit will depend on the age and size of the unit, it <br />would be even more speculative to know whether the sales price (land and unit) will fall <br />within what will be considered "affordable" in ten years. <br />These uncertainties as to the sales price in the future combined with the certain loss of <br />affordable rental housing for seniors provided additional grounds for the Commission to <br />deny the application. <br />City Council Action <br />Notwithstanding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this application, staff <br />recommends that the Council overturn the decision of the Commission and approve the <br />application. Based on existing case law and the language of Section 66427.5, staff is of <br />the opinion that the Council's scope of review is limited to whether the applicant has <br />complied with Section 66427.5. Staff has listed the required findings in bold with staff's <br />response in italics. <br />The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobile <br />home park for the proposed conversion. (The survey shall be by written <br />ballot, and the results of the survey submitted to the City, to be considered as <br />part of this hearing.) <br />In early 2008, a survey was sent to all residents. A copy of that survey is included in <br />Attachment 10. City staff and a resident committee negotiated with the Park owner's <br />representative the wording of the Survey. Residents were provided three options: <br />support for the approval of a future change of ownership of the Park to a <br />resident-owned condominium; decline to respond; and do not support the change of <br />ownership. Residents were directed to return the survey directly to the City. (Only <br />one response from each space is permitted under Section 66427.5). <br />The statute (Attachment 8) is unclear on what the requirements are, if any, <br />concerning the level of support that the residents must indicate in order for the <br />conversion application to be approved. The appellants take the position, with some <br />support from case law, that no particular percentage of residents needs show <br />support in order to approve the application. Others believe that the purpose of the <br />statute is to allow conversion to residential ownership only where a true majority of <br />residents favor such conversion, and, therefore, there must be majority support of <br />the residents in order to approve the conversion. Legislation has been introduced <br />on several occasions to clarify this ambiguity, but none has been signed into law. <br />Therefore the ambiguity remains. Of those who responded to the survey, a bare <br />majority (52 percent) were in favor of the conversion. Accordingly, staff concludes <br />that there was majority support for the conversion and recommends that this finding <br />be made. <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.