Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/2005, PH 7 - CONSIDERATION OF THE 2005 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATIONS INVOLVING THREE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY council_ . �D -71, 918j, agcnaa Repoot ,�N� PN 7- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Phil Dunmore„Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE 2005 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATIONS INVOLVING THREE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL APARTMENT PROPERTIES AT 2975 ROCKVIEW; 1778 THROUGH 1796 TONINI DRIVE AND 1017 THROUGH 1043 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE (CON 1=05; CON 25-05 AND CON 29-OS). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the following resolutions: a. Resolution "A" approving a condominium_ conversion for 2975 Rockview for 2.0 units (Rockview Heights, CON 1-05); b. Resolution "B" approving a condominium conversion for 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive for 110 units (Parkwood Village, CON 29-05); c. Resolution "C" denying a condominium conversion for 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive (Rancho Obispo, CON 25-05). 2. Offer direction to staff to prepare a Municipal Code amendment to.allow unused condominium conversion credits from previous years to be utilized in 2005 for the benefit of allowing Parkwood Village the entitlement to convert all 168 units as a single phase. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the.following resolutions: a. Resolution "A", as recommended by the Planning Commission; b. Resolution "E", approving a condominium conversion for 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive (Packwood Village, CON 29-05) for 33 units instead of the 110 units recommended by the Planning Commission; c. Resolution `'D" approving a condominium conversion for 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive for 77 units (Rancho Obispo, CON 25-05); rather than denial as recomniended by the Planning Commission. 2. Retain the existing Municipal Code regulations regarding condominium conversions. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The City's Condominium Conversion regulations, Chapter 17.82.120 of the Municipal Code, (Attachment 2) limit the number.of conversions based. on half the number of multi-family rental apartments produced in the previous year. The limit for 2005 is 130. When the number of requested conversions exceeds the allowed annual limit, a ranking system is to be implemented, and the ranking system should be utilized to determine which conversions should be approved. The ranking system conducted by staff placed Rockview Heights in first place, followed by Rancho Obispo, and Council Agenda Report—CON 1-OD,25-05,and 29-05 — Page 2 placed Parkwood Village last due to limited private open space and fewer affordable units (see ranking Attachment 6). However, with approval of a complete condominium conversion (all 168 units, exceeding the 2005 limits), Packwood Village has offered to permanently deed 34 units to the Housing Authority as dedicated affordable units. The Planning Commission felt that the value of the potential gift of 34 affordable units to the Housing Authority outweighed the value of strict adherence to the ranking criteria. On May 11, 2005,. the Planning Commission recommended approval of condominium conversions for Rockview Heights (20 units) and Parkwood Village(l 10 out of 168 units) and recommended denial of a request to convert Rancho Obispo (77 units) to the City Council (Attachments 8 through 11). The CAD's recommendation differs from the Planning Commission and relies primarily on the ranking system in accordance with the Chapter 17.82.120 of the Municipal Code. As an option, the Commission discussed the possibility of modifying the Code to allow additional, conversions to be granted for Parkwood Village to allow the entire project of 168 units to be converted this year..This discussion resulted in a motion to recommend that Council direct staff to prepare and amendment to the Code. A conversion must be consistent with the Municipal Code, hence the Code amendment would need to be adopted before final action on conversion of all 168 units or concurrent with it. DISCUSSION Situation The City's process to consider the conversion of rental apartment properties to "for sale" condominiums is regulated by Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code (Attachment 2). This year the City has received three such requests. Conversion requests are acted on by the City Council following a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The City's Condo Conversion Regulations (Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code) establish numerical limits for condominiums that may be converted annually. The limits are defined as "half the number of multi-family rental dwelling units added to the City's housing stock in the previous year", and are intended to protect the City's supply of rental housing. In 2004, a.record number of 260 multi-family rental apartments were added to the City's housing stock; therefore, 130 condominiums may be converted in 2005. Combined, the three applications exceed the annual limits with a request to convert a total of 265 units. When the requests exceed the numerical limits, the Code establishes ranking criteria to assist decision makers in deciding which projects should be approved. Staff ranked each of the projects and evaluated each for compliance with condominium conversion standards. In combination with a discussion of each of the project's merits, the ranking was distributed to the Planning Commission with staff s recommendation on May 11, 2005 (Attachment 12, PC staff report). The conversion approval process is only the first step. Successful applicants will need to return to the Planning Commission .and City Council to process a condominium tract map. It is at that time that specific code requirements and conditions will be applied to each project. Z Council Agenda_ Report—CON 1-05,25-05,and 29-05 Page 3 Planning Commimon Action On May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed condominium conversions and acted on each conversion separately. The summary of the Commission's action is as follows: 1. 2975 Rockview (CON 1-05, Rockview Heights). The commissioners voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the conversion of the entire project(20 apartments). Commissioner Christianson voted against the motion with. concerns that the conversion would result in increased costs of living and displacement of existing tenants. 2. 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive (CON 25-05, Rancho Obispo). The Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the conversion for 77 apartments known as Rancho Obispo. Commissioners noted the private open spaces (small patios) did not comply with the condominium standards. Additionally it was noted the recently built project was constructed to include a mixture of housing types in the planned development (DeVaul Ranch) and should remain that way for the present. 3. 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive (CON 29-05, Parkwood Village). The commissioners voted 5-2 to allow the remaining 2005 conversion credits (1.10 units) for the Parkwood Village Apartments. Commissioners noted the applicant's desire to provide for affordable sales units and agreed that a gift of 34 units to the Housing Authority was a valuable gesture that outweighed the apartment projects inability to comply with the condominium standards (lack of private open space). Commissioners Christianson and Carter voted against the motion. Commissioner Christianson expressed concern about the increase in cost of living and displacement of existing tenants, while Commissioner Carter noted that the project did not meet the minimum standards for outdoor private open space. The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission recommending approval of the conversion of 110 units required only 5% of the units to be deed restricted as affordable. It should be noted that, although the applicant offered to gift 34 units to the Housing Authority, this gift was only valid if all 168 units were allowed to be converted. Because of this, commissioners voted on a separate motion to recommend the City Council consider amending the code to allow conversion credits that were unused from prior years to be considered towards additional conversion allocations. The purpose of this request was to allow Parkwood Village apartments to convert all 168 units this year in addition to allowing the 20 unit conversion for Rockview Heights.This motion passed by a unanimous vote. Analysis A complete analysis of each of the proposed conversions and the project merits can be found within the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 12). The CAO's recommendation differs from the Planning Commission's since staff's recommendation was based primarily on the code adopted ranking criterion while the Planning Commission used additional discretion (especially the offer of 34 affordable housing units from Parkwood Village) to formulate a recommendation to Council. The commissioners felt that the value of gifting 34 units to the Housing Authority for permanent use as affordable housing outweighed any of the potential benefits of converting the apartments recently constructed at De Vaul Ranch (Ranch Obispo). Since Rockview Heights (20 units) ranked first place, and the apartment project was able to meet all of the 7- 2 Council Agenda Report—CON 1.05,25-05,and.29-05 Page 4 condo conversion code requirements it has been eliminated from the following additional discussion and should be approved as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. The CAO's recommendation to place Parkwood Village as the lowest ranking conversion request is not restricted to the ranking criteria. As discussed in the attached Planning Commission staff report, Parkwood Village applied for a conversion shortly after its completion in 1988. At that time, the conversion was denied. The denial was based primarily on the importance of Parkwood Village as a family oriented, significantly sized rental apartment project. Additionally, it was approved as an apartment project with incentives that allowed for a density bonus and flexible development standards. Today, Parkwood Village is in good condition, however it is an aging apartment project and does contain a large number of long term tenants who rely upon fixed incomes. On the other hand, the apartment project known as Rancho Obispo was recently constructed (completed in 2004) and currently has a high vacancy rate. Staff believes the conversion of Rancho Obispo would not result in the displacement of long term tenants and therefore could be accomplished with fewer impacts to residents that rely upon fixed incomes. The following chart compares the competing conversion requests in relation to the condo conversion criteria. It should be noted that the following ranking differs slightly from the ranking in Attachment 7 since each of the applicants has provided additional information since the hearing. Criteria Rancho Obispo (77 units) Parkwood Village (168 units) Objecting Tenants 10 of 20 surveys objected 45 of 72 surveys objected 1 point .68 point Relocation Time 150 days extra 120 days extra 7 points 6 points Credit of rent towards purchase Last month rent and security Last month rent and security would be given for purchase would be given for purchase deposit. 7 points deposit. 7 points Private Open Space Proposed plans to add yards and Proposed plans to add yards for decks for compliance partial compliance N/A N/A Storage Space Bike Lockers and cabinet storage Proposed carports with storage 10 points areas 10 points Parking 3 additional supplied 39 additional+carports proposed 1 point 6 points Recreation/Common Open Space Proposed plans to convert unit to Some additional common open recreation facility 2.2 points space exists 1.7 points Affordable Housing 29% (22 of 77 units) 20% (34 of 168 units)*' 9.28 points 6.4 oints* Energy Savings New project with evidence of Pool is solar heated exceeding energy compliance. 4 points 1 point Total Points: 41.48 points 38.78 points * The score for Parkwood Village may be significantly lower depending on the number of -y Council Agenda Report—CON 1-65,2545,and 29-05 Page 5_ affordable Wilts that are offered to the City. Although not included in the points above, each applicant has proposed to enhance the private open space areas for many of the units by providing fenced private open space yards. Since these requests would require discretionary architectural review and the actual details of implementing the private open space could not be accurately defined prior to the Council hearing, the potential points have not been included in the ranking (N/A is utilized for this ranking criterion). It does appear, however that the Rancho Obispo project does have opportunities to provide private open space areas that will exceed the minimum requirements, therefore significantly increasing the potential ranking above Parkwood Village. Parkwood Village would only be able to provide open space yards for a portion of the units and the open space yards would not exceed the minimum requirements. It can be concluded that Parkwood Village may not gain additional points by adding open space yards, however the project would be closer to complying with the minimum private open space standards. It should be noted that.although the Planning Commission voted to approve the Parkwood Village condominium conversion based on its merits of affordable housing, its approval would ultimately result in a lower percentage of affordable housing units compared to Rancho Obispo. Rancho Obispo would result in approximately 29% affordability following conversion, while Parkwood Village would only achieve 20% affordability with the gift of 34 units to the Housing Authority. It is important to note that the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission, recommending approval of 110 units for Parkwood Village, requires only 5% of the units to be deed restricted as affordable housing. The 34 units would only remain affordable until 2018. The applicants for Parkwood Village would only dedicate the 34 units to the Housing Authority if approval is granted to convert all 168 units. City Staff(including the City Housing Coordinator and the Assistant.City Attorney) has determined that each conversion project is subject to providing affordable housing consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in addition to maintaining any existing affordable units for the balanceof the prescribed term. Rockview Place does not currently have affordable units, so they are only subject to the minimum 5% requirement, or one unit. Rancho Obispo is within an expansion area that requires 15% of the units to be deed restricted as affordable. When the apartment units were constructed (occupancy began in 2004), 12 of the units were deed restricted as affordable units for 30 years. The Rancho Obispo condo conversion will require an additiona1 .15% of the remainder of the units (15% of 65 units) to be deed restricted for a combined total. of 22 units. Parkwood Village is subject to an additional 5% affordability with the conversion, resulting in a requirement of 7 additional affordable units. The existing 34 affordable units at Parkwood Village are on contract until 2018 to remain as affordable. Representatives for the Parkwood Village condominium conversion have stated that the gift of 34 affordable units will not be deeded to the Housing Authority as affordable units if they are required to provide an additional 5% affordable units. Instead, they would provide the minimum 5% and the 34 units currently deed restricted as affordable would continue to remain as such until the end of the term in 2018. I Council Agenda Report-CON 1-05,25-05,and 29-05 Page 6 Numerical conversion limits Since there have been no condominium conversion requests in over 10 years, the Planning Commission discussed the potential for rolling over unused "credits" that have accumulated during prior years where conversions to condos fell short of the numerical limits. The current code does not have a provision for rolling over unused conversion credits from previous years. Instead, the limit is tied to the previous year's number of rental units created. The following discussion analyzes this suggestion and finds that it would have taken many years of "credits" to achieve the Planning Commission's goal. At the same time, if rental housing construction is high and the City's vacancy rate is low, rolling over credits from previous years could have an adverse effect on the City's rental housing vacancy rate. The City's limit on condo conversions was created to preserve a healthy rental stock and balance converting rental housing with the creation of new rental housing and the.growing"population. 5% is considered a healthy vacancy rate in order to maintain affordable rental rates and a housing stock that provides options for various economic strata. Although the City's vacancy rate has increased over the past year, according to the 2005 Economic Update prepared by the UCSB Economic Forecast Project, the vacancy rate is only at 3.5%, down from 5.2% in 1995. So, although the vacancy rate has slightly increased over an inadequate level just a year ago, it is still low when compared to a desirable rate. According to California Department of Finance statistics, the City added .487 multi-family units between January 1, 1994 and January 1, 2004. Until now, there have been no condominium conversions since at least 1994. It is important to note that staff has not completed a comprehensive review on the number of multi-family rental units that have been demolished or removed during this time. This information would need to be built into any conversion model considered by the Council I ddressing conversion credits. Vacancy rates in San Luis Obispo are closely related to University enrollment. Vacancy rate can fluctuate with enrollment increases or decreases. Presently, enrollment is slightly below maximum at Cal Poly while the City's vacancy rate is lower than what is considered healthy. As enrollments at Cal Poly increase the vacancy rate can be expected to worsen. Fortunately, new housing units are being added at the University. Unfortunately, the new units will only equal the additional enrollment the Cal Poly Master Plan accommodates. The high cost of housing has made condominium conversions more marketable. Condominium conversions are quickly becoming a common trend throughout California. Cities in Southern California within the Los Angeles and San Diego areas are experiencing thousands of conversion requests. The sales market for housing continues to soar, while rental rates are lagging far behind and vacancy rates for rentals are on the rise statewide. Several recent articles regarding the trends have been published in the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. In San Luis Obispo, the trend is beginning to follow other cities. Based on this information, continued_ pressure to convert the City's rental housing stock to condominiums can be expected. Rolling over unused "credits" that have accumulated during the past 10 years where conversions to '�P ComA Agenda Report—CON 1-05,25-05,and 29-05 Page 7 condos fell short of half the new rental construction, as proposed by the Planning Commission could have allowed the City to approve the conversion of 244 units this year (265 have been requested). However; such a modification to the code could worsen the City's already unhealthy vacancy rate. If the code were amended this.year to allow more conversions than new rental units were built, the vacancy rate for rental housing would decline, reducing the availability and options for rental housing. Whether or not a worsening of the vacancy rate would occur would depend on: 1) the number of unused conversion "credits" available; 2) the number of rental, units constructed the previous year; and 3) the current vacancy rate. For example, the Council could recommend amending the code to allow conversion limits to be based upon the previous three years of unused conversion credits. Utilizing this scenario, however, would only allow 39 additional credits for 2005 because 53 rental apartments were constructed in 2003 and only 25 were constructed in 2002. In this case looking back 3 years would not have provided the additional "credits" the Planning Commission sought. Conversely, if the last 3 years had seen the amount of rental housing construction that the. City experienced during 2004 (260 units/yr.) and the vacancy rate was at its current level 3.2%, than the allowable conversion of 390 rental units this year would have had a detrimental effect on the City vacancy rate. The CAO's recommendation to Council does not recommend modifying the Code to allow additional conversions this year because of the lower than desirable rental vacancy rate and the continued pressure to convert rental housing in the coming years. This will mean that the applicants who are not able to convert all units this year will have to return next year to apply for additional conversions. Additional applicants are awaiting the submittal of conversions for-next year's review which begins in January and February 2006. CONCURRENCES The conversion requests have been reviewed by other City departments including Public Works, Utilities, Building and Fire. No significant concerns were noted, however it has been recognized that both Rancho Obispo apartments and Rockview Heights apartments will have to perform significant construction in order to install separate utilities. Parkwood Village apartments, however, was originally constructed with separate utilities for each unit. Project conditions require Building Code upgrades and other upgrades associated with the general condition of each property to comply with City Standards. FISCAL EMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Allowing conversions of multi family rental properties to individual "for sale"properties is not likely to create significant fiscal impacts. ALTERNATIVES 1. Grant approval to the number of conversions allowed by the current code (130) and recommend staff prepare a code amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. -7-7 i Council Agenda Report-CON 1-05,25-05,and 29-05 Page 8 The intention of the Planning Commission's recommendation was to consider utilizing unused.credits from previous years. The more years back credits could be counted, the more impact any year's conversion will have on the vacancy rate. If.the goal is to approve all of the current applications, than the code would have to be amended to look back to additional years or consider an alternative method of numerical limitations. 2. Continue action to request additional information from staff or the applicants. If additional information is needed, direction shouldbe given to staff. 3. Deny one or more of the conversions based on inconsistency with the Municipal Code Chapter 17.82. ATTACHMENTS: I. Vicinity Maps and project site plans 2. Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 3. Ranking System adopted by Planning Commission resolution in 1984 4. Sample Opinion poll letter 5. A tenant's response to the poll from the Parkwood Village apartments 6. Ranking sheets for each project 7. Affordable Housing Standards for 2005 8. Planning Commission Resolution for 2975 Rockview (Rockview Heights) 9. Planning Commission Resolution for 1778 through 1796 Tonini (Rancho Obispo) 10: Planning Commission Resolution for 1017 through 1043 Southwood(Parkwood Village) 11. Planning Commission minutes 12. Planning Commission staff report 13. Draft Council Resolution "A" approving a conversion for Rockview Heights 14: Draft Council Resolution"B"denying a conversion for Rancho Obispo apartments 15. Draft Council Resolution"C" approving a conversion of 110 units for Parkwood Village 16. Draft Council Resolution"D"-approving a conversion for Rancho Obispo apartments 17. Draft Council Resolution "E"approving a conversion for 33 units for Parkwood Village GAPdunsmom\Condo Conversions\Council rpt(07-19-05).doc i�� yinn�iNunw� NOW mien ��iun. _mnm pillrmm��+m�umnnx�� � w r AttcVVmer t nags�` aa� a z � � o` xp! k n � G hk wRR< �L4 m s ge3 o ns �� dx gg�- � g33Gq gW'"u $gh k 111< �� yip N K-C!)gill] Z13 pz9e r a FS I N=a < a � �g• a„ 1u gg� 3� � a� $ $ oo _56 � nm'o� s� �IN13W �t \. U W ILII\^I{�III I� N U O 03 y 8 p p N z ¢ z x WV e wEn X0 o 8 Wm NN w > s C� .O A. jQ cn O x w a _ mC MIN x S NO [O N j z- N N NWa� 00 - N �Na wv) n u Oz 00 x� 9i � - HJ ZU :)x .r W 85120 pyo k 3 D ff 7-/0 �` r Attachment �:-OY-Qhf A377VA 6060 607 fill iA I rt � L L plf'T"If-'I -4 :a r I If CZ L Attachment 'i 0 W h , OYOJI A08s777YA ;07 — IU a ZCc # , 4 .# V - --- - --- ----- 7-/3 �i ��� ��i • � � � , ��I - vim moi• ♦1►�i ��� � iJ ��i � �i gpfom �� .. , ,� ,► �• MR B 1 ;.. � ♦♦mss ��� ♦ ♦jI Igo �► ..� - - ori VICINITY MAP 29-05 r-, 0 Co J (c Attachment `1 m .a 4 NO to C ::3 3 O lOi O O� 7 (V t O 0) ON Ocn � t. L O r O Z (» 3 0] in JJ 1.1 H 4-1 L L H O N �0 Co Sj (o Sj XQ LO ti E m m E O CO 0- �1_ : O t O 0) O -1 N O Q N L LU O U) O OD O SL \ \ Sj r0 \ f° V .,{ 'O v v O `O O Z u1 v N N O1 N \ N \ [Y P Z. - 7 M W M m 3 Co 3 d/ 04 N N .--I N Z Lli Ci � 1 ! l 111 i ll s�o m m o � 0 0 r o O s �•� `fir � . --Sj( �~ Attachment.2, San.Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 RESIDENTIAL CONDONWaL M DEVELOPMENT AND CONVERSION. Sections: 17.82.010 Purpose and intent. 17.82.020 Definitions. ' 17.82.030 Applicability of other laws. 17.82.040 Provisions to govern condominium conversion projects. 17.82.050 Application requirements. 17.82,060 Acceptance of report. 17.82.070 Copy of reports to buyers. 17.82.080 Tenant provisions. 17.82.090 Hearing-Notification., 17,82.100 Application. Required findings. 17.82.110 Property improvement standards for condominium conversions. 17.82.120 Conversion limit procedure. 17.82.130 New project regulations -Standards to govern. 17.82.140 Property improvement"standards for new condominium projects. 17SLI50 Affordable housing requirements. 11.82.160 Exceptions. 17.82.010 Purpose and intent. Condominiums, community apartments and stockcooperatives provide for ownership of separate dwellings, or equity coupled with a right of exclusive occupancy, as well as common areas within multiple-family housing normally managed and maintained by an owner's association. This mix of individual and common ownership and the potential problems of converting existing apartments make special regulations necessary. The city has determined that condominiums differ from apartments in some respects and, for the benefit of public health,safety and welfare,such projects should be treated differently from apartments. These regulations are intended to: A. Establish requirements and procedures for the conversion of,existing rental housing to residential condominiums and other forms of occupant ownership; B.Provide for compliance with the housing element of the general plan; C. Assure that purchasers of converted apartments are aware of the condition of the structure which is offered for purchase; D. Provide design and property improvement standards for condominium projects, both new and converted; E. Minimize the loss of affordable housing stock as a result of condominium conversions. (Ord. 984 § 2(part), 1983:prior code § 9850;Ord. 1.318 § 2, 1996) 17,82.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the indicated meanings: A "Applicant" means the owner of real property proposed to be subdivided, or his authorized Printed from Folio Views Pagel —7 (o Attachftient 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code representative. B. "Affordable housing" means housing which rents or sells at prices which conform to the City's "Affordable Housing Standards" issued by the Community Development Director, as provided by SLOMC 17.90.090: C., "Community apartment." means an apartment development in which an undivided interest in the land is coupled with the right of exclusive occupancy of an apartment located thereon. For the purposes of this chapter,community apartments will be subject to the same regulations as condominium projects. D. "Condominium conversion" means the conversion of property from occupancy tinder itsexis i ting tenancies or estates to occupancy under condominium community apartment or stock cooperative interests. R "Condominium project" means the entire parcel of real property, including all structures thereon,, subdivided or to be subdivided for the purpose of constructing or converting existing structures to condominium units. F. -Design."Design of a project shall include: 1.Driveway location,grades and widths; 2.Drainage and utilities,including size,alignments and grades thereof; 3.Location and size.of all required easements and rights-of-way; 4.Fire protection devices; 5.Lot size and configuration; 6.Traffic access, 7.Parking; 8.Land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; 9.Landscaping; 10.Structures;and 11. Other specific requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire project as may be necessary or desirable to insure conformity to or implementation of the general plan or any adopted specific plan. G. "Stock cooperative" means a corporation which is formed or availed of primarily for the purpose of holding tide to, either in fee simple or for a term- of years, improved real property, if all or substantially all of the shareholders of such corporation receive a right of exclusive occupancy in a portion of the real property, title to which is held by the corporation, which right of occupancy is transferable only concurrently with the transfer of the share or shares hum o-f stock in the corporation held by the person having such right of occupancy- For the purposes of this chapter, stock cooperatives will be subject to the same regulations as condominium projects. (Ord.984§ 2(part), 1983:prior code,§§9851. 1315§.2,1996) 17.82.030 Applicability of other laws. All condominium,projects shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and 'titles 15,16 and 17 7 of this code, and all other applicable I-icable state and local laws and ordinances. (Ord. 984 §2(part), 1983:prior code§9852;Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 17.82.040 Provisions to govem condomlini uni conversion projects. The procedures and standards contained in this chapter shall govern condominium projects. (Ord. Printed ftoni Folio Views Page2 7-/7 Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 984 § 2(part), 1983: prior code § 9853;Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 17.82.050 Application requirements. The following shall be provided at the time of application for condominium conversion: A. Property condition report. The application shall be accompanied by a property condition report. including at least the following: 1. A report detailing the condition of all elements of the property including foundations, ventilation, utilities, walls, roofs; windows, mechanical equipment, appliances which will be sold with the units, common facilities and parking areas. The report shall state, to the best knowledge of the applicant,and for each element: the date of construction,the condition, the expected useful life, the cost of replacement, and any variations from the zoning regulations in effect when the last building permit was issued for the subject structure(s). The report shall identify all defective or unsafe elements or those which may impair use and enjoyment of the property,and explain the proposed corrective measures to be used The report shall be prepared by or under the supervision of a registered civil or structural engineer, licensed general contractor or architect; 2. A report from a licensed pest-control operator describing in detail the presence and effects of any wooddestroying organisms; 3. A report of any known soil or.geological problems.Reference shall be made to any previous soil reports for the site. B. Site plan. The application shall be accompanied by a site plan which shall include at least the following- 1. ollowing1.The location,number of stories,number of all dwellings,and proposed uses for each structure to remain and for each proposed new structure; 2.The location,use and type of surfacing for all open storage areas; 3. The location and type of surfacing for all driveways, pedestrian ways, vehicle parking areas, and curb cuts; 4.The location,height and type of materials for walls or fences; 5..The location of all landscaped areas, the type of landscaping, method of irrigation, and a statement specifying private or common maintenance; 6.The location and description of all recreational facilities; ' 7.The location,size and number of parking spaces to be used in conjunction with each unit; 8.The location,type,and size of all drainage pipes and structures; 9. Existing contours, building pad elevations and percent slope for all driveways and parking areas. G Evidence of delivery of notice of intent to convert. The application shall be accompanied by signed copies from each tenant of the notice of intent to convert as specified in Section 17.82.080A.The applicant shall submit evidence that a certified letter of notification was sent to each tenant for whom a signed copy of the notice is not submitted. D. Other information. The application shall be accompanied by any other information which in the opinion of the director of community development will assist in determining whether the proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of these regulations. (Ord. 984 §2(part), 1983:prior code§ 9853.1;Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) Printed from Folio Views Page3 Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17.82.060 Acceptance of report. The community development director shall establish the final form of the reports required by Section 17.82.050.Approved reports shall remain on file With the community development department for review by interested persons.(Ord. 984 § 2(part), 1983: prior code§ 9853.2; Ord. 1316 § 2, 1996) 17.82.670 Copy of reports to buyers. Each prospective purchaser shall be provided with a copy of all reports in their final form,except the sighed notices of intent to convert,prior to entering escrow. Copies of the report shall be available at the sales office and the project site. (Ord. 984§ 2(part), 1983: prior code§ 9853.3; Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 17.82.680 Tenant provisions. A. Notice of intent to convert. Applicant shall give each tenant a written notice of intent to convert at least one hundred dred eighty days before termination of tenancy due to conversion. The notice shall contain at least the following: 1.Name and address of current owner, 2.Name and address of proposed subdivider; 3.Approximate date on which the unit is to be vacated by nonpurchasing tenants; 4.Tenant's right to purchase; 5. Statement of no rent increase;and statement of proposed sales prices and terms. B. Tenant's right to purchase.Pursuant to Government Code Section'66427.1.(d),applicant shall give any present tenant a nontransferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied. This right of first refusal shall extend at least ninety days from the date of issuance of the subdivision-public report or commencement of sales,whichever date is later. C. Vacation of units. Each nonparchasing tenant not in default under the provisions Of the rental agreement or lease under which he occupies his unit, shall have the right to remain not.less than one hundred eighty days from the date of receipt of notification of intent to convert. D. No increase in rents. A tenant's rent shall not be increased during the one hundred eighty day period provided in subsection C of this sect-ion. F. Notice to new tenants. After submittal of the tentative map, prospective tenants shall be given a- written notice of intent to convert prior to leasing or renting any unit. (Ord. 984 § 2 (part), 1983: prior code§ 9853.4;Ord. 1315 § 2, 19061 17J82.090 Hearing-Notification. Prior to acting on applications, the planning commission and council shall each hold a public hearing,notice of which shall be given tenants of the proposed conversion and posted,on the property at least ten days beforehand. (Ord.984§ 2(part), 1983:prior code§ 9853;Ord. 1315 §2, 1996) 17IM100 Application-Required findings. An application for condominium conversion shall not be approved until these findings are made: A: All provisions of these regulations have been or will be met; B.The proposed conversion is consistent with the general plan; Printed from Folio Views Page4 - _ Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code C. That there exist facts adequate to support the findings required under Sections 66473.5 and 66474 of the Government Code; D. That: (1) affordable housing units at risk will be offered at rents or sales prices affordable to low- or moderate-income persons, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and amenities to those being converted are being created as part of the new project; or that low- or moderate-income persons will not be displaced by the proposed conversion. (Ord. 984 § 2 (part), 1983: prior code§9853.6;Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 17.82.110 Property improvement standards for condominium conversions. A. Building and zoning regulations. Conversion projects shall substantially comply with the city's building and housing codes and zoning regulations in effect on the date the conversion project is approved. B.Fire safety. 1. Smoke detectors. Each living unit shall be provided with approved smoke detectors mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located in the area giving access to rooms used for sleeping purposes- C.Fire protection systems. All fire hydrants,fire alarm systems,portable fire extinguishers and other fire protection appliances shall be maintained in operable condition at all times and shall comply with current city standards. D. Utility metering. The consumption of gas, electricity and water within each unit shall be separately metered and there shall be circuit breakers and shutoff valves for each unit, E. Storage. Each dwelling unit shall have provision for at least two hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof, and lockable.private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit. This space shall be for the sole use of the unit owner.The minimum opening shall.be two and one half feet by four feet and the minimum height shall be four feet. F. Laundry facilities. A laundry area shall be provided in each unit, or in.common laundry space. Common facilities shall consist of at least one washer and dryer for each ten units or fraction thereof G.Parking. The number of parking spaces shall be as provided in the zoning regulations. Spaces for the exclusive use of occupants of each unit shall be so marked. Visitor parking and special stopping zones,if any,shall also be marked K Refurbishing and restoration. All structures, common areas, sidewalks, driveways, landscaped areas and facilities, if defective, shall be refurbished and restored to a safe and usable condition. All deficiencies shall be corrected prior to recordation of a final map. L Minimum project size. Condominium conversion shall not be allowed for projects consisting of less than ten residential units. J. Private open space. There shall be provided with each unit a minimum of two hundred fifty square feet of qualifying private open space for projects in the R-1 or R-2 zones,and a minimum of one hundred square feet for projects in the R-3 or R4 zones. To qualify, open space must be private and directly accessible from the unit it serves, and must have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck and must be located outside the street yard required by the zoning regulations. K Common open space. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying common open space per unit for projects in the R-3 or R4 zones. To qualify, open Printed from Folio Views Pages —7-20 Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code space shall have a minimum dimension in every dimension of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six.feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations.Common open space need.not be located with each unit.There is no minimum common open space requirement for projects in the R-1 and R-2 zones. L. Total open space.. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one thousand square feet per unit of qualifying private and common open space for projects in the R-1 zone, seven hundred fifty square feet per-unit for projects in the R-2 zone, and four hundred square feet per unit for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. M. Common recreation facilities. There shall be provided in each project in the R-3 or R-4 zones a minimum of twenty square feet per unit of common indoor,recreation facilities, or forty square feet per unit of improved outdoor recreation facilities. Common recreation facilities shall be available for, and limited to,the use of the project's tenants and their guests. Common recreation facilities must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. N. Open space and recreation facilities in nonresidential zones. Requirements for open space and recreational facilities for projects in nonresidential zones shall be set by the council at the time the project is reviewed. O. Installation of clotheslines. Tenants shall not be prohibited from installing clotheslines in private open areas which are substantially screened from common view. (Ord. 984 § 2 (part), 1983: prior code § 9853.7;Ord. 1315§2; 1996) 17.82.120 Conversion limit procedure. . A.Annual limit. The city shall not approve conversion projects in anyone calendar year resulting in more units tieing converted than one-half the number of multi-family rental dwellings added to the city's housing stock during the preceding year. The number of multi-family rental units added in one year shall be determined as follows: From January 1st through December 31st, the total number of multi-family rental units given a final building inspection and occupancy permit minus the number of such units demolished,removed from the city,or converted nonresidential use. B.Filing period. Applications for conversion may be filed during the month of January and February only.No action shall be taken on applications during this period. C:Project ranking. L If applications on file at the end of the filing period would, when approved, convert more dwelling units than allowed under subsection A of this section, the planning commission shall rank the applications according to the following criteria: a.The fractions of tenants not objecting to conversion; b.Time.given tenants to relocate,in addition to the minimum requirement; c.Credit of tenants' rent or deposits toward purchase price; d.Provision of individual open space with each dwelling; e.Provision of additional storage space beyond minimum requirement; f.Provision of additional parking beyond minimum requirement; g.Provision of additional open space or recreation.facilities beyond.-minimum requiremP�; L Provision of units which low-income and moderate-income families.can afford; i.Provision of solar water heating or equivalent energy savings. 2. The planning commission's evaluation shall be a recommendation to the council, which may Printed from Folio Views Page6 Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code act on conversion projects based on its own findings, within the numerical limits established under subsection A of this section. D. Time limits for actions. The results of the planning commission's evaluation shall be transmitted to the council by April 1st. The council shall approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny each conversion application by May 1st. If the applications on file at the end of the filing period would not exceed the year's limit, they shall be forwarded directly to the council, which shall act on the applications by April 1st. E. Maps. Maps required by the California Subdivision Map Act need not be prepared until an application for conversion has been approved. Maps shall be processed as provided in the city's subdivision regulations set out in Title 16 of this code. The tentative map application shall be accompanied by the declaration.of covenants, conditions and restrictions; articles of incorporation, bylaws and contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of any part of the condominium conversion project, which would be applied on behalf of any and all owners of the condominium units within the project. In addition to the requirements of Civil Code Section 1355 and any requirements which might be imposed by the city consistent with these regulations,the organizational documents shall include provisions concerning the conveyance of units; the assignment of parking; an agreement for common area maintenance, including facilities and landscaping, an estimate of initial fees anticipated for such maintenance, an indication of responsibilities for maintenance of all utility lines and services for each unit. The covenants, conditions and restrictions document shall include a reference to attached, updated property condition report. (Ord.984 § 2(part), 1983:prior code§9853.8;Ord. 1315 §2, 1996) 17.82.130 New project regulations-Standards to govern. The standards contained in Section 17.82.140 shall govern new condominium projects. (Ord.984§ 2 (part), 1983: prior code§9854;Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 17.82.140 Property improvement standards for new condominium projects. A. Private Open Space. There shall be provided with each unit a.minimum of two hundred fifty square feet of qualifying private open space for projects in the R-1 or R-2 zones, and.a minimum of one hundred square feet for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. To qualify, open space must be private and directly accessible from the unit it serves,and must have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck,and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. B. Common open space. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying open space per unit.for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. To qualify, open space shall have a minimtmm dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. Common open space need not be located with each unit. There is no minimum common open space requirement for projects in the R-I and R-2 zones. C.Total open space.There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one thousand square feet per unit of qualifying private and common open space for projects in the R-1 zone, seven hundred fifty square feet per unit for projects in the R-2 zone,and four hundred square feet per unit for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. Printed from Folio Views Pagel 7-Z2 Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code D. Common recreation facilities. There shall be provided in each project in the R-3 or R-4 zones a minimum of twenty square feet per unit of common indoor recreation facilities, or forty square feet per unit of improved outdoor recreation facilities. Common recreation facilities shall be available for, and limited to,the use of the project's tenants and their guests. Common recreation facilities must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. E. Open space and recreation facilities in.nonresidential zones. Requirements for open space and recreational facilities for projects in nonresidential zones shall be set by the council at the time the project is reviewed. R Storage. Each dwelling unit shall have provision for at least two hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit. This space shall be for the sole use of the unit owner. The minimum opening shall be two and one half feet by four feet and the minimum height.shall be four feet. G. Laundry facilities. A laundry area shall be provided in each unit, or in common laundry space. Common facilities shall consist of at least one washer and dryer for each ten units or fraction thereof. H: Energy conservation. Solar water heating shall be provided for each unit, and appropriate easements shall be a provided for collector locations. The community development director may waive the requirement for solar water heating in cases where the chief building official has determined that equivalent energy savings will be obtained by other means. Tenants shall not be prohibited from installing clotheslines in private open areas which are substantially screened from common view. (Ord. 984§ 2(part), 1983:prior code,§ 9854.1; Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 17.82.150 Affordable Housing Requirements. Developers of condominium conversion projects shall prevent the displacement of low and/or moderate-income persons by: 1. Offering to sell converted units to lower moderate-income tenants at risk of displacement, at prices which meet.the city's affordable housing standards.This offer shall run concurrently with the first right of refusal period described in Section 17.82.080(B)above;or 2. Including affordable rent guarantees, such as deed restrictions, as a condition of project approval. Such guarantees shall enable low- and moderate-income households, at their option, to continue renting their unit,after conversion, for a specified period to be negotiated by the developer and City prior to occupancy,but not less than three(3)years;or 3. Providing an equivalent number of off-site, affordable housing for the low- or moderate-income households at risk of displacement, either by: a) remodeling or converting vacant, substandard or nonconforming buildings or uses within the City; or by: b) building new units within the City. New or remodeled units shall be comparable in size and amenities to the converted condominium units;or 4.Paying an in-lieu housing fee,to the approval of the City Council.(Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 17.82.160 Exceptions. Upon request by a subdivider, the council may approve exceptions to property improvement standards and/or affordable housing requirements for condominium conversion projects. The nature of the exception shall be described in public notices for council heating on the condominium map. The council may act on the request only after a public hearing.In order to approve an exception for other than Printed from Folio Views Page8 7- 22 Attachment 2 San Luis-Obispo Municipal Code the affordable housing requirement, the council must find that: A. There are circumstances of the site, such as size, shape or topography, distinct from land in the same zoning,or cornpliance would not be practical because of the location or site design; B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege; an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and C. No feasible alternative to authorizing,the exception would satisfy the intent of the city policies and regulations. For exceptions to the affordable housing requirement,the Council must only find that: D. The project will not materially reduce the City's affordable housing stock and will not displace low-or moderate-income households. (Ord. 052 § 2, 1985; Ord.. 984 § 2(part), 1983: prior code § 9855; Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) Printed from Folio Views page9 - Attachment3 r- 4) O C 4) •- N Ml > N 'fl 3E r Cto 0 a0 0) L0 i i.r E.r N44 U L N be R) N 0)4- 4- C N -4-) U 11 i 0 0 0 (L) 4J'O C. O L CO w LV N00 O 0) i E L •C L•O ^ 10 N 4- U 0) 4-)r- N a 0) (L) -r 4- N r 4a 3 r 4) Or N 4J 4- L0'4r- C O O'O U i ULN 4-) O Or 3r N 0) >)0 0) 0) C C O i U 4- 0 7 C C 0) •r O r 4J C It L u) L. 0 0 N 0) L L H U to 0) N C N C C a —)4J LO �o n- L0 CO i •r N i. -P •r 7 0) •^ O .r.a N 0) O 3 () C 0'0 4) i 0) X > c > a 04-)r N E c au 00 N 'r 0) C r4- O (1) )0 IT C) R Ltd i 3 4- L 000 r- R5 a �- c E (a Q a 4-) C' (A 4-) U Rf •r 4J•r N •r O M N .> a0 C O C C- r i O C4- O 4) •r0ro � � a.a0 CL 4i c •rte . 4- If (0 -0 •^ a r C N aas 3. L[) r- 4- U 4J 0 U '3 4) O n 0) 3 O 0)1\ r LL) 0) C C•O-aC 0) C 47 O) W 'O d+'7 ar= > 90 (a C 7 i II 4) a C J •r L X a C U C' LO"a O U N•r d O a 0 b O O •r (1) i O E O •r r M 7 Lf) .4' U r 4) 4) O M M U 4�o m a C 3 r2�, CL 4J u x 4- U 0 • L a o c o 4) O 4-C) C) 0-. 3: LU O O CC) !- 7 4-3 Q4-3 i 4-3 O C") N Q 3:10 W 5 S 4- 1. 0) CJ O 4J r- N N XI 41 4-24% - C C '0) C7 C -r7'O O r .4.3 Y.E•r_41 L0 LT Z 0)L 0) 4-) )0 N C U 0 0 0 L i O ••+ U O 4) C ? 0) O i a- ' 4-) O i 4-3 S- (04-) O en 4J U 4-) r 4- (n 4- O 0) 0) 4) U C r o N i )O U) 0) •N O m O 0) 4) ^r (0 i 0) d E N N 4- Z '01 C C 'O N U.4) 4=' > C 0.0 rt Ur C L 0) O C N r•r 'O r-'r-- O 4- Cu LO r C O•r 0)r 0" O L• )-+ O'w R) 4) 4) O N'0 0= >>to i N i L > O O (0 N r- N 4- L O� 4-) C -O 4- .0 a N t0 3: av 7 O L0 O (A'O C 4.) C to L•r- 4) i4) C 4-3 0 W U L >)4- N •r•r L Ur 0) U �() •r N 7 N R 0) ^ 0) L0 r-. >> ''C O O) U r. L0 N' L U /0 O) O . 'Z 0) V C U -0 V) L0 RT N N a C N r0 L 7 U +) (UL 3 L0 i •^ O, O 7 0•i- 4). CV U i •r_4) 0) 3 1S 10 b () i 0) 0)'O O . U i O'r' 4) O C O •r U N' C•r a 0) 0) > O 4J O (I)r W -O'L N O LO•r� O 4-) (a N i. N 0) N 3,O)•r 4 3 90 rt C CL: 4- i C' O 4)Lf) O i •w y O 04-) i i0.i N 0) i (D 4? G 4) () i a''_•r- C. O 4)r-.a 4-r 0 C i i"O i 0 0) N cm•_•) U N C > C O '•O 4- C U 0) C E 0) O O 43, m4-2 i CO C Z N 4J 90 00 4-LO'D i r-_ 0) 'O 4-3 = a 4-,4J i 01 N U (1)r ►•) C C O L0 0410 N L 4-. C 880 4/1 0 C 82 N r••- LL. •r 0) U'_ ' N 4- C. 4) -O >a' •r r O - 'a N r L[)'ar- O O O 4) 4J 4J 4•) wig O C N 4) O R L+7 (L) 0) 4J 0) OL N d ^4.) 0) O a 00 L c 0)r N" r- 4-2r a4) 4)-L Cr OR L C LO L3 Z N r 4)r a •r U L0 4? 4, 0="- i O 4+ tu r •r U+ U 4J•'-. O 'C O ►r Lal LO r > O r--4-2 C•r- Cl 4J"O 7 Ln 4) N > 7, O >>Y (A 7 E L Ul N C 4) 01 dU C a 4) 0 r V C 0) U B Lo r Q a U i i R a-E 41 i Q • O C.0 O O 4) 0"o O i 0) 4- 0) i 0) x 90 0 0) 0) O•r- 0) m O 4-•r= U ct C u rt LP) E U N O Or- a i Ln.O a4-r- L. U 3 a S N F- �Z to n n L!') N Q O- 4) 1 r- r• Q C i L0 O F- 4J C 1 Z a L 0a H m Q 4) N OD - V > to C 4) O C 31 .0 4-) 4)r N i r 0) 0) r >) 0) �:•,rp'll S C' 0 O C •r:.•4+ 44 0 'fl 'a E 'O 0) E X W C 4J Iola C c 3 C L C (D 1.0 0) W F= 0) O C E 0) 40 .) r 4-) i 0 i L ►+ 4) rn O toE E C 40 •r 0. L. ()•r m C 4) E. N 0) 4- 3 0) 3 4- U 7 U cr 04-3 c C�•c.r 4-3+) U O d)- (D O CL(D W U O O) .r 7 4-•r%r- U C 0)r. > 0) E a) ONi OCCAi ONi ra vi(o c) i 4) Ca r aC E r t E Z 4•) O 0) I L r 0) 0) r N•�-• E r LO E CC i L i�rL O O 0) O b it air .- O LL- C U E- i 4-3LU O U OL 0"0 E O- N E r N M d' Lc; •) . Attachment 3 E N LO a( ni to 4- �- oH •w II to 0r- u o +4tm L Q) - t/1 a)•r C M E 7 ++tom M or,. � Q Q) i •• C t0 O O.r Nctr\ 11 +.O •E O - 1 N N O M CLO to X 4J w ,0 1R II 0-MLO ori i X to 8. 4J4- O_t0 OD we On U.OR*l E �M O O N tI a) + U II L N 11 c't'1 .E W C) S- = w w 4- ElOn II > N L� L Gi (L) C, Cr N L) N ++ EO Er: 11 - . N r a)tO 4J C 7 4J •r 4-3 E 4-1 U a) C •r 38 X 3E tTCV O N C R X L T O LO O a) • a) ••.IZ :t- () a) n", b O a. rte. LO¢t L In i vi N .C' E N M n - - 4) t0 S.-to C +J al • N m N N C + 3 a O i O a) C) i0. w CO O O N >IO U O•r_ r� - U •Cf L•O = .0 LO r 4-) 3 r N 7: T40 M a) Ti r� - T.. +? O' N r CL II 4J i 4-t + to C 11 U w a) 0\ N 11 U•t= U. N 471Q) a) (A L_ s t0 O a) O () a) N E(V W O C 0)+3 11 t IP)M O a) 0 +j - - C M U J i •r- C U -P i i i•� N•r-. C O ' d 0_r r a) tO X + 0• Gr- +.+ O 4-T: Q a) a) L O 40 CL CD m a) O a) U r C O I X X t 3 b i\M O LLL b OM O'OM W H"'C n C.R*'(n +)F 4- Mr_ r r•co 4 n rn O 1 4- t— i C ZA 4J L iC Otto 40- a) LO U+A C 10 () 0 r 4-) a)r () E" OD C t0 4) C 0•X ,C 0do4) vr-Uso L a) + L •. L U C-0 t0 C C U O E i C4-. 10r O (D t-s T al n O 04- S_ a C a)r O 4-4- i r O a) r- U 4- 1 i ..3 10 N•r t 4- M Ort CO 4- a) N O++-0 a) a) a) 3 /0 O O O E 4J U m O 4J N a) a) CN UO'.0 UN7 a) O' 10 a1 wY a) O a) S- t0 a)'O 2s LCM U E C a)r S.. N S-t a), L ++ .0 to t0 4- N L 4J r.0 a) X d 4-.40 w •C L r•_ E t U a .E:T. =r L rt' "s R) O co 010 L t0 H+) m 7'•0 U >> E U 10 +3 0 E >� 40 10 4- i Rf L N C "Z 'C 7 >Tr'r r t0 (D r O 10 0 O N•r : •0 In ++ a) 0) L C.0Y C- \ 4- a) O O Cm () .L N W O T n L r 3o. L t6'o O Si 4-i=- 0_+1 t0 Y L a) i C 4-Y OEO O7C4J O t0 O +3 .L + O ) (0 C.1' N /0 L.M n O N 4-� Cr 10 w 4- , L N 41 1 t0 t0U 10 (L) CA -Cn +3 O.O 4= +? O +J r- a) N ++ +3 OM 4- O 1A E 4- s- r_ O " +J OZ C la. •r•0 •w C T_ C 10.T+) r O O a)•O+3 O CL co Q+? C O 7 CJ --4.3 O O N N t- •F) CL S- a) C� 7 O.r N r r M r a) C-+�=r N 3 H 0.0 7 a) U!.� w M r C-•r- CL t0 !0_C OU a) u1 i r a) CA V1 OO'> L'00) r •00) U r4. 4JULi- 7CL' +J t0 Q • a) Oa)1C - •0nt0MOrCa) t000.iOa) m O t. U O_t0 r O 10 O 4-t O +3 3'r' 0.N= M O i r— f Z (V M t0 .R• t� ►-t r- r ri - Q 0- f _ C 7asslum O E O 14J0r r-4 •r•r- N T a) E t0 r OC 'o E cu d C 1 F- Colo (Dl cc > rp E 1-1 C L 1L O V O O a) N C O T W Cd a) CU a) d) C I . U O_ L OM4JQ) Oa) Q N C O) N N r i •Vl t0 Z •t=r C'.. •r' r r > i C O L C O'a) U 010 o acN ni. 04i-- S- aE to 9 w �, � 7;ae . Attachment 3 w - C ' T Ri N N N i d a a .1i v to tri M co 00 to i II N fh 1�- 1,- O Lo w to O to M r- O r CO to O O 3 I CJ N fC V N CJ O O C b CJ N i C O CJ d r 4J - C� > X p •r E N +�r J t.38 T U 4JC r C a H C> to N to N CJ •r i i - +3 r .0 0 10 O CO r� 4J C •r •• O'er CJ 4--0 rt•rO +J CO Lii •N me r-'a 0 -" UD U C U to to•r O i i C3 01 t0 O++ > iY .O tp U M II C C r C:•r O i 4-r• N Oto C H CL' CL'CL.Ln CL U Q N p C X 00 - W NN CL i-N M tt Lo t01�0O (n p r- w C O w r N C"o +j r- 0Wtoto +J i •r 4-) U.r. C CJ+3 +-3 N U O i'0 CJ CJ C igu M N r•,EEra +� Co C. i (D•O a O d N E 0 d CJ to n N i U cn•n r O rO 0 IM 4J C o o CS- o .w . r_ CD 3: M S: N v C r U 4J�•e- Na O wr O G _ +J C+U U)r U co CJ # CJ 7 r r to L d - (A W 'i N ECJ 0.�4- 4J E 01 C w O +?tt 4-t V N 4J3.04- 3iEt . C. 3p 4- CN +? y N4-. L>. r r-• O•O (A i r O (D O 10 O1 C) +1 C' i E 0) 04- CL s J uJ o 4- - +� c CO414J E � cii�CJ V Oma= H o 0) x v1 N 4-.tiro = M CD O t O -0 0 cc� cc•r N C 7 cn f Z 00 to IL 96 is% `W y - U O r i rt W C to C Z v L r 'Z r i L.fir. Iow- L% O ca N CJ • o m 3 G U ' ion i. I , �I Attachment 4 �►��11111111811111111In1° ►i� �� at SA1`11�,11S OBOW , 990 Palm Street, San,Luis Obispo, CA 9340.1-3249 March 29, 2005 Tenant San Luis Obispo CA 93401 �I i SUBJECT: Condominium Conversion request 1017 Southwood_, San Luis Obispo Dear Tenant: The City has received a request to convert your apartment building into a condominium to allovv the individual sale and private ownership of apartment units. If converted, you will be given the first option, of purchasing!the unit. The City's Planning Commission will be considering the request at a public hearing at 990 Palm Street in the Council Chambers on May 1.1, 2005. As part of the request, the City is interested in determining the number of tenants that are in support of, or in opposition of; the conversion request.. Please check the appropriate box at the bottom of this letter and return your response in the enclosed postage paid envelope prior to April 16, 2005. You are also welcome to get involved at the upcoming Planning. Commission- hearing by providing written communication or making a verbal presentation at the hearing. A notice will be sent to youin advance of the hearing. i Please feel free to contact Phil Dunsmore at the Community Development Department with any additional questions you may have at 781.-7522. Sincerely, Philip Dunsmore Associate Planner ----------- = --------- --- Parkwood Village'Apartments Condominium Conversion request Name Unit#/address (optional) - I I�I support the conversion I do not support the conversion The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. L Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. �— Attachment_5 ; PHA. Ouivs/r,oR4. 4-'Z-7-05- I , -z-7-o3' , cc N7inLO"ITY �EuE�oPME�v7 QC7�7. 9 90 P.Stc.r� sr. ,. SF)ti Lui S c+B✓.SAO� chi. 4340 1 i ..:,0 EA J9 PWAL THAwK YO u FGR yp cls GE77E R OF' 3•ZS-o S fjivi.� YGviQ WC/3 K Dti. 7ifi5 PROSEE'T. / . 'ReciE�,Ev T�iS c�TT�� pti Q-Z �-OS. %YIY Di4uG/K'TeR A I N,09 V46' [ipFA 47 i037- 40 Sa..iTHwGG3.c� .OR. � 5f1w L.uiS c@i5P0 � cA . 434C./ S�w. c E / S 9 q NA ALi #AtE I?. 1Am FAuCR O F 'ThfC ca N Aa m�n� iUr►'1 PRaSKT PRc,uIAE� � TI:/C PA1gKiNC? LGTS ARE RE.@c.iiLT /�tiQ RE PA /3 I7ft ASAWA 1,-r cc..+cRrra- . —rNe( Ae34E FAIL. itiC Atir0 tiFAQ To J5 E RE Avco.. Z=' . Pc.EA S E S AEM� -nogc A—7nAcH<:i.7 A/ C- 7-URES . COA%J c,AETE ' YAL4E'r a4Ur7ERS /9R&- . AJE-63►7 n, f3G INSTALLEiO . 2, ivy w 20 YEj4R- Roo FS AAE inj s7A4c.Era- -7WC 4iSjuS-r1Nc; RGO FS �9AE .49PPaxi t*7A TE4r-Y Zd YE'gAS pL AO , 7 iE APARTl"E%. JR*-A Attachment 5 yEAR RCCd . 7/-fESC Raa/FS Ad EEA Ta BE Ra-ALACCA3 NG VU. IPGEfI SE SSE 7T.9cHEA Pic-s�R ES . 3 . ?NE wA74eR SSV/CE v^+.oER Tip/E PAl�K�NCj GG 7 Anog jqz Pe.AcEQ . /"/G vEL. P/OiA 7NE APA#?-r evpu 7 milpvAriE/O #AIS AEPcAcEj mjgp% `1 of TNESE' . 7WSY ARE F-A/t/NG• 4. THC m aL p m i c. AEKJ 4,1 4 S7#q/N/.�V.r, /s d44!�n7a v E FRCnl 7HE S/4)46F"J##1 /C-S , S • THC 49E T/)/N G w A4LL5 A isj E PAi,u 74�-;lJ _ TiIE OW MEAS /lAvE' REcEow-r Ly / Allu 7Ez3 Tye IBU1Llo/..y s Ex CLV,O/ti Ci 'T/,fE CUECGvE7Q NFLt/ci, S7RUC--7c., R t.; /N S'7-ALG.eo -A�vrc] ScAr�iNci , AsvlJ 7R E-ES . W E ARE -7wmNft- FLsc-L F.-o R 71415. ER 4SCY ••. AAn.ICIL c. EnO,-p7 A/v /o37-O Sou7•jauaoo ,0R. SAju Lu/S o8lSAc'jcA . y3 4o 44 -3o r APP #: CON 1-05 Site Address: 2975 Rockview Attachment (0 (Twenty 2 bed units) R-2-S Zoning 1. The fractions of tenants not objecting to conversion verified by City ballot. .05 pts for each 1% not objecting: (5 pt. max.score) 6 tenants responded out of 20 mailed surveys 4 in favor of conversion and 2 opposing conversion 20%support= 1 Point 2. Time given tenants to relocate, in addition to the minimum requirement. 180 days is the code minimum. 4 pts for 60 days additional, 6 points for 120 days, 7 pts for 150 days (7pt. max score) Applicant will allow 150 days in addition to 180 day minimum = 7 7 points 3. Credit of tenants' rent or deposits toward purchase price. 5 pts for credit of last months rent, 2 points for credit of security deposit Applicant will give credit for last months rent and security deposit= 7 7 points 4. Provision of individual open space with each dwelling (min =250 s.f) .15 pt. for each 1% of total units which have at least 30% more private open space than required. (15 point max score) Private open space will be 325 s f for each unit.15 X 100% = 15 15 points 5. Provision of additional storage space beyond minimum requirement. (Min.= 200 s:f) 5 pts for enclosed bike storage, 5 pts for cabinet storage which is at least 25% greater in volume than req. and 2 pts for common storage at least 100 sf per dwelling. (Max 12 pt score) Each unit will have enclosed bike storage and indoor storage that is 25%greater in volume 10-points 6. Provision of additional parking beyond minimum requirement. .06 pts for each 1% req. covered parking; .03 pt for extra spaces (max 12 pts) Parking meets code requirement(no additional supplied). 0 points 7. Provision of additional open space or recreation facilities beyond minimum requirement. .13 pt fo,r each 1% of additional common open space to a max of 13 pts. Min. Common Open Space= no minimum in R-2 district, however combination of private and common open space minimum is 750 s.f. per unit. Applicant is willing to construct open space amenities and will be required to construct an area =8,500 s.f. to meet min. standards .0 points S. Provision of units which low-income and moderate-income families can afford. .32 pt for each 1% of total units affordable to households within low or moderate category, max of 16 pts. Applicant will offer 1 unit for affordable. (1120 = minimum 5%). l.6 Joints 9. Provision of solar water heating or equivalent.energy savings. . .08 pt for each 1% of units with solar water heating (or similar savings) Each unit will be provided with solar water heating???. 0 op lnts 10. Discretionary credit 5 ints Total Score for 2975 Rockview c 46.60 points 73 / Attachment 6 APP #: CON 25-05 Site Address: 11955 LOVR "Rancho Obispo" 77 units (161-bed units and 61 2-bed units) R-3-PD Zoning 1. The fractions of tenants not objecting to conversion verified by City ballot. .05 pts for each 1% not objecting: (5 pt. max score) 20 ballots returned out of 77 mailed surveys: 10 oppose and 10 support,28 units are vacant 1 point 2. Time given tenants to relocate, in addition to the minimum requirement. 180 days is the.code minimum.. 4 pts for 60 days additional, 6 points for 120 days, 7 pts for 150 days (7pt. max score) Applicant will allow 60 additional days 4 points 3. Credit of tenants' rent or deposits toward purchase price. 5 pts for credit of last months rent, 2 points for credit of security deposit. Security deposits and last months rent will be credited 7 points 4. Provision of individual open space with each dwelling (min = 100 s.f) .15 pt. for each 1% of total units which have at least 30% more private open space than required. (15 point max score) Units do not qualify for minimum private open space, applicant will construct yards 0 points. 5. Provision of additional storage space beyond minimum requirement. (Min.= 200) 5 pts for enclosed bike storage, 5 pts for cabinet storage which is at least 25% greater in volume than req. and 2 pts for common storage at least 100 sf per dwelling. (Max 12 pt score) Bike lockers will be supplied and 497 cf cabinet storage per unit is available l0 points 6. Provision of additional parking beyond minimum requirement. .06 pts for each 1% req. covered parking, .3 pt for extra spaces (max 12 pts) 164 spaces provided(161 required, 3 additional supplied) I point 7. Provision of additional open space or recreation facilities beyond minimum requirement. 13 pt for each 1% of additional common open space to a max of 13 pts. Min. Common Open Space= 100 per unit in R-3 & R-4. Common open space(recreation.and lawn area) is approximately 7,000 s.f..(min. requirement=77 x 100=7,700). 0 points S. Provision of units which low-income and moderate-income families can afford. .32 pt for each 1% of total units affordable to households within low or moderate category, max of 16 pts. 22 out of 77 units will be converted affordable sales units deed restricted for 30 years. 9.28 points 9. Provision of solar water heating or equivalent energy savings. .08 pt for each 1% of units with solar water heating (or similar savings) Applicant has supplied evidence of additional energy savings 4 points 10: Discretionary Credit 1 points Total Score for 11955 Los Osos Valley Road: 36.92 -7-32 Attachment 6 APP #: CON 29-05 Site Address: 1017 Southwood "Parkwood Village" 168 units (10 studios, 301-bed units and 128 2-bed units) R-3-PD Zoning 1. The fractions of tenants not objecting to conversion verified by City ballot .05 pts for each 1% not objecting: (5 pt. max score) 72 out of 168 surveys were returned. 45 opposing and 23 in favor of conversion .68 Point 62.5%oppose conversion 2. Time given tenants to relocate, in addition to the minimum requirement. 180 days is the code minimum. 4 pts for 60.days additional, 6 points for 120 days, 7 pts for 150 days (7pt. max score) 120 additional days given 6 points 3. Credit of tenants' rent or deposits toward purchase price. 5 pts for credit of last months rents 2 points for credit of security deposit Security deposits and last months rent will be credited 7 points. 4. Provision of individual open space with each dwelling (min = 100 s.f) .15 pt. for each 1% of total units which have at least 30% more private open space than required. (15 point max score) All units are below standard for private open space 0 points 5. Provision of additional storage space beyond minimum requirement. (Min.= 200) 5 pts for enclosed bike storage, 5 pts for cabinet storage which is at least 25% greater in volume than req. and 2 pts for common storage at least 100 sf per dwelling. (Max 12 pt score) Bike lockers will be supplied and some units have attic storage available 8 points 6. Provision of additional parking beyond minimum requirement. .06 pts for each 1% req. covered parking, .3 pt for each 1% extra spaces (max 12 pts) 384 spaces provided(345 required, 39 additional supplied, 31%covered) 5 Points 7. Provision of additional open space or recreation facilities beyond minimum requirement. .13 pt for each 1% of additional common open space to a max of 13 pts. Min. Common Open Space= 100 per unit in R-3 & R-4. Common open space is approximately 19,000 s.f% 168 units= 1.13 per unit. 1.69 points 8. Provision of units which low-income and moderate-income families can afford. .32 pt for each 1% of total units affordable to households within low or moderate category, max of 16 pts. 34 units are already under a rental program with the housing authority until 2018 and 5%of other units will be deed restricted as affordable. 1.6 points 9. Provision of solar water heating or equivalent energy savings. .08 pt for each 1% of units with solar water heating (or similar savings) Pool area utilizes solar heating .5 Points 10. Discretionary credit 0 points Total Score for Parkwood Village: 31.47 -7- 33 Attachment ;T city of San US OBISPO AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 2005 (Effective April 1, 2005) Purpose These standards apply to all development projects within the City. They set maximum rental costs or sales prices based on income level and dwelling size and are used by developers, citizens, housing groups, City staff and commissions, and housing agencies. The Community Development Director implements the standards. Besides defining the often misunderstood term "affordable housing", the standards promote the construction of housing which meets residents' needs and help explain the City's housing requirements. In addition, the City uses these standards to determine if housing projects are "affordable" and qualify for density bonuses, financial assistance or other types of incentives. For more information about these standards, call the City's Community Development Department at (805) 781- 7170. The City requires new development projects to provide affordable housing for very-low, low, or moderate income households by: 1) building affordable housing in conjunction with new residential or commercial development, or 2) by paying an "in-lieu fee" to support the development of affordable housing citywide, or 3) by contributing real property, including land or existing dwellings, to be used as affordable housing, or 4) by a combination of these methods. To help offset costs of providing affordable housing, the City has adopted Affordable Housing Incentives (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Ch. 17.90). State and local law allows residential density bonuses and certain other incentives in return for developers agreeing to construct affordable housing. Additional information on incentives is available from the Community Development Department. How the Standards Are Determined These standards are prepared by the Community Development.Department and are updated annually to show income limits for the City and County of San Luis Obispo as published by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). These limits are shown in Table 1. By law, the upper income limit for "very-low income" households is 50 percent of the median County income; the upper limit for "lower income" households is 80 percent of the median County income; and the upper limit for "moderate-income" households is 120 percent of the median Countyincome. Households with more than eight persons For all income groups, the income limits for households larger than eight persons are determined as follows: For each person in excess of eight, add eight percent of the four-person income limit to the eight-person income limit and round the sum to the nearest $50. For example, the nine-person very- low income limit is .08 X $30,850= $2,468; then $2,468 +$40,700 = $43,168; rounded to the nearest $50=$43,150. 7-3� Attachment 7 2005 Affordable Housing Standards Page 2 TABLE 1: 2005 ANNUAL INCOME LD41TS ($ INCOME NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD GROUP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 VERY LOW 21,600 24,700 27,750 30,850 33,300 35,800 38,250 40,700 LOWER 34,550 39,500 44,400 49,350 53,300 57,250 61,200 65,150 MEDIAN 43,200 49,350 55,500 61,700 66,650 71,550 76,500 81,450 MODERATE 51,850 59,250 66,650 74,050 79,950 85,900 91,800 97,750 How to Determine Affordable Rents or Sales Prices To determine affordable rents or sales prices, follow these three steps: 1) find the "income group" in Table 1, based on the number or persons in the household and gross annual household income; 2) determine the number of bedrooms in the dwelling to be bought, rented or sold; and 3) Use Table 2 to fmd the maximum affordable rent or sales price based on the income group and number of bedrooms. When the number of persons in the household is not known, the City's affordability standards for both rent and sales prices assume the following household sizes corresponding to the number of bedrooms in the dwelling: • Studio unit: use the income limit for a one-person household. • One-bedroom unit: use the income limit for a two-person household. • Two-bedroom unit: use the income limit for a three-person household. • Three-bedroom unit: use the average of limits for four and five-person households. • Four-bedroom unit: use the income limit for a six-person household Affordable Rent Limits The maximum monthly rents, including costs of utilities, to qualify as affordable housing are listed in Table 2. For example, the maximum monthly rent cost for a two-bedroom dwelling which is affordable to a lower-income household can be found in Table 2 by reading across the row labeled "Lower, Maximum Monthly Rent" and then finding $833 under the column heading "2-Bedroom." Rent limits are based on formulas set by State law (H&S Code 50053) and are computed as follows: • For very-low income households: Affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 50% of the annual median County household income for the number of persons expected to reside in the unit,divided by 12, and adjusted for household/unit size. 7- 3S� Attachment 7 2005 Affordable Housing Standards Page 3 • For lower-income households: Affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 60% of annual median County household income divided by 12, and adjusted for household/unit size. • For moderate-income households: Affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 110% of the annual median County household income divided by 12, and adjusted for household/unit size. Affordable Sales Prices The maximum sales prices for affordable housing are based on a formula that accounts for what a typical very-low income, low-income or moderate-income household can afford to pay for housing, following established guidelines. Sales price limits are determined by multiplying the annual income limit of the income group, adjusted for household size, by 2.5 for very-low and lower income households, and by 3 for moderate income households, rounded to the nearest $25. For example, the maximum sales price for a 2-bedroom dwelling would be 2.5 X $44,400= $111,000 for a three-person, lower-income household; and 3 X $66,650=$199,950 for a three-person, moderate-income household. TABLE 2: 2005 RENT/SALES AFFORDABILITY STANDARDS INCOME TENURE DWELLING SIZE GROUP STUDIO 1-BDRM 2-BDRM 3-BDRM 4-BDRM VERY LOW MAXIMUM $540 $617 $694 $802 $894 MONTHLY RENT MAXIMUM SALES $54,000 $61,750 $69,375 $80,200 $89,500 PRICE LOWER MAXIMUM $648 $740 $833 $963 $1,073 MoNTHLY RENT MAXIMUM SALES $86,375 $98,750 1111,000 $128,325 1143,125 PMUCE MODERATE MAXIMUM $1,188 $1,357 $1,526 $1,765 $1,968 MONTHLY RENT MAXIMUM SALES $155,550 $177,750 $199,950 $231,000 $257,700 PRICE Maximum rent shall include a reasonable allowance for utilities paid directly by tenant(gas, electricity, water,sewer,trash collection),but not cable TV or telephone. Sales prices may exceed these amounts only if the City determines that the down payment,plus buyer's closing costs and monthly payments (PrM excluding utilities over the life of the financing,provide a level of affordability equivalent to the maximum sales price financed at prevailing market terms. �- 3 � Attachment 7 2005 Affordable Housing Standards Page 4 Long-term Affordability Rental housing affordability is maintained through recorded agreements between a property owner and the City, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, or another housing provider approved by the City. These agreements shall specify: a) the maximum rents based on the same formula which established initial rent levels as a condition of City approval, or other formula approved by City;b) the term for which rental units must remain affordable; and c) terms under which affordability is maintained after sale or transfer of the property. Affordable dwelling units must remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years, or as otherwise required by State law. There are two different approaches to maintaining long-term. affordability: 1) the property owner agrees to maintain the designated dwelling unit as affordable for at least 30 years; or 2) the property owner agrees to participate in a "shared equity purchase program" as described in the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement. The decision on which approach to use is up to the affordable housing developer. Under the long-term affordability program, the housing must remain affordable for at least 30 years from the original date of sale or rental. Affordability terms are secured by a promissory note and deed of trust, recorded on the property prior to or concurrent with the initial occupancy (for rental units) or sale of the property. The promissory note is based on the monetary difference between the property's initial purchase price and its initial market value, and is an "affordability loan" or"silent second" payable to the City. The loan accrues interest at a rate set by the City.. Repayment of the affordability loan is waived as long as affordability requirements are met. For- sale properties must be owner-occupied, and may be sold or otherwise transferred only to eligible buyers and at prices deemed affordable under these standards. Upon resale, the City, its Housing Authority, or a non-profit agency approved by the City, retains the first right of refusal to purchase affordable properties at their then current-appraised value. Under the equity-sharing program, the buyer of an affordable dwelling enters into an agreementwith the city guaranteeing affordability for at least 6 years after the initial date of sale. Upon resale of the property, the agreement ensures that the City's equity share returns to the City for use in other affordable housing developments. The City's equity share is based on the difference between the property's market value and the actual price paid by the homeowner, divided by the market value; or the amount of subsidy provided by the city, divided by the property's market value. Affordable units sold before the sixth year are subject to an additional "Equity Recapture Fee" ranging from 25 to 100 Percent of the property's equity. (For more information, refer to the Inclusionary Housing Requirements, Ch. 17.91 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code) dd/LhousmWmWxnsaW5affordablehousmp=dards Rev.4/05 -7 -37 - Attachment 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.5420-05 THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECCOMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FOR TWENTY APARTMENTS AT 2975 ROCKVIEW PLACE APPLICATION NO. CON 1-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 11, 2005 for the purpose of considering Application No. CON 1-05, a request to approve a Condominium Conversion for 20 apartments known as. Rockview Heights at 2975 Rockview Place; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made atthe time and. in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA);and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings; 1. The proposed condominium conversion is consistent with the General Plan because changing the apartments to condominiums will not impact available affordable housing since the conversion will provide a deed restricted affordable unit consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the other units are affordable by design. 2. As conditioned, the conversion complies with the property improvement standards for Condominium Conversions. 3. As stated in the applicant's property condition report, the property is in satisfactory condition and a report of any known defects will be made available to future property owners and kept on file at the City. 4: Based on a staff review of the application materials, a visit to the site and a review of City records, the property is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Code in terms of allowed use, density, parking, yard areas, building height, and all other applicable_ property development standards. 5. In. accordance with the Condominium conversion standards the applicant has appropriately delivered a notice of intent to convert to each tenant. -7- 39 Attachment 8 Resolution No. 5420-05 Page 2 . with property development standards are appropriate for conversion to individual ownership units and will result in a quality living environment for future property owners. 7. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (K) the conversion of multiple family residences into condominiums is categorically exempt from environmental review.. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Application No. CON 1-05, a request to convert twenty apartment units at 2975 Rockview Place to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code 17.82, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a tentative parcel map as defined by the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Condominium Conversions). The tentative parcel map shall be subject to (but not limited to)the following conditions of approval: a. Each unit shall be supplied with individual meters for gas, water and electrical service. Location and type of metering shall be subject to review and approval of the City. b. Any building defects noted in the property condition report submitted to the City shall be repaired prior to approval of the final condominium map. c. Any improvements necessary to comply with the property improvement standards for condominium conversions (Chapter 17.82.110 A through O) shall be completed prior to approval of the final condominium map. Such improvements include (but may not be limited to): private open space yards, bicycle storage lockers, retrofitting units with additional energy compliance requirements such as increased insulation or insulated windows, restoration and refurbishing of landscape areas, installation of common area improvements, installation of smoke detectors and fire protection systems,or repair and upgrades of parking areas. d. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. The C.C.&R.s shall include a description and regulations pertaining to the open space easement and all common areas. e. If pertinent, the tentative map shall reflect the location of all any overhead and underground utilities. f. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. 'The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land .surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. g. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 7 ' 3� Attachment 8 Resolution No.5420-05 Page 3 lease shall have the right to remain not less than 330 days from the written notice of intent to convert. 3. After su_bminal of the tentative map,prospective tenants shall be given a written notice of intent to convert prior to leasing or renting any unit. 4. Applicant shall give any present tenant a non-transferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied. This right of first refusal shall extend at least ninety days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. The tenants security deposit and last months rent shall be credited towards the purchase of the property. 5. A barbeque facility including a picnic bench and landscape enhancements shall be incorporated into the common open space area. The design of the improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. The improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the final condominium map. 6. Private open space yards shall be increased in size to exceed the minimum requirements for each unit. Private open space yards, including new fencing and any other necessary landscape improvements, shall be completed prior to recordation.of.a final map. 7. .Solar water heating shall be provided for each unit, and appropriate easements shall be provided for collector locations. The Community Development Director may waive the requirement for solar water heating in cases where the Chief Building Official has determined that equivalent energy saving will be obtained by other means. 8. A minimum of one unit, of average size and quality, shall be deed restricted to moderate affordable levels for a minimum of 30 years, consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The unit shall be deed restricted upon recordation of the final condominium map prior to sale of the property. On motion by Commissioner Loh, and seconded by Commissioner Aiken on the following roll call vote: AYES:Aiken, Boswell, Carter,Loh, Miller Osborne, NOES: Christianson REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this I Vh day of May 2005. onal _ 'senan Secretary Planning Commission by: 7�� Attachment 9 PLANNING COND41SSION RESOLUTION NO . 5421-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECCOMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDOM04R M CONVERSION FOR 77 APARTMENTS AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (1778 THROUGH 1796 TONINI DRIVE) APPLICATION NO. CON 25-05 WHEREAS,.the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 11; 2005. for the purpose of considering Application No. CON 25-05, a request for a Condominium Conversion for 77 apartments known as Rancho Obispo Apartments at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive; and WBEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section,1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings to deny the conversion request: 1. The proposed condominium conversion is not consistent with the General Planbecause changing the apartments to condominiums will displace existing tenants and may reduce the level of affordability for the majority of the apartment units. 2. The conversion does not comply with the property improvement standards for Condominium Conversions since the private open space areas are too small and do not allow for privacy. 3. The conversion conflicts with the intent of the Planned Development zoning for De Vaul Ranch since the planned development was designed to provide for a mixture of housing types and tenure. Conversion of apartments to condominiums will reduce the tenure mixture and allow ownership units to be the dominant housing type. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning:Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council denial of Application No. CON 25-05, a request to convert seventy-seven (77) apartment units at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code 17.82, Attachment 9 Resolution No.5421-05 Page 2 On motion by Commissioner Carter, and seconded by Loh on the following roll call vote: AYES: Aiken,Boswell, Carter, Christianson,Loh,Miller, Osborne NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11ffi day of May 2005. Ronal � senan Secretary Planning Commission by: -7- �Zr ` PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment 10 RESOLUTION NO.5422-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FOR 110 OF 168 APARTMENTS AT 1017 THROUGH 1043 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE APPLICATION NO. CON 29-05 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing.in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street-, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 11, 2005 for the purpose of considering Application No. CON 29-05, a request to allow a Condominium Conversion for 168 apartments known as Parkwood Village Apartments at 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following. findings: 1. The proposed condominium conversion consisting of 1.10 apartment units (out of 168 existing units) is consistent with the General Plan because changing the apartments to condominiums will not impact available affordable housing since the conversion will provide deed restricted affordable units consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The existing affordable housing units (Section 8 units) would not be affected by the conversion and would continue to remain affordable as currently contracted. 2. The proposed conversion is consistent with the annual limits for the conversion of apartments to condominiums. 3. As conditioned, the conversion will substantially comply with the property improvement standards for Condominium Conversions with the exception of private open space yards. 4. As stated in the applicant's property condition report, the property is in satisfactory condition and a report of any known defects will be made available to future property owners and kept on file at the City. 5. Based on a staff review of the application materials, a visit to the site and a review of City records, the property is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Code in terms of allowed use, density, parking, yard areas, building height, and all other applicable Attachment 10 Resolution No.5422-05 Page 2 FLUPUILY 6. In accordance with the Condominium conversion standards the applicant has appropriately delivered a notice of intent to convert to each tenant. 7. The existing apartments, due to location, design, condition, and general conformance with property development standards are appropriate for conversion to individual ownership units and will result in a satisfactory living environment for future property owners. 8. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (K) the conversion of multiple family residences into condominiums is categorically exempt from environmental review.. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the conversion of 110 apartment units for application No. CON 29- 05; at 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code 17.82, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a tentative parcel map as defined by the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Condominium Conversions). The tentative parcel map shall be subject to (but not limited to) the following conditions of approval: a. If not already existing, each unit shall be supplied with individual meters for gas, water and electrical service. Location and type of metering shall be subject to review and approval of the City. b. A complete property condition report shall be made available to the City along With the application for a tentative map. Any building defects noted in the property condition report submitted to the City shall be repaired prior to approval of the final condominium map. c. Any improvements necessary to comply with the property improvement standards for condominium conversions (Chapter 17.82.110 A through 0) shall be completed prior to approval of the final condominium map. Such improvements include (but may not be limited to) private open space yards, bicycle storage lockers, retrofitting units with additional energy compliance requirements such as increased'insulation, restoration and refurbishing of landscape areas, installation of common area improvements, installation of smoke detectors and fire protection systems,or repair and upgrades of parking areas. d. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and.the Public Works Director. The C.C.&R.s shall include a description and regulations pertaining to the open space easement and all common areas. e. If pertinent, the tentative map shall reflect the location of all any overhead and underground utilities. f. The subdivider shall subrnit .a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.' The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. g. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from 7-(/y Attachment 10 Resolution No. 5422-05 Page 3 employees to attack, set aside, void or.annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.. I Each non-purchasing tenant not in default under the provisions of the rental agreement or lease shall have the right to remain not less than 300 days from the written notice of intent to convert. The 300 days shall. commence no sooner than final City Council approval of the conversion. 3. After submittal of the tentative map,prospective tenants shall be given a written notice of intent to convert prior to leasing or renting any unit. 4. Applicant shall give any present tenant a non-transferable right of fust refusal to purchase the unit occupied. This right of first refusal shall extend at least ninety days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. The tenants security deposit and last months rent shall_ be credited towards the purchase of the property: 5. The parking lot areas shall"be reconstructed and or resurfaced as necessary. 6. 5% of the apartment units to be converted (5% of 168 = 8 units) shall be deed restricted as affordable to persons who meet very low-income criteria for a minimum of 30 years, consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The units shall be deed restricted upon recordation of the final condominium map prior to sale of the property. The existing section 8 affordable units can not be included towards the 5% requirement, and must remain as affordable units applicable to current agreement through 2018. Informational note:The applicant may bank this allocation of 110 conversion units to.acquire.a greater number of conversion opportunities over several years. As an option, any number of units, up to 110 for 2005, may be converted and a map may be processed to allow incremental sales of units each year. This approval does not constitute or guarantee approvals for additional conversions in the future, since a new application for a condominium conversion will need to be - reviewed each year and the conversion request may be in competition with other applications that may be submitted to the City. The open filing period for condominium conversions runs through the months of January and February each year. '—YS_ l Attachment 10 Resolution No.5422-05 Page 4 On motion by Commissioner Loh, and seconded by Commissioner Osborne on the following roll call vote: AYES: Aiken, Boswell,Miller, Loh,Osborne NOES: Christianson,Carter REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1 Ph day of May 2005. Ronald Whisen d, Secretary Planning Commission by: Attachment 11 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2005 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San .Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Vice Chair, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Andrew Carter, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairman Michael Boswell Absent: None Commissioner Carlyn Christianson was 15 minutes late, arriving at 7:15 p.m. Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, .Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Kim Main ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of April 13, 2005 were approved as amended and the minutes of April 27; 2005 were accepted as presented. PUBLIC-COMMENTS-ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 2005 Requests to convert various apartments to air-spacecondominiums: a. 2975 Rockview Place. CON 1-05: Conversion of 20 apartment units to air-space condominiums including a common lot; R-2-S zone; Weatherford & Russell, applicant. (Phil Dunmore) Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending the Commission recommend the City Council approve the 20-unit condominium conversion at 2975 Rockview Place. Attachment 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2005 Page 2 Pamela Jardini, applicant's representative, noted that this project site has been inspected, the units are in excellent condition, and the project meets the affordable housing requirements. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Kimberly Bindant, 2975 Rockview Place, expressed_ concerns that approval of this project may cause rental rates to increase. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Christianson could not support the project, noting the concerns that the conversion was not consistent with the General Plan and would result.in increased rents and in fewer rental housing options for lower-income residents. Vice-Chair Aiken expressed his concerns with the cost of association fees and affordability for low-income housing, relating to all three items. Commr. Loh moved to recommend to the City Council, approval .of the Rockview Heights proiect and that a sound study be conducted and made available. before conversion subdivision hearings begin. Seconded by Commr..Aiken. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Carter, Aiken, Miller, Loh, and Osborne NOES: Commr. Christianson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 :1 vote b. 1.1955 Los_Osos Valley Road. CON 25-05: Request to convert 77 apartments to air-space condominiums including a common lot; R-3-PD zone; Ventura-Duval South LP, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the- Commission heCommission recommend to the City Council, approval of the condominium conversion Of 77 units at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive. Mandiy Rake, applicant (Hertel and Sons) explained the proposed conversion and presented a design of the combined open space that would be shared with residents; noted that all units would have a private courtyard, and commented that there is currently a 30% vacancy rate at this site. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Delmartini suggested lowering rent to increase the occupancy and expressed concerns about the construction defects. -, Attachment 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2005 Page 3 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission noted that the private open spaces (small patios) did not comply with the Condominium Standards and that the recently built project was not originally constructed to be condominiums and that the present mixture of housing at the planned development (DeVaul Ranch) should remain. Commissioners felt that the present high vacancy rate was due to high rents. Commr. Carter moved to deny the Rancho Obispo conversion request.- Seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Comm_rs. Boswell, Carter, Aiken, Miller; Loh, Christianson, and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote C. 1017 Southwood Drive. CON 29-05: Request to convert 168 apartments to air- space condominiums, including a common lot; R-3-PD zone; Hamish Marshall - Westpac, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend the City Council partially approve the project, and that the City allow-the applicant to "bank" 33 apartments units towards a complete condominium conversion at 1017 through 1043 Southwood in the future with the applicant to return to the City annually for review of additional units. PUBLIC.COMMENTS:. Dan Erdman, 1037 Southwood Drive Unit D, supported this project but expressed his concerns with the Parkwood Village condominium conversion. He suggested re-paving the parking area, a new roof; the old water service connections be replaced and new paint on all retaining walls. Patrick.Smith, owner of Parkwood Village, stated that he has painted, and improved the open "space areas of the Parkwood Village. He questioned what the City considers affordable housing, stating this would include a 34=unit gift to the City for affordable housing: He suggested the City ordinance be changed to allow all of the units to be converted in 2005. Lori Hauser 1025 Southwood Drive, supported the conversion, noting her concern with keeping this project as low-income housing. Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 11 May 11, 2005 Page 4 Jim Howe, 1027 Southwood Drive asked questions regarding Section 8 housing, noting his concern with where the tenants would relocate to. Chris Parker, 1025 Southwood Drive, opposed the conversion project, noting that she is disabled and could not afford to move if her rent was increased. Pat Simmons, 1033 Southwood Drive, opposed the project, expressing her concerns with rent increases and the many families who would be displaced. Pam Hughes,1025 Southwood Drive, supported the project and suggested keeping it affordable. George Bolin, 2684 Johnson Avenue, supported the project noting that it will increase the number of units for affordable housing. He suggested that rental rates be lowered if there are multiple vacancies, and suggested changing the City ordinance to allow the complete conversion this year. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION-COMMENTS: . Commr. Miller expressed concerns with keeping this project affordable, and recommended improvements to the roof, parking lot and water service. Several Commissioners expressed appreciation for the applicant's desire to provide affordable sales units and felt that a gift of 34' units to the Housing Authority was a valuable gesture that outweighed the apartment projects inability to comply with the condominium standards (lack of privateopen space). Commr. Christianson could not support the project, noting the concerns that the conversion was not consistent with the General Plan and would result in increased rents and in fewer rental housing options for lower-income residents. Commr. Carter was concerned that the project did not meet the minimum standards for outdoor private open space and also could not support the project.. The commissioners who supported the conversion felt that all 168 units should be converted and that the existing annual numerical limits should be amended to allow the conversion since the City has not converted apartments to condominiums in over 10 years. It was agreed that the only way to allow additional units this year was to amend the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. On motion- by- Commr._ Loh to recommend the Council allow -the remaining .2005 conversion-credits (1.10__units) be allowed for Parkwood Village. Apartments. Seconded by Commt. Miller. - Attachment 12 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Philip Dunmore; Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: May 11,2005 FROM: Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director- Development Revie- FILE NUMBERS: CON 1-05, CON 25-05, CON 29-05 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 2975 Rockview (CON 1-05), 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive (CON 25-05) and 1017 through.1043 Southwood Drive (CON 29-05). SUBJECT: Consideration of the 2005 condominium conversion applications involving.three existing multi-family rental apartment properties at 2975 Rockview; 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive (formerly known as 11955 Los Osos Valley Road) and 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolutions which recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve a condominium conversion for 2975 Rockview (20 units). 2. Approve a condominium conversion for 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive (77 units). 3. Allow the applicant to "bank" .33 apartment units towards a complete condominium conversion for 1017 through 1043 Southwood in the future with the applicant to return to the City annually for review of additional units. BACKGROUND Situation The City has a process to consider annual requests to convert rental apartment properties to"for sale" condominiums. This year the City has received three such requests. The process for applying and considering conversion requests,_is contained in Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code (Attachment 3): Condo conversions are acted on by the City Council following_ a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The City's Condo Conversion Regulations establish numerical limits for condominiums that may be converted annually. The limits are based on half the number of multi-family rental dwelling units added to the City's housing stock in the previous year and are intended to protect the City's important stock of rental housing. In 2004, 260 multi-family rental apartments were added to the City's housing stock; therefore, 130 condominiums may be converted in 2005. Combined, the three applications exceed the annual limits with a request to convert a total of 265 units. When the requests exceed the numerical limits, the code establishes a ranking criterion to assist the Planning Commission in evaluating which conversion projects should be forwarded to the City Attachment 12 CON 1-05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 May 11,2005 Page 2 Council for approval. Staff has ranked each of the projects and evaluated each for required condominium standards. The primary focus of the Planning Commission's review will be to assist in this ranking which will insure that the highest quality project receives the most support. EVALUATION Residential Condominium Conversion Standards The Condo Conversion regulations which were established in 1983 are primarily intended to insure that conversion projects are; 1) 'consistent with condominium property development standards; and 2) insure that conversions do not result in a shortage of rental housing. Additionally, the standards are designed.to alert the current renters. of the apartment complex and provide information and some protection for prospective buyers as to the condition of the units and common area. Applicants are required to submit a report on the condition of the buildings and.site, and must also comply with provisions intended to protect the rights of tenants during the conversion process. One of the key limitations of the City's Condo Conversion Regulations is the maximum number of conversions that can be approved in any given year. In order to insure that the City maintains an adequate and growing stock of needed rental housing, the. City's regulations limit the total number of condo conversions to one half of the multi-family units built the previous year. As stated above, there were a total of 260 apartment units added to the City's rental housing stock in 2004. Therefore no more than 130 conversions can be considered for.2005. When the City receives applications to convert more condominiums than the limits allow, a ranking system is to be utilized (Section 17.82.120 c). The procedures to implement the ranking system were adopted by Planning Commission resolution in 1983 (Attachment 4). An important component of the system is input (support or opposition) from the current tenants of the apartment complex proposed for conversion. A conversion request with a large number of protests would obviously rank lower than one where limited opposition exists. The City staff polled the tenants of each of the apartment projects in an effort to determine the opinion of the conversion (Attachment 5)..The poll was administered by mailing a survey to each of the tenants with a return postage paid envelope back to the City. Utilizing the survey and other criteria that compare the projects to the condominium standards, staff has prepared ranking charts for each of the projects (Attachment 7). The rankings will be discussed in more detail in the analysis of each conversion as discussed below. If a conversion is approved by the City Council, the applicant must then submit a separate application for a parcel or tract map which would require an additional review process. No maximum time limit for processing the tentative map is specified in the regulations. ?'S Z Attachment 12 CON 1-05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 May 11,2005 Page 3 General Plan Consistency There are no General Plan Policies which differentiate rental vs. ownership housing. During the last revision of the Housing Element, the only remaining such policy was removed due to a lack of concern over regulating ownership vs. rental housing. It is also important to note that the City is currently experiencing a surplus in the amount of rental units available and there have been no requests to convert apartments to condominiums in over 10 years. There are, however, General Plan Policies that promote the preservation of affordable housing. The following General Plan Policies need to be taken into consideration when reviewing the proposed conversions. LU 2.5:Affordable Housing The City will help conserve and increase residential opportunities for residents with very low, low, or moderate incomes. As explained more fully in the Housing Element, each development project should contribute in some way to the conservation.or production of affordable housing, considering the opportunities and limitations for the project. The major residential expansion areas, in particular, should include a wide range of housing types and costs to meet the needs of various income levels and housing preferences. H 4.2.2:Aparhnents and Condominium Projects Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate units. The Condo Conversion Regulations are designed to specifically prevent the displacement of low and moderate income persons by requiring affordable housing provisions to be incorporated into the conversion. At a minimum, condominium conversions are subject to. the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements which require a percentage of the units to be deed restricted to affordable housing standards for a minimum of 30 years. The affordable housing requirements must be administered at the time of the conversion in addition to maintaining any affordable agreements that already may exist for the subject rental apartment project. For example, if an apartment project is currently offering a percentage of rental units as affordable rental units as a previous City agreement, these units would not count towards the conversion requirements and additional units would.have to be deed restricted upon approval of a tentative map and the existing units would have to remain as affordable units. Therefore, the condominium regulations insure consistency with General Plan Policy by.requiring a satisfactory number of affordable housing opportunities. Property Development Standards The condo conversion regulations require that a project "substantially comply" with the City's building and housing codes and Zoning Regulations in effect on the date the conversion project is approved. Although it is probably not possible to review each structure for strict compliance with the Building code, each unit needs to be inspected for safety hazards, pest and termite Attachment 12 CON 1-05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 May 11,2005 Page 4 damage, appropriate insulated windows, required heating and cooling systems, and separately metered utilities. Zoning compliance includes an analysis of parking areas, building coverage, height, yards, and project density. The results of how each conversion complies are outlined below. Proieet analvsis The following section evaluates the condominium conversions individually in terms of the required project ranking criteria, zoning and building conformance,. and overall project compliance with the condominium conversion standards, Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code, Data Summary Address: 2975 Rockview Place Number of-units: 20 2-bedroom_ units Applicant: Weatherford& Russell Representative: Pam.Jardini Zoning: Medium Density Residential Special Considerations (R72-S) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental status: Condominium conversions of existing apartments are exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15301 k, "Existing Facilities",of CEQA. Situation The applicant is proposing conversion of all twenty of the existing duplex apartments known as Rockview Heights. The project was constructed as apartments in 1984. The apartments consist of ten duplex apartments situated at the base of the South Street Hills on the west side of Rockview Place adjacent to the Stoneridge development. It is a 1.9 acre property, with a portion of the site zoned open space abutting the hillside. The units are within the R-2-S district and conform to current zoning standards in terms of building height, yards, density and use. Each two bedroom unit has a-separate entrance and two-story floor plan with a small private balcony.. A separate laundry area within an enclosed building is located amongst the units adjacent to a .small common open space area near the.center of the property. In order to comply with the condominium standards, the applicant intends to construct fenced in rear yard areas for each of the units in addition to supplying bicycle lockers. The applicant has also agreed to add amenities such as a barbecue and picnic area to the common open space. The applicant intends to sell one of the units as affordable therefore meeting the minimum affordable housing requirement. Due to the age of the apartments, no affordable units or Inclusionary housing fees were required when originallyconstructed in 1984. This project ranked the highest of the three applications due to the available common andprivate open space (see Attachment 7). It is also important to note that four out of six of the tenants who responded to the conversion opinion survey supported conversion of the units to condominiums. Attachment 12 CON 1=05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 May 11,2005 Page 5 The applicant also intends to allow tenants additional time to relocate(150 days in addition to the 180 day minimum) following approval of the condominium conversion, therefore increasing points on the ranking system: Since this project will most closely meet the condominium standards and conforms to current zoning standards, staff is conditionally supportive of the conversion. Project conditions require construction of private and common open space improvements, the addition of bicycle lockers, repair and upgrade of any deficiencies noted in the property inspection reports, and deed restriction of an affordable housing unit, consistent with City Policy. The applicant would also have to install separate utilities (gas, water and electrical meters) for each of the units. A resolution to support the conversion is included as Attachment 9. Data Summary Address: 1778 through 1796 Tonini (formerly 11955 Los Osos Valley Road) Number of units: 16 1-bedroom units and 61 2-bedroom units Applicant: Ventura-Duval South LP Representative: Hertel & Sons (Mandi Raike) Zoning: Medium High Density Residential, Planned Development (R-3-PD) General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Environmental status: Condominium conversions of existing apartments are exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15301 k, "Existing Facilities", of the CEQA guidelines. Situation. The applicant is proposing conversion of 77 apartment units at the location formerly known as DeVaul Ranch South. .The 77 units, currently known as Rancho Obispo apartments, are located between Los Osos Valley Road and Tonini drive adjacent to DeVaul Ranch Drive. The property is 1.8 acres in size and relatively flat. A common open space area near the center of the development includes a spa and lawn area and small children's play structure. The apartments were constructed last year (1994) and were only recently completed. Large percentages (approximately 28) of the 77 units are still vacant and have not yet been occupied. Because of the recent construction, the project complies with current zoning standards and is in relatively new condition with very few defects. However, staff has acknowledged complaints regarding the quality of the design of the apartment project from several existing tenants. The Zoning of the property is R-3-PD and this property is part of a larger planned development that includes a mixture of housing types. The Planned Development ordinance approved for DeVaul Ranch does not limit the conversion of apartments to condominiums. In order to comply with the condominium conversion standards, the applicant will be constructing covered parking in the form of carports, and providing private open space yards in the form of small ground-level fenced areas adjoining each of the units. As constructed, the 7- SSS Attachment 12 CON 1-05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 May 11,2005 Page 6 apartments do not have qualifying private open space. The small patio or deck on each apartment seconds as the front door access, therefore greatly reducing the usable amount of private open space. The applicant intends to develop plans that will show how the private open space yards will comply with the minimum private open space standards for condominiums. The e applicant's private open space design will be presented at the Planning Commission hearing. The Rancho Obispo apartments currently have an affordable housing requirement of 15%. 13 of the rental apartment units are currently deed restricted as affordable units. The requirement at this location is higher than other locations since it is considered a City expansion area With the conversion application, the project is subject to an additional 15% requirement based on the remaining 64 units that are not currently deed restricted. The applicant will be required to deed restrict 6 additional units as moderately affordable and 3.additional units as affordable to persons who meet low-income criteria (see Attachment 8, affordable housing standards). This would result in an ownership condominium project with 55 market rate units and 22 affordable units (29% affordable). The applicant has tentatively agreed to the affordable housing requirements. The percentage of affordable housing units that will be offered for sale adds to the ranking of this project and brings it to a number 2 status out of the three conversion projects (see Attachment 6). Staff is conditionally supportive of the conversion of this project subject to the supply of appropriate private open space areas, construction of covered parking that meets the City's design requirements and the provision of affordable housing as discussed above. The applicant would also have to comply with the City Utility department's requirements for water meters for each of the units. The installation of meters may require extensive and invasive plumbing work. A resolution recommending approval of the conversion, subject to conditions, has been included as Attachment 10. Data Summary Address: 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive Number of units: 10 studios, 30 1-bedroom units and 128 2-bedroom units Applicant: Westpac' Representative: Hamish Marshall Zoning: Medium High Density Residential, Planned Development(R-3-PD) General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Environmental status: Condominium conversions of existing apartments are exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15301 k, "Existing Facilities", of the CEQA. guidelines. Situation This application proposes to convert 168 apartment units to ownership condominiums. The apartments are known as Parkwood Village, located on.Southwood Drive near the entrance to Sinsheimer Park. The apartments were constructed between 1985 and 1987 on a 7.5 acre site. Fourteen separate buildings contain a mixture of studios, one, and two bedroom apartment units. Attachment 12 CON 1-05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 May 11,2005 Page 7 A clubhouse and pool area serves as common open space near the center of the property. 384 parking spaces, 31% of which are covered, are dispersed throughout the site. Many of the units have built in laundry facilities and all of the units already have individual separately metered utilities. 20% of the existing apartments (or 34 units) are currently managed by the Housing Authority as affordable units under contract until July 1, 2018. These 34 units are available to families who qualify for Section 8 housing. Section 8 qualifications include income limits which are 50% or less of median County income. These affordable rental units would continue being managed by the Housing Authority following conversion and would continue their affordable status until .2018. It has not been determined whether the units would continue to be rented or offered as affordable.units by the property owner or sold as market rate condominiums. The applicant has submitted two options to the City in order to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The first option proposes to offer 5% of the project to very low income sales to the public in addition to maintaining the commitment of 34 affordable units that will be .managed by the Housing Authority. The second option proposesto permanently deed nine of the 34 existing affordable units (5% of the project) to the Housing Authority as a contribution to affordable housing in exchange for the conversion. In exchange for the gift, the applicant is asking for credit towards open space fees in the amount of$540,000 for other future projects, in addition to conversion of the entire apartment project to condominiums. Staff is supportive of option 1, since it complies with the affordable housing standards and treats the project consistently with the other conversions. Therefore, the affordable housing requirement acceptable to staff is 5% of the project (deed restricted as affordable for 30 years) and the existing 34 units will continue to be managed by the Housing Authority as Section 8 units until 2018. In order to boost the ranking of the proposed conversion the applicant is willing to construct additional covered parking and storage areas. As constructed, the apartments substantially comply with current zoning standards and have an ample supply of parking spaces. Private open spaces (decks and patios) are very small and below minimum standards for a condominium. There are few, if any, options to increase the size of the private open space. The condition of the apartments has an overall rating of"average" as determined in the property inspection report and repairs and upgrades are currently in progress. Staffs overview of the site found that asphalt paving will need to be resurfaced in the parking areas and general repairs such as dryrot and termite damage will need to be performed on some of the units. Specific correspondence from one of the tenants regarding the condition of the property is attached (Attachment 6). Several characteristics make this apartment complex unique: it is the largest family oriented apartment complex in the City; its approval required changes to the City's General Plan and Zoning Map from medium to medium—high density residential; and its design and location near a park, elementary school, and neighborhood shopping center make it ideally suited for those persons often not able to purchase a home or find suitable rental housing such as young couples, ��5 7 Attachment -12 CON 1-05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 . May 11,2005 Page 8 single parents, and those with low or moderate incomes who wish to live in the City. Due to its size and amenities, the project received considerable support from staff and the City Council when it was approved in 1984. The project was approved with the following exceptions and incentives: 1. General Plan amendment from Medium (R-2) to Medium High (R-3-PD) density residential. 2. Planned Development (R-3-PD) approval allowed additional density and flexible development standards. 3. An I I% density bonus was granted to allow more units than normally allowed in the R-3 district. 4. Exceptions were granted under the monthly building permit limits in effect at the time to allow quicker buildout of the project. 5. $10,000,000 in mortgage revenue bonds were issued by the SLO Housing Authority to provide tax exempt financing for the developer. 6. Park in Lieu fees were deferred to allow payments to be made to the City over a 12-year period, rather than a lump sum at the time of occupancy. These exceptions and incentives were provided in order to develop a large number of multi- family rental units which, at the time, were highly sought after. In 1988, approximately two years following the completion of the apartment units the property owners applied to the City for a condominium conversion. At that. time, the conversion request was denied based on the project's design, the findings and intent of previous City approvals and assistance, and its importance as a major concentration of affordable, convenient rental housing. At that time, staff felt that its importance as rental housing project was in the best interest of the community. Have the housing conditions and project criteria changed to allow conversion? Currently, this conversion request ranked lowest of the three projects reviewed by staff due to limited ability to comply with private open space standards and a high percentage of persons objecting to the conversion. Out of 68 surveys returned to the City, 45 objected to the conversion. Some tenants agreed to the conversion under certain conditions, such as repair of asphalt and other site upgrades. Since this project alone requests to convert more units than are allowed by code annually, a complete conversion could not be offered to the applicant even in the absence of other requests. The only way the Commission and Council could support conversion of this project would be to do so in phases. If acceptable to the Commission, the applicant could apply and compete annually for conversions until the entire 168 units could be converted. The applicant could therefore "bank" the conversions until the total is reached. This year, the applicant could be allowed a credit of 33 units. It is important to note that it may take several years to complete the conversion since, in an average year, the City typically only produces about 50 multi family units and only half that number may be converted in the following year. However, this process would allow tenants of the project additional time to consider purchasing their units or finding alternative housing. The 7` � - Attachment 12 CON 1=05,CON 25-05,CON 29-05 May 11,M05 Page 9 staff recommended resolution for Parkwood village allows for the conversion of 3.3 units this year and allows the applicant to return to the City in January of 2006 to apply for additional conversion entitlements. There would be no guarantee that additional conversions would be allowed every year since this project would be ranked alongside, other potential conversion applications and limited by the maximum conversion limits. The applicant could either choose to file the tentative map now for the 33 condominium units or- wait rwait until the entire project could be converted. Prior to recording a map for this phase of conversions, the applicant would be required to deed restrict the corresponding required number of affordable housing units (i.e. 33 units would require 5% or 2 units). Conclusion Recent changes in the housing market have increased the surplus of rental properties and encouraged rental apartment owners to explore the option of.ownership units. 2004 produced a record number of multi-family rental units primarily due to the construction of apartments at DeVaul Ranch. Over the past 10 years, approximately 487 multi-family units have been created in the City. Although the code does not allow the City to roll over unused conversion credits on an annual basis, it is important for the.Planning Commission to uriderstand.that no condominium conversions have been granted in over 10 years. Other than actually modifying the adopted condominium standards, however, there are no provisions to allow the City to convert more units on an annual basis than the code allows. Considering the amount of testimony that may occur due to. the requests, the Planning Commission may wish to review the ranking criteria, listen to the public and applicants testimony and continue the conversion requests for disposition at a later date. The Planning Commission's final determination will be a recommendation to the City Council, and following City Council's approval successful applicants will need to return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and action on a required Tentative Parcel Map to create the ownership properties. ALTERNATIVES 1. Consider applicants and public testimony and continue review of the requests to convert the apartments to condominiums. 2. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny one or more of the proposed requests, based on findings of inconsistency with the Condominium Conversion Standards or the General Plan as specified by the Planning.Commission. Attached: 1. Vicinity Maps 2. Project site plans 3. Municipal Code Chapter 17.8.2 4..Ranking System adopted by Planning Commission resolution in 1984 Attachment 1: RESOLUTION fQA" RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FOR TWENTY APARTMENTS AT 2975 ROCKVIEW PLACE APPLICATION NO. CON 1-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 11, 2005 and recommended approval of Application No. CON 1-05, a request to approve a Condominium Conversion for 20 apartments known as Rockview Heights at 2975 Rockview Place; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall,. 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 19; 2005 to consider Application No. CON 1.-05, a request to approve a Condominium Conversion for 20 apartments known as Rockview Heights at 2975 Rockview Place; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and .the evaluation and recommendations by staff and the Planning Commission, presented at said hearing.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed condominium conversion is consistent with the General Plan because changing the apartments to condominiums will not impact available affordable housing since the conversion will provide a deed restricted affordable unit consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the other units are affordable by design. 2. As conditioned, the conversion complies with the property improvement standards for Condominium Conversions. 3. As stated in the applicant's property condition report, the property is in satisfactory condition and a report of any known defects will be made available to future property owners and kept on file at the City. 4. Based on a staff review of the application materials, a visit to the site and a review of City records, the property is is substantial compliance with the Zoning Code in terms of allowed use, density, parking; yafd areas; building height, and all other applicable 7�.6 Resolution No. [ ] Attachment 13 Page 2 property development standards. 5. In accordance with the Condominium conversion standards the applicant has appropriately delivered a notice of intent to convert to each tenant. 6. The existing apartments, due to location, design, condition, and general conformance with property development standards are appropriate for conversion to individual ownership units and will result in a quality living environment for future property owners. 7. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (K) the conversion of multiple family residences into condominiums is categorically exempt from environmental review. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby approves Application No. CON 1-05, a request to convert twenty apartment units at 2975 Rockview Place to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code 17.82, subject to the following- conditions: ollowingconditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a tentative parcel map as defined by the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Condominium Conversions). The tentative parcel map shall be subject to (but:not limited to) the following conditions of approval: a. Each unit shall be supplied with individual meters for gas, water and electrical service. Location and type of metering shall be subject to review and approval of the City- b. Any building defects noted in the property condition report submitted to the City shall be repaired prior to approval of the final condominium map. c. Any improvements necessary to comply with the property improvement standards for condominium conversions (Chapter 17.82.110 A through O) shall be completed prior to approval of the final condominium map. Such improvements include (but may not be limited to): private open space yards, bicycle storage lockers; retrofitting units with additional energy compliance requirements such as increased insulation or insulated windows, restoration and refurbishing of landscape areas,installation of common area improvements, installation of smoke detectors and fire protection systems, or repair and upgrades of parking areas.. d. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. The C.C.&R.s shall include:a description and regulations pertaining to the open space easement and all common areas. e. If pertinent, the tentative map shall reflect the location of all any overhead and underground utilities. f. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance. with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations: g. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1),.the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory Resolution No. [ ] Attachment 13 Page 3 agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Each non-purchasing tenant not in default under the provisions of the rental agreement or lease shall have the right to remain not less than 330 days from the written notice of intent to convert. 3. After submittal of the tentative map, prospective tenants shall be given a written notice of intent to convert prior to leasing or renting any unit. 4. Applicant shall give any present tenant a non-transferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied. This right of first refusal shall extend at least ninety days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. The tenants security deposit and last months rent shall be credited towards the purchase of the property. 5. A barbeque facility including a picnic bench and landscape enhancements shall be incorporated into the common open space area. The design of the improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. The improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation.of the final condominium map. 6. Private open space yards shall be increased in size to exceed the minimum requirements for each unit. Private open space yards, including new fencing and any other necessary landscape improvements, shall be completed prior to recordation of a final map.. 7. Solar water heating shall be provided for each unit, and appropriate easements shall be provided for collector locations. The Community Development Director may waive the requirement for solar water heating in cases where the Chief Building Official has determined that equivalent energy saving will be obtained by other means. 8. A minimum of one unit, of average size and quality, shall be deed restricted to moderate affordable levels for a minimum of 30 years, consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The unit. shall be deed restricted upon recordation of the final condominium map prior to sale of the property. 7� Z 13 Resolution No. [ J Page 4 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed.and adopted this day of , 2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST:. Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon well, City Attorney �3 Attachment 14 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.NIM-05 RESOLUTION"B" A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FOR 77 APARTMENTS AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (1778 THROUGH 1796 TONINI DRIVE) APPLICATION NO. CON 25-05 WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 11, 2005 and recommended denial of Application No. CON 25-05, a request for a Condominium Conversion for 77 apartments known as Rancho Obispo Apartments at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 19, 2005 to consider Application No. CON 25-05, a request fora Condominium Conversion for 77 apartments known as Rancho Obispo Apartments at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings to deny the conversion request; 1. The proposed condominium conversion is not consistent with the General Plan because changing the apartments to condominiums will displace existing tenants and may reduce the level of affordability for the majority of the apartment units. 2. The conversion does. not comply with the property improvement standards for Condominium Conversions since the private open space areas are too small and do not allow for privacy. 3. The conversion conflicts with the intent of the Planned Development zoning for De Vaul Ranch since the planned development was designed to provide for a mixture of housing types and tenure. Conversion of apartments to condominiums will reduce the tenure mixture and allow ownership units to be the dominant housing type. I LI Resolution No. [ ] Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies Application No. CON 25-05, a request to convert seventy-seven (77) apartment units at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code 17.82, On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES'. ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan well, City Attorney 7-�S� i Attachment .15 ®RAFT RESOLUTION NO.XXXX-05 RESOLUTION"C" A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FOR 110 OF 168 APARTMENTS AT 1017 THROUGH 1043 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE APPLICATION NO. CON 29-05 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San.Luis Obispo, California, on May 11, 2005 for the purpose of considering Application No. CON 29-05, a request to allow a Condominium Conversion for 168 apartments known as Parkwood Village Apartments at 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and"forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the.project; and WHEREAS, the Council.of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of.City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 19, 2005 to consider Application No. CON 29-05, a request to allow a Condominium Conversion for 168 apartments known as Parkwood Village Apartments at 101.7 through 1043 Southwood Drive; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the. applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all.the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed condominium conversion consisting of 110 apartment units (out of 168 existing units) is consistent with the General Plan because changing the apartments to condominiums will not impact available affordable housing since the conversion will provide deed restricted affordable units consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The existing affordable housing units (Section 8 units) would not be affected by the conversion and would continue to remain affordable as currently contracted. 2. The proposed conversion is consistent with the annual limits for the conversion of apartments to condominiums. 3. As conditioned, the conversion will substantially comply with the property improvement Resolution No. [ Attachment 15 Page 2 standards for Condominium Conversions with the exception of private open space yards.. 4. As stated in the applicant's property condition report, the property is in satisfactory condition and a report of any known defects will be made available to future property owners and kept on file at the City. 5. Based on a staff review of the application materials, a visit to the site and a review of City records, the property is in substantial compliance with.the Zoning Code in terms of allowed use, density; parking, yard areas, building height, and all other applicable property development standards. 6. In accordance with the Condominium conversion standards the applicant has appropriately delivered a notice of intent to convert to each tenant. 7. The existing apartments, due to location, design, condition, and general conformance with property development standards are appropriate for conversion to individual ownership units and will result in a satisfactory living environment for future property owners. 8. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (K) the conversion of multiple family residences into condominiums is categorically exempt from environmental review-. SECTION 2. Recommendation. The Council hereby approves the conversion of 110 apartment units for application No. CON 29-05, at 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code. 17.82, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply fora tentative parcel map as defined by the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Condominium Conversions). The tentative parcel map shall be subject to (but not limited to) the following conditions of approval: a. If not already existing, each unit shall be supplied with individual meters for gas, water and electrical service. Location and type of metering shall be subject to review and approval of the City. b. A complete property condition report shall be made available to the City along with the application for a tentative map. Any building defects noted in the property condition report submitted to the City shall be repaired prior to approval of the final condominium map. c. Any improvements necessary to comply with the property improvement standards for condominium conversions (Chapter 17.82.110 A through O) shall be completed prior to approval of the final condominium map. Such improvements include (but may not be limited to): private open space yards, bicycle storage lockers, retrofitting units with additional energy compliance requirements such as increased insulation, restoration and refurbishing of landscape areas, installation of common area improvements, installation of smoke detectors and fire protection systems, or repair and upgrades of parking areas. d. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. The C.C.&R.s shall include a description and regulations pertaining to the open space easement and all common areas. e. If pertinent, the tentative map shall reflect the location of all any overhead and Resolution No. [ ] 1 Attachment 15 Page 3 underground utilities. f. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. g. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Each non-purchasing tenant not in default under the provisions of the rental agreement or lease shall have the right to remain not less than 300 days from the written notice of intent to convert. The 300 days shall commence no sooner than final City Council approval of the conversion. 3. After submittal of the tentative map, prospective tenants shall be given a written notice of intent to convert prior to leasing or renting any brit. 4. Applicant shall give any present tenant a non-transferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied. This right of first refusal shall extend at least ninety days from the date of-issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. The tenants security deposit and last months rent shall be credited towards the purchase of the property. 5. The parking lot areas shall be reconstructed and or resurfaced as necessary. 6. 5% of the apartment units to be converted (5% of 168 = 8 units) shall be deed restricted as affordable to persons who meet very low-income criteria for a minimum of 30 years, consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The units shall be deed restricted upon recordation of the final condominium map prior to sale of the property. The existing section 8 affordable units can not be included towards the 5% requirement, and must remain as affordable units applicable to current agreement with the Housing Authority through 2018. Informational note: The applicant may bank this allocation of 110 conversion units to acquire a greater number of conversion opportunities over several years. As an option, any number of units, up to 110 for 2005, may be converted and a map may be processed to allow incremental sales of units each year. This approval does not constitute or guarantee approvals for additional conversions in the future, since a new application for a condominium conversion will need to be reviewed each year and the conversion request may be in competition with other applications that may be submitted to the City. The open filing period for condominium conversions runs through the months of January and February each year. -7-�O� 15 Resolution No. [ Page 4 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES. NOES: ABSENT:. The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon well, City Attorney Attachment 16 RESOLUTION"D" DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. MM-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A C_O_NDOM 941UM CONVERSION FOR 77 APARTMENTS AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (1778 THROUGH 1796 TONIhII DRIVE) APPLICATION NO. CON 25-05 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 11, 2005 for the purpose of considering Application No. CON 25-05, a request to approve a Condominium Conversion for 77 apartments known as Rancho Obispo Apartments at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing_ in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,, on July 19; 2005 to consider Application No, CON 25=05, a request to approve a Condominium Conversion for 77 apartments known as Rancho Obispo Apartments at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed condominium conversion is consistent with the General Plan because changing the apartments to condominiums will not impact available affordable housing since the conversion will provide deed restricted affordable units (approximately 29% of the project) consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the other units are affordable by design. 2. As conditioned, the conversion complies with the property improvement standards for Condominium Conversions. 3. As stated in the applicant's property condition report, the property is in satisfactory condition and a report of any known defects will be made available to future property owners and kept on file at the City. 77— 7v Resolution No. [ ] i Attachment lip Page 2 4. Based on a staff review of the application materials, a visit to the site and a review of City records, the property is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Code in terms of allowed use, density, parking, yard areas, building height, and all other applicable property development standards. 5. In accordance with the Condominium conversion standards the applicant has appropriately delivered a notice of intent to convert to each tenant. 6. The existing apartments, due to location, design, condition, and general conformance with property development standards are appropriate for conversion to individual ownership units and will result in a satisfactory living environment for future property owners. 7. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (K) the conversion of multiple family residences into condominiums is categorically exempt from environmental review. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby approves Application No. CON 25-05, a request to convert seventy-seven (77) apartment units at 1778 through 1796 Tonini Drive to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code 17.82, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a tentative parcel map as defined by the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Condominium Conversions). The tentative parcel map shall be subject to (but not limited to) the following conditions of approval: a. If not already existing, each unit shall be supplied with individual meters-for gas, water and electrical service. Location and type of metering shall be subject to review and approval of the City. b. A complete property condition report shall be made available to the City along with the application for a tentative map. Any building defects noted in .the property condition report submitted to the City shall be.repaired prior to approval of the final condominium map. c. Any improvements necessary to comply with the property improvement standards for condominium conversions (Chapter 17.82.110 A through O) shall be completed prior to approval of the final condominium map. Such improvements include (but may not be limited to): private open space yards, bicycle storage lockers, retrofitting units with additional energy compliance requirements such as increased insulation, restoration and refurbishing of landscape areas, installation of common area improvements, installation of smoke detectors and fire protection systems, or repair and upgrades of parking areas. d. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director andr the Public Works Director. The C.C.&R.s shall include a description and.regulations pertaining to the open space easement and all common areas. e. If pertinent, the tentative map shall reflect the location of all any overhead and underground utilities. f. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision 7f Resolution No. [ Attachment 1(v Page 3 Regulations. g. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Each non-purchasing tenant not in default under the provisions of the rental agreement or lease shall have the right to remain not less than 300 days from the written notice of intent to convert. 3. After submittal of the tentative map, prospective tenants shall be given a written notice of intent to convert prior to leasing or renting any unit. 4. Applicant shall give any present tenant a non-transferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied. This right of first refusal shall extend at least ninety days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. The tenants security deposit and last months rent shall be credited towards the purchase of the property. 5. Private open space yards and balconies shall be constructed for each of the units. The design of the improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and may be subject to additional architectural review. The improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the final condominium map. 6. Solar water heating shall be provided for each unit, and appropriate easements shall be provided for collector locations. The Community Development Director may waive the requirement for solar water heating in cases where the Chief Building Official has determined that equivalent energy saving will be obtained by other means. 7. Existing deed restricted affordable units shall be offered as affordable sales,units for the remainder of the prescribed contract.term (30 years from original date of occupancy). 6 additional units shall be deed restricted as moderately affordable and 3 additional units as affordable to persons who meet low-income criteria for a minimum of 30 years, consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The units shall be deed restricted upon recordation of the final condominium map prior to sale of the property. -7-7Z Resolution No. [ ] Page 4 Attachment 16 ' On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of .2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Donath well,City Attorney -7--73 Attachment 17 RESOLUTION"E" ®RAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FOR 33 OF 168 APARTMENTS AT 1017 THROUGH 1043 S_OUTHWOOD DRIVE APPLICATION NO.CON 29.-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 11, 2005 for the purpose of considering Application No. CON 29-05, a request to allow a Condominium Conversion for 168 apartments known as Parkwood Village Apartments at 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive;and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 19, 2005 to consider Application No. CON 29-05, a_ request to allow a Condominium Conversion for 168 apartments known as Parkwood Village Apartments at 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential apartments to ownership_ condominiums is exempt from environmental review (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED_ by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings_. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed condominium conversion consisting of 33 apartment units (out of 168 existing units) is consistent with the General Plan because changing the apartments to condominiums will not impact available affordable housing since the conversion will provide deed restricted affordable units consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The existing affordable housing units(Section 8 units) would not be affected by the conversion and would continue to remain affordable as currently contracted. 2. The proposed conversion is consistent with the annual limits for the conversion of apartments to condominiums. 3. As conditioned, the conversion will substantially comply with the property improvement Resolution No. [ ] Attachment 17 Page 2 standards for Condominium Conversions with the exception of private open space yards. 4. As stated in the applicant's property condition report, the property is in satisfactory condition and a report of any known defects will be made available to future property owners and kept on file at the City. 5. Based on a staff review of the application materials, a visit to the site and a review of City records, the property is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Code in terms of allowed use, density, parking, .yard areas, building height, and all other applicable property development standards. 6. In accordance with the Condominium conversion standards the applicant has . appropriately delivered a notice of intent to convert to each tenant. 7. The existing apartments, due to location, design, condition, and general conformance with property development standards are appropriate for conversion to individual ownership units and will result in a satisfactory living environment.for future property owners. 8. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (K) the conversion of multiple family residences into condominiums is categorically exempt from environmental review. SECTION 2. Recommendation. The Council hereby approves the conversion of 33 apartment units for application No. CON 29-05, at 1017 through 1043 Southwood Drive to individual ownership condominiums in accordance with Municipal Code 17.82, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a tentative parcel map as defined by the Subdivision Map Act. and in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and Municipal Code Chapter 17.82 (Condominium Conversions). The tentative parcel map shall be subject to (but not limited to) the following conditions of approval: a. If not already existing, each unit shall be supplied with individual meters for gas., water and electrical service. Location and type of metering shall be subject to review and approval of the City. b. A complete property condition report shall be made available to the City along with the application for a tentative map. Any building defects noted in the property condition report submitted to the City shall be repaired prior to approval of the final condominium map. c. Any improvements necessary to comply with the property improvement standards for condominium conversions (Chapter 17.82.110 A through O) shall be completed prior to approval of the final condominium map. Such improvements include (but may not be limited to): private open space yards, bicycle storage lockers, retrofitting units with additional energy compliance requirements such as increased insulation, restoration and refurbishing of landscape areas, installation of common area improvements, installation of smoke detectors and fire protection systems, or repair and upgrades of parking areas. d. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. The C.C.&R.s shall include a description and regulations pertaining to the open space easement and all common areas. e. If pertinent, the tentative map shall reflect the location of all any overhead and 77—7.5 ' Resolution No. [ ] i Page 3 Attachment 17 underground utilities. f. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval; and . recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of .a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision 'Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. g. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action,. of proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void_ or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Each non-purchasing tenant not in default under the provisions of the rental agreement or lease shall have the right to remain not less than 300 days from the written notice of intent to convert. The 300 days shall commence no sooner than final City Council approval of the conversion. 3. After submittal of the tentative map, prospective tenants shall be given a written notice of intent to-convert prior to leasing or renting any unit. 4. Applicant shall give any present tenant a non-transferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied. This right of f fust refusal shall extend at least ninety days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. The tenants security deposit and last months rent shall be credited towards the purchase of the property. 5. The parking lot areas shall be reconstructed and or resurfaced as necessary. 6. 5% of the apartment units to be converted (5% of 33 = 2 units) skull be deed restricted as affordable to persons who meet very low-income criteria for a minimum of 30 years; consistent with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The units shall be deed restricted upon recordation of the final condominium map prior to sale of the property. The existing section 8 affordable units can not be included towards the 5% requirement, and'must remain as affordable units applicable to current agreement with the Housing Authority.through 2018. Informational note: The applicant may bank this allocation of 33 conversion units to acquire a greater number of conversion opportunities over several years. As an option, any number of units, up to 33 for 2005, may be converted and a map may be processed to allow incremental sales of units each year. This approval does not constitute or guarantee approvals for additional conversions in the future, since a new application fora condominium conversion will need to be reviewed each year and the conversion request may be in competition with other applications that may be submitted to the City. The open filing period for condominium conversions runs through the months of January and February each year. -7-76 . Resolution No.[ ] Attachmer> ' Page 4 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing.resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,2005. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona well,City Attorney 7 77 S L 0 Housing Authority 487 Leff Street Post Office Box 1289 San Luis Obispo CA 93406-1289 of the City of (805) 543-4478 fax (805) 543-4992 San Luis Obispo April 6,'2005 °ireceorsecrerary p George J.Moylan Mr. Patrick N. Smith WestPac 805 Aerovista Place, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 9340T Dear Pat: A copy of the letter Phil Dunsmore wrote to you on March.9 relative to Condominium Conversion 29-05 of the units commonly known as Parkwood Village has been provided — to me..I had a conversation with Phil at about the same time he wrote the letter,perhaps a - few days after-the fact,and-I-hope-he now-under-stands-most:of--what is-wfitten-below:-- - -- My conclusion was that Phil was not fully aware of the details of the transaction between you and the Housing Authority-back in the mid 1980's nor was he aware of the refinancing of the development in.1993 which extended the term of your Section 8 Commitment. Moreover he,was not aware of the ultimate effects of your planned donation tothe Housing Authority. So let me summarize, acknowledging that I don't know the exact specifics of the City's Development.Plan that Phil speaks to in his letter. I came to the Housing Authority.in 1987 just after the first Parkwood units were being occupied. At that time I reviewed a.bond issuance that gave the Housing Authority access to 34 of the units via the Section 8 program. That commitment was time limited, which I assume was done in keeping with the Development Plan. In 1993 you came to our Board of Commissioners and asked our assistance in refinancing the existing bond. That refinancing limits your participation in the Section 8 program to the year 2018, after that the units revert back to the private market, i.e.they are no longer affordable units. With all of that as background and given your proposal I presented the following scenario to the Board at its March meeting. We would first offer to sell the 34 units to in-place clients at theprices their income status would pe- it given the City's affordability criteria. For those who could buy the units we would place a second deed of trust on the property for the difference between the amount of the sales and market prices, for instance if the sales price was $60,000 and the market price$300,000 the second deed of trust would be for$240,000..For every,year the owner remained in residence we would discount the second deed of trust by four percent, i.e.if they owned the unit for 25 years there would be no further obligation to.the Housing Authority. But if they only lived there for five years the Housing Authority would recoup $192,000 ($240,000 minus $48,000) from the second deed of trust upon re-sale. The$192,000 plus the $60,000 from the available re-sale would be used by the Housing Authority to develop other affordable housing in the community. Cash flow from the units that remained as rentals would also be used to develop additional affordable housing. And since those units would remain affordable in perpetuity the rental revenues from the units would be enormous. To me the above scenario should be far more attractive to the City than holding you to the provisions of the inclusionary housing ordinance. I dare say that my Board of Commissioners, who enthusiastically endorsed my scenario, and I will be more than willing to support your proposal before the City Council and Planning Corr_.fission. We would conclude that your proposed donation meets the intent of the inclusionary housing ordinance in that it will clearly produce more affordable units for the City than will the requirement outlined in Phil's March 9 letter. That bottom-line result should be your answer to Phil's letter. I would be happy to meet with you and Phil or other appropriate City officials as necessary. Sincerely, George J. Moylan Executive Director Southwood Project a Califomia Limited Partnership 805 Aerovista Place 9202 San Luis Obispo,California 93401 805.544.73431805.544.1177 facsimile RESPONSE TO INACCURACIES OF STAFF REPORT AND HISTORY AND OBSERVATIONS May 11, 2005 1. Southwood Project has owned this property since 1983 (22 years). I have been involved with the design, construction, operation and management since that time. 2. We asked the City Housing Authority if they would assist in a TEFRA support program. When the Housing Authority accepted, this increased the Low to Moderate requirement from five percent.(5%).to twenty percent(20%) of the project. The favorable financing was only allowed by one funding; therefore, since the City gained twenty-five more Affordable to Moderate apartments for an initial twelve year term, it was very supportive of the allowable density increase. This density bonus was already allowable under the PD zoning change. The Park-in-lieu fees deferment—The City never collected the in- lieu fee on the lot split in 1980 from the previous owner. It was not of record and was dropped as a bomb shell at final.occupancy of the project. Since the original contract with the bond holder's and the City Housing Authority originally lasted twelve years (the term of the bonds), it was agreed to finance the in-lieu fees at the same rate and terms as the mortgage, as these fees would have been an allowed cost in the mortgage. The City has been paid in full. 3. The project was designed and built to condo specifications, in effect, in 1985. It has always been contemplated to convert these units. This includes separate meters for all utilities to all units. The original design and construction also included separate hook-ups for washers and dryers in all two and one bedroom units. Response to In of Staff Report and History and Observations May 11, 2005 Page Two 4. We are offering to include carports and storage where ever possible (plans.submitted to Staff). 5. This neighborhood encourages private ownership. There is Sinsheimer Park and the YMCA adjacent to the single family homes directly East. of the property. 6. The property an island of rentals surrounded by other uses and highly desirable for attainable housing for family's in the community. It includes a swimming pool, picnic areas, playground and private open space, as well as common open space. 7. The Housing Authority has never managed this property. 8. Driveway and Parking Repair—one of the issues that was brought up in the Staff Report was that Parkwood's main surrounding street, which is within the project, be repaired. As owner's, we would like to point out that the water line in the center of the street has been dedicated to the City and the City has done repairs on this line due to surging and age of the line. The City itself; has worked over the past six'to seven months to do the work that they are required to do in the parking lot. We have repeatedly asked that they finish the repairs so that we can overlay the asphalt, reseal it, and get it back to its p'-lper condition. There is no reason for us to do part of the work, which would immediately be tom up by City, once the City finished the repairs (see attached correspondence from our managers to the City). We would also respectfully asked that the Planning Commission put some pressure on the Engineering Department-to correct and complete their work. 9. In more than the ten years, that the inclusionary housing program has been in effect, approximately $2,000,000 has come into this fund to benefit the I Response to Inaccuracies of Staff Report and History and Observations May 11, 2005 Page Three Housing Authority. That is less than $200,000 per year. Southwood Project, at a minimum, is willing to gift $3,000,000 to the Housing Authority to allow them the ability to convert this project at one time. This gift will allow construction of more affordable housing in the City. It will allow the Housing Authority to have a source of funds to draw upon larger than ten years of accumulation. How this gift can be overlooked at a time when more affordable housing is necessary in the City of San Luis Obispo, is beyond me. In addition, the Ordinance does not speak to look-back capability. The City Staff comments that there are currently, or passed over, 243 credits that have not been used. I believe that the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council to allow those credits to be used in light of creating attainable, housing within the community of San Luis Obispo and accepting the gift of a minimum of over$3,000,000 into the Housing Authority's fund to additionally enhance the opportunity for affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo and suggesting to the City Council that as consideration for this gift, they allow Parkwood Village to be approved as to all units at one time. As an additional note, the Housing Authority window as seen today, Section 8 housing has been closed to new applicants since 1999. It is now 2005, six years later, and we owe the community the chance to provide affordable housing within its sector. There is no better way than to bring San Luis Obispo into current times by supplementing its housing stock with existing units that are struggling in a marketplace overwhelmed with rentals due to Cal Poly's increased quantity of on campus housing. Allow ownership to families in a neighborhood'surrounded by parks and enjoy the benefit of home ownership and equity growth to citizens unable to purchase at any other level. The time to act is now, not drag this process on for another five to seven years. We believe that through this gift to the Housing Authority and on its 1 Response to Inaccuracies of Staff Report and History and Observations May 11, 2005 Page Four own merits, Parkwood Village Apartments should step to the head of the list and a recommendation to Council should be created to utilize the uncaptured units over the last ten years, allowing all these applications to be approved. Sincerely, Southwood Project, a California Limited Partnership By: Smith and Company a Real Estate Investment Development Corporation Its: General Partner Patric c N. Smith, President :sln Aft. INS Smuffiwood Drive Bain.ws UbbpG,cA 93401 (8051 X93=212 Fax (805) 543-2997 April 18,2005 Re: Parwoad Village Apartrneats 1045 Southwood7dr.. San Luis ado,4CA 93401 Steve.loiinson, This is-to follow up on=-comvasa�Ibat took plain on April Ik.2-005 zogard'me the repairs needed to be:done by fhe end a Nfay as we plaa to shaiy=.aspi�alt early 3rd We still bane 2 areasthat need to be-addressed. 'Che areas in quest on are in front,of ft 10291bmilding dumpswr aird is irontof tLtJ0371ui uug.We have;beam very patiein#w6fiig for i City of SLO m eompt eche-rem:But at S frame neo att a.deadtine to get tHis. a ir®d We would appreciate yo==mper&on m thw maUw i'lease cotilsct Mgaekpena at 543 933, Thwk you for your time. Miguel Rena Partwaad Village Manager Housing.Authority 487"Leff Street Post Once Box 1289`San. Luis Obispo CA 93406-1289. of the City of (805) 543-447a fax(805).543=4992 San Luis"Obispo F�Keevtiveoire�seavary \ May 12, 2005 George J_Moylan Mr. Michael Bosweli. Chair Planning Commission City of San Luis"Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Dear Chairperson Boswell: its is a first for me,writing to.inembers of the Planning Commission on an issue which . is coming before them..However, I believe the concern as to the future of affordable . housing in the.City of San Luis Obispo is.of sufficient magnitude that this correspondence is.neoessitated. • - Specifically the content of the staff report submitted to you on Condominium Conversions is deficient and ignores the larger'issue of affordable:housing in the community., From an admittedly biased- 'viewpoint it appears that the Southwood proposal has been downgraded chiefly because its owner has devoted the last 20 years to serving tenants - whose incomes are at or below 50%-of median income while another development is being rewarded because it has spent the.past two-years serving its clients with vacant housing units:A situation further complicated by moderate-income affordable housing rents established through misguided City criteria. Here are my specific concerns with the staff's report to Xou,with staff comments-in bold letters: It is also important to note that the City is currently experiencing a surplus in the amount of rental units available,and there have been no requests to convert apartments to condominiums in over 10 years. , Isn't that a very good reason to suggest to the City Council that the current ordinance is too restrictive and should be changed so that units-built during that 10 year period are factored into the:condominium allocation number. Elsewhere in the report staff relates that 487 apartment units have been built in the past 10 years. One-half of that number ,would make available 243 condominium conversion units for you to consider this year. Should that not be an allowable conversion number? Especially in a City where condominium units are the most affordable housing ownership opportunities available. In addition our 40 units on Johnson Avenue will be occupied prior to the end of this year, thus another 20 units are certain to be available for condominium conversion. That:means that by January 1 all but two units from the three current requests could be granted if an amended.ordinance was adopted. The applicant intends to sell one of the units as affordable therefore meeting the minimum affordable housing requirement (2975 Rockview Place Page 4): This is one of the problems with the word affordable. Unless you define it by completing the sentence as in, "affordable to persons who meet the City's very-low income standard" it is a useless concept. If you have tenants living in a market rate unit there is a good. chance that one or more of those tenants will have an income in the moderate income range, $43,201 to $51,850. Thus you could sell an"affordable"unit to that tenant at the affordable price of$177,750, actually probably$199,950 since all the units in the development are two-bedroom in size and meet City conversion requirements.However; if you had a tenant who was at.the very-low income level, $21,600 or less, you could_ only sell the unit for$69,375. Can you possibly guess who the owner is going to choose to sell the affordable unit to? Affordable needs clarification. And what really provides food for thought is that the staff report gives this development the highest rating partly because it has agreed to sell one of its units at the minimum affordable housing requirement which I assume to be $199,500. Not bad for a unit which probably cost less than a third of that amount to build in 1984 and paid for itself in market rents many years ago. Currently,this conversion request(Southwood) ranked lowest of the three projects reviewed by staff due to limited ability to comply with private open space standards and a high percentage of persons objecting to the conversion. Well I certainly cannot argue the issue of"private" open space but with Sinsheimer Park within a few feet and the YMCA directly across the street Southwood has more usable open space available to its tenants then do either of the developments ranked higher: Because of the number of respondents, and the contents of the city's letter,I consider the percentage of persons objecting to the conversion a questionable criterion. Specifically I calculate opposition in the range of 10-27% of occupied units in the three developments.Because of the small number of responses I don't consider that range to have a statistical significance. Moreover in the Southwood situation you have to remember that 20% of the tenants are earning less than 50%of median income thus they inherently know there is noway they can afford homeownership in the City of San Luis Obispo. Especially when the City letter sent to them makes no mention of the City's Affordable Housing standards. It simply says they will get the first option of purchasing the unit and then asks whether or not they support the conversion. I would suggest that if you were living on$1,000 a month and it was suggested to you that your apartment was going to be sold you too would vote against that sale. I have no way of knowing how many, if any, of those opposed were Section 8 clients since no addresses were supplied to us but it would seem reasonable to assume that there were at least a few no's from those assisted clients. 20% of the existing apartments (or 34 units) are currently managed by the, Authority as affordable units under contract until July 1, 2018. Well at least the math is right, unfortunately the concept is wrong. The Housing Authority does not manage the units. We provide Section 8 housing assistance payments for 34 very-low income tenants who reside in the development, and we have done so for 20 years. That to me shows the commitment of the owner to the creation and even management of low-income housing in the City of San Luis Obispo: A commitment which I see as being downplayed and used against the owner in his efforts to convert his units to condominiums. —That attempt I believe is also reflected in the comments by-staff;-last paragraph-page 7-,- which ;which lists several factors which make the Southwood complex unique as apartments. As I see it those same seven factors also make it unique as a condominium complex, however, staff uses the factors in an attempt to convince you to oppose the conversion and continue it as an apartment complex. In its narrative staff makes the point that one of the"incentives"presented to the owner by the city when he received a very small density bonus was the bonding of the development through the Housing Authority. I find nothing in our records that would support-that conclusion. I believe the bonding was a separate issue between the Authority and the owner. In.any event the original commitment was to expire in 2008,just three years from now. It was extended to 2018 in 1993 at the request of the Housing Authority when the owner proposed to refinance the bond. Except for a mandatory public hearing before the City Council there was no other involvement of the city at that time. Yet at this time staff uses the extra 10 years gained by the Housing Authority as leverage against the developer's conversion request. Prior to City staff raising the inclusionary" housing issue the Southwood agent made a written offer to deed 34 units,20%of the total development,to the Authority. Subsequent to the city's additional demands the owner withdrew that offer from the table. By any reasonable calculation that offer was a$10 million dollar gift to affordable housing in this city. Thus I now know firsthand the meaning of the phrase, "Looking a gift horse in the mouth". If we had received that donation we could have (1) Sold as many as of the 34 units as possible to very-low income persons who could afford to buy at the City's affordable 2005 housing standards, ( 2) Placed in the sales agreement a deed restriction where the pro-rated difference between the sales price and the market price would come back to the Housing Authority for the development of additional housing in the community at time of re-sale or(3)For units not sold to persons/families at incomes below 50% of median income we could have continued to rent to them at affordable prices via the Section 8 program with.rental income coming back to us to leverage additional construction of affordable housing. All three of the cited items would have produced dollars to build affordable housing. The donation would have been a gift that keeps on giving. I do not know if the Southwood owner would reconsider his original commitment if he were able to convert the entire development. However, for the future of affordable housing in this community, I would like to see that option made available to him. Sincerely, George I Moylan Executive Director cc:-Commissioners Phil Dunsmore �9 C'fi'r�i,(rlsi 01 it _ a- i R fy ? ,4j4.y+"i!W-� 1ll�lll I r 1 rr•r l r / � n .4 / 1� t r Elm hll /j t', }}� ! u' 'tit' _ ft.'3_ � -,... / ~' ..� �y✓-� r, f y�llfyf ; ; •++r �S, ,•(v T ✓ Ll .. xr h ti lftt{7 f.lg > V. � art v� ��• -�`� � s I a�' �-` � �'V�` ,�'�rl r ,.'!I Ill}"I-, r � � I�Ir�'/ ,N'_ \'� �l�Y o ♦�. /. J / it - rr ' ,n(/rl 0 /rV , !I ^'1 � r ♦lr rf v Y1 Il r l!/ � �//ll L f71�}j�r'l/17 r� n l/ , I!1,, I < J�r ,/ri rl P '}r-r ll, I�f/ `"�c'a; �'%!4 , r l,�r,, r �! lyr i 1j.Y�llly r ( llr�)) ".,� 1 rl�( a 1 17 JllfTr�y,,r,� ! •J PHOTO EXHIBIT KEY PLAN SURVEY DATE: 08/30/2008 oe oo0xmrr m nmm m c..nx.vo0�m ;mn^�0xk�r;° PARKWOOD ESTATES A S S O C i A? 2 S WMGM tav rax wrm"°0/"ro�vmia x COIxrQIbX aux wM tx6 v®c wmox.rwrx0. '•t'••••• W u�w]Mso g v m c YmYQa PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS •lrA\t•tt• ar.wrY6 Onru lMxruw+l®arw w4p¢ OOOt07000 aaxga�wnc/G W.rmoxx a®cr xOr DRAWN BY: TR CHECKED BY: TR DATE:07/14/2005 zm. cv,snm/o.asoar W n�mws.xo caamn p- �f .lf► v4 . - FMT� d eiC 1 ^ .K. z .. �' �° c - iP�.V�Srri ;,�-j'�•.�i� a y..n- ,fj("�'w'...,'> -e° � ' ; •f y,�1'%... I-..,, .,�y \"fC��.k••x:.�Y�,'��E�.�' �'�`i✓ .�A .��d Y .l - .�� PHOTO EXHIBIT 1 -A UNIT 1025 W EXISTING FEATURES PATIO AREA= 55 SQ. FT. SURVEY DATE 06/30/2DOS pOOa�rm PFZVM v = PARKWOOD ESTATES J(Zma�w� uo swa onus n[wvrarr v u n[ctwur wr A S 5 O C t A T C 4 rrrr tawm rov '>�a.yro o6[w,a M m�p°tT�MM59Em `""�` PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS t■alaa[aa r.[imroir o¢oam our area a oomGn,o ��u[u[ m G.srm.ov a wcgoxk aawoe.maouvo n w+oc onm�nuw a wv omsr•�oTmR a[ata�Oa[ mra�um W,G cr,mr,u o,mcr bt AMM— DRAWN BY: TRAY CHECKED BY: TR DATE:06/30/2005 e - �/ 2 .:y ,y,�R♦ i y�-�d '�.. 1� til,: . � '• V h fi �R-i,;,Y•�!-_ wti .s1rrA��]fc ¢.L � V�� y�( � r< h�1.. :�,. j_��,. ��f tib• 4�TrV 2� �.a_ �1v., ti;Xo .;S�t� �.,�.�. -n1.fj' ^Z :z '•[may r t > y-..'�+4�•M�)•� ryT��� T1 ZAJ PHOTO EXHIBIT 1 -B UNIT 1025 W PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROPOSED AREA= 130 SQ. FT. SURVEY DATE: 06/30/4005 nm maxnrt.is a®u®et ciuxol nsm.ro QW+�,W PARKW000 ESTATES n s 5 a G(ares """"'Wrn to xsmu,xr"°°evvaa n PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS [[e,[t[ee x[amort xamxm nu,o4xm a lms•xun •le[[[\O mGtlIN.Ell1l6 MC1691W 911MD:NMm11® BY IYfY[ w G BOLII mr 4 Wi m Y 11pN1R 1011■1011 mIYLmQf�I mmtIOI ,Imola a w M ew�nrt o nm omaon DRAWN BY: TRAY CHECKED 6Y: TR DATE:06/30/2005 moxmro•axamlr m nxs nae+a mann h.[ � •, .r}�.,�. r r r 'k.{n I'Y i. I l raayy Yr tS' yu!tlul� s d k ti,i I ! 1 ♦`''s; � r.l;a y 's� 1'�`r < l .., CT lar �\�l ri'T� 1 �; �l��la � I 1} � ♦ AI���I j � '1�1� k. s ^�_ F -.. f h hq Y3 1r Y7 J r Ja r 1 ♦1 r ♦ i �! ��I Ir .1 � T14.' / li.a� 'r ASS '� �h���/}"♦ate'{ lk�' ,1y� �1 .,IyS l�gl S +�1'id�n I�t!rf' it r;lt 5 I' �rt���_ N�f' W y, ++Q, ,]4 r 9"' a. d P'^+ �9 "�. 1 ' I f I.SIi 1 ♦ � f Vr.• ( I I �/ ` 1tyi 141 4 �q.rr �Y1 ""1 j�� •sY. t�\1���/.�' ,t s}II! r #�, a y� aS11 I{�4•�N FY� q� ! f ri 1.:ul � 1tii�1,V�IJ•, 4 �y�.l1 1 ..♦ 95Ka .r. rF I ���VI E i I L, Y J 1�� -� 1 1 I I a y w } V r ��J 6 �_ n y� � 1wu l+" ��I iiyT� r• tt � 1�Q' i 6 G k -rl 'ij., t �` reYFit� Ya Y.-:a II,yy4•�", �.I��b f1 f( �"� ♦�',�^ 11 �j.+. ' �r Irp A '�I 1� •p r� j ; ��1{'� I 1� r �;r' �?.♦.,, �Y�T'y�--+�I � 1 r�'ti• �xlj�1�/�I+ # ll ti lY I+�' LJl {trj 4�• !I/ I ! 1 f ' y x'•f oR3fi\Y+� ��.1�i fiY �r Y 1 ( �� 15 tl 17 YM'� r If Js��it r �f l II s'� �{� I ����•'-.r� ¢rr� . III 1 }9,��,I� vOH 71 t � I 1 ti.Y �.A LY, � 7 � � ��1 �I �; I �I ��' �. .tail 19 11{ }F 1 f •t l'v�l°t �1 l'� `•44 1 �,I I�t 1 ^i -AM ' �'f "rpt 5i "P" Fy«i lr. 1. �fX 1 iAli, {ti�+aft a.. 17t� girt t I� �'h' ' Na u i+� E fy r r jnv y6r , ,.n 1 t 1 / $�,.,j �V a♦ I,1 �'?L��� S 'j`1 v�i�1r� 1` +"{'��1k 1 .�C2� 4 1�II��IILb� 75y�"`N �'rr r�•r G�i�i1�.J�f�nrl � �i�Cyl�!'fll�`�IL �'Y�-{'•t ���j. IJ�j��"�,� 4 �- a`,�� r.F n t.di^.ti-' � -_ +' ,� IYr afs ���;�k i�11�y�SM y k��`�I • `�` yl;, "' `C""� ,v`��l�l � r",', 1 1 !I t' Mr1H� PARKWOOD ESTATE.". PROPOSED SITE �l - •iso"•�+��.. � .� 1 IMPROVEMENTS l � • �• x£ �} r 't5 �r,Co '3` i Z I�.o n(I +Y • t C r r -a,f 44. .r..t •», vn+.. K rV • Ilri r I ix > 1 � St7 .,nr p to ri �t'�. '�, � i {S t I.:C� Irr li(.,,I,� 1C 1 51�V �• � ( 1 I E:"��„' ��' �s�ll 5.a +gtk ��sati�f yfir 1�I1 "ii,77�,1ph Alj q� `k 1UI� 1 �.�Y}-L �ta`1r rrt. h��V•j l' � > 4 1 r I�h, I 1, P r y 6GI` f t Y1�V 5..� C' • , v 5 5 rs- 4WAUWW- PARKWOOD ESTATES .-_ PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS fb ® r WF 4 PS� I -71 --� I, r'_4 r PHOTO EXHIBIT 3-A BUILDING 1037 EXISITNG FEATURES WURVEY DATE: 06/30/2005 on ooa.ma its waum w a..ar,am.,a PARKWOOD ESTATES suu a..n[rovn d u M etvmrr w,r A S S O C 1 w f�9 ruaur fm0 i0Y Mm�mr ro Itsamr¢n aaurur arty rrx rns acac moan.rwnm, [[o,o[[oo acamuratna.ssm.*ar..asa.mauma PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS •t•[nano a CJ.610rOr1]6 WO®IMl m1xQ;a1N0p1® n r+ac odu ar G n••rear r wmrs 00[[[fOa[ U014a101�autN p CIJr rEf1101 mmCf 11ai DRAWN BY: TR CHECKED BY: TR DATE:07/14/2005 ri ULU` tij c n ' r p- xrxf9yy1 � c 7.~ i PHOTO EXHIBIT 3-B BUILDING 1037 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE UNIT A AREA = 130 SQ. FT. UNIT B AREA = 130 SQ. FT. SURVEY DATE: 08/30/2005 oa omrort.o w m urc.ama.w r+ * PARKWOOD ESTATES !WL IOIW M ;EV R G M YEfDaT WY ASSOCIATC4 mia<ia�r � �N tYo1o0,oaaoo M *+ +mTM•To a •"� PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS "y® 000TOTOCO W6tP��14WIm11Q YIlmCT MpM DRAWN BY: TR CHECKED 8Y: TR DATE:07/14/2005 "Tj►+ caaomw..Y®IpIT m DITS mae.o CapTm 711,q /oi- �>a -,� To: SLO City CouncilC�e' From: Bob and Jill Wilson 1027 Southwood Dr. #G San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . 805-541-4820 jwilson@waterboards.ca.gov Please enter this letter into the City Council Public Hearing of the Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation on 2005 Condominium Conversions (Rockwiew,Los Osos Valley Rd and Southwood)July 19,2005 My Husband and I are generally opposed to the conversion of apartments to condominiums. However, we much prefer the CAO recomendation rather than the planning commissions recomendation. We just moved to SLO in March for a new job. We were very lucky to find an apartment at that time as there were very few vacancies. We were not in a position to buy a home and needed the option of finding an apartment to rent at an affordable price. With entry level condos starting close to 500K and homes around 550-600K, SanLuis Obispo housing prices are out of reach for families looking to purchase a home. We recently read a statistic that over 80% of the San Luis Obispo area can not afford to buy a home or condo here. Even monthly payments on interest only mortages (assuming a SOOK loan) are much higher than our affordable $1200/Mo rent. This $1200/mo rent is the equivalent of making a monthly payment on a 5% 30-year $160K loan that includes taxes and insurance. We and many other families do not qualify for Section 8 federal assistance and will.not be able to find anything in San.Luis Obispo for$160K. Those days are long gone.. If SLO wants to continue attracting families,.apartrnents are currently the best option for that. I have knowledge of potential new employees for our office in San Luis Obispo turning down job offers due to the high cost of housing. Pretty soon (if not already) the only people able to afford homes here will be wealthy second homeowners OR those on Federal assistance. Please consider keeping and not converting as many apartments as possible. Respectfully, Bob and Jill Wilson ,1 RED FILE � /\ MSE I G AGENDA LOD+TE`7 9 d�ITEM # p Q �' or�ion+wmn Housing Authority 487 Leff Street Post Office Box 1289 San Luis Obispo CA 93406-1289 of the City of (805) 543-4478 fax (805) 543-4992 San Luis Obispo July 14, 2005 Executive Directonsecretwy George J.Moylan The Honorable Mayor David Romero and City Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not comment on the staff report that you received on the Condominium Conversion recommendation, Item 7 of your Public Hearing Agenda for the meeting of July 19. I will be highly critical of that agenda report herein and I hope you understand that the criticism is in the name of producing affordable housing,not of a personal nature. For many years I have proffered the opinion that professional planners in general do not understand affordable housing. The words"market" and"economic"seldom enter their deliberations. I think the staff report you have received epitomizes the problem. As a practitioner I think our decision-makers have to understand the words "market"and "economic"as they apply to delivering affordable housing to the community. And it is with that perspective I bring to you the following comments on the staff report. Affordable Housing Throughout the report the assumption is that all affordable housing is created equally. It is not. The City's own Affordable Housing Standards, an attachment to the report, clearly state that an affordable two-bedroom unit can be sold to a moderate income family for $199,500. However, if that unit is sold to a lower income family the price is set at a maximum of$69,375. Those two numbers are an ocean apart. Yet neither the report you have received, nor the ranking system used, makes any attempt to differentiate between the"affordable"components of the Rockview Heights and Rancho Obispo proposals versus the Parkwood Village offer of providing 34 units of housing that can be sold to lower-income families. I would expect that you as elected representatives of the community would take that factor into consideration in making your decision. I believe that decision is beyond the scope of the technical review of the planning staff. The same professional planning staff who gave us the"affordable"two-bedroom rent of $1,526 which is also contained in your 2005 Affordable Housing Stan A rent which is neither"affordable"nor"market". r ccoNc _ - CDD DiR L CAO FIN DIR RECEIVED ! AFIRE CHIEF A7 0RNEY PW DIR CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF JUL 14 2005 D P;HEADS REC D R SLO CITY CLERK ri - r� I Gesture I think the one word of the staff report that raised my ire to unprecedented levels comes on page 3 of the agenda report in the sentence that contains the word"gesture". A$10 million gift to the affordable housing needs of this community is not a"gesture". It is a gift of'more than five times the amount of funding the City's Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund has produced in six years of operation. Moreover, as any practitioner will tell you, the$10 million could be leveraged to develop upwards of$100 million of affordable housing. In addition it is the gift that keeps on giving as the affordable units will produce cash-flow that can be used by the Housing.Authority to produce additional affordable housing. The gift of would be unique, in the affordable housing history of this community yet your staff dismisses it as a gesture. That to me is unbelievable. The thirty-four low income families and individuals who are currently being assisted in those Parkwood Village units who would have the opportunity to become homeowners for a maximum cost of$69,375 would surely not consider the gift a gesture. They would undoubtedly consider the chance to have the American Dream come to their doorstep the opportunity of a lifetime. But again nothing of this is mentioned in your staff report despite the fact that I outlined a plan as to what the Housing Authority would do with the units, and how we would recapture a portion of the equity upon re-sale, at the Planning Commission meeting. There are many other specific concerns with the staff report which I or perhaps others will point out at the Public Hearing, I just wanted to take this opportunity to point out what I consider to be the major concerns with the report as they pertain to the future of affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo. From that.perspective I respectfully request that you approve the entire 168 unit condominium conversion request of Parkwood Village and begin the process to revise, amend or make exception to the existing City ordinance so the processing of the conversion can begin. Sincerely, George J. Moylan Executive Director cc: Ken Hampian, CAO Page 1 of 1 � I RED FILE _ SLO Citycouncil m Apt's To Condo's Rancho Obispo??? MPEI QE ND DATE 7 (p 6 ITEM # _ From: sk ko<yovkg@yahoo.com> To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 7/18/2005 9:23 AM Subject/ Apt's To Condo's Rancho Obispo??? CC: <Igriffy@thetribunenews.com> I certainly hope NOT,I red the article this morning that the Council is considering allowing the Rancho Obispo Apt's to be turned into Condo's>This would be a REALLY BIG mistake especially since the Builder RW Hertel has numerous Law Suits.not only locally but State Wide for such things as defects,mold,not paying their bills etc..not to mention the many Homes in the same development being defective,what are you people thinking?You should be protecting the Citizens of SLO from such builders not rewarding them. Have you NOT known they are under a State Investigation with the findings of numerous defects?they have had San Joaquin Environmental,DTyTech Restoration,GB Group,Pacific Rim,MoldHitman,ServPro. APC;Bogaret Moldman,Environmental Testing etc.to name a few who have done work on mold and defects and yet as of this weekend many homes still have numerous defects and mold?I saw MOLD in the Apt's as well while visiting a friend and all they did was"Bleach it"so if low income people buy them as condos who is going to help them when mold and defects come to their attention after Hertel bails out?I see in Ventura Superior Court CIV-232914 they(Hertel)had to pay the$ 10,000.00 Bond due to many claims for defects and SCP Insurance has a Fraud Investigation on them as well,I learned the HOA's Rancho Obispo Insurance Company has denied claims due to Construction Defects as well,so I hope to God you all wake up and see what a grave error you are doing by changing a defective Development into Condo's you are passing on the problems to low Income buyers who will no doubt not be able to afford to seek legal redress against the Builder's and as I was told that if people complain against the Builder he will Sue them to keep them quiet. ! So Council think this through before you make a grave error I and hold these Builders accountable. Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam?Yahoo!Mail has the best spam protection around http'7/mail.yatioo.cofn COUN(!LCDD DIR ! CAO FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF Al iO9NEY PW DIR ! CLERKICH10 POLICE CHF L DEPT HEADS REC DIR L. 0 -___ LITII.DIR I I file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Tenip\GW)000O1.HTM 7/18/2005 I, Page 1 of 1 SLq Cit ycouncu-Condo conversion RW Hertel please Deny r MEETING AGENDA From: Jake Silverstein<badgegold�yahoo.coni> 9/D�TEM # P�' T `7o: <slocitycouncil@slocity.orgi DATE�L Date: 7/15/2005 12:23 PM Subject: Condo conversion RW Hertel please Deny CC: <jewan@slocity.org> Dear Council Members I can not attend the public meeting next week on the RW Hertel request to convert their Apt's on Los Osos Valley Road to Condos, but I would strongly urge the Council to DENY there request.It would be a very bad idea,they were never built in the first place for Condos and most would be bought up by investors who do not live here as well. please deny there request and leave them as Apt's Start your day with Yahoo! -make it your home page A" I -Lf, COUNCIt CDD DIR Ej CAO FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF 11 ATTORNEY PW DIR CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF M DEFT HF? R_C DIR 7 `�' a UTIL DIR D Hn DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\L.ocal%2OSettings\Temp\(5W)000O1.HTM 7/15/2005 city of San tui s OBISPO RED FILE memo MEETING AGENDA DAT 9 aj ITEM O To: City Council J r Via: KenHampian,City Administrative Officer J coulJCi� ==D U R J 0A0 F DIR From John Mandeville,Community Development Directa ACA( FIRe CHIEF U, E ATT©RNEY DIA Date: July 12,2005 11 CLERK/bA10 POLJCE CMF 11 Re: Red File Jul 19 ends,Item PH#7,Condo Conversion Newspaper DEPT H� D Utc DIR July Ag wsp per icles_.__ UTII UIR FIR DIR Several Newspaper articles have appeared recently regarding Public Hearing Item#7. Both the LA Times Real Estate Section and USA Today Newspaper published articles on the subject of condominium conversions. The staff report noted that condo conversions were gaining pace statewide. The attached articles indicate that the trend is not limited to California. These articles may provide the Council with additional perspective as it considers the current request for conversions in the City. The articles discuss several issues that are identified in the staff report,including: 1. Converted rental housing is a relatively affordable way for some people to attain home ownership. 2. Condo conversions can displace lower income rental housing residents. 3. Condo conversions can have adverse impacts on rental housing vacancy rates. The attached.articles describe the adverse effect that condo conversions can have on lower or moderate income households. While no formula exists for measuring all of the effects of condo conversions in a local market, the articles note that they may adversely affect vacancy rates and displace lower income tenants. The staff report addresses the City vacancy rate, but not the role that the City's household income characteristics will have in determining the effect of condo conversions in the local housing market. To do this vacancy rates should be considered in combination with household incomes in the City. Additional information on the interaction of these two factors in San Luis Obispo follows. The City's current vacancy rate is 3.5% (5%considered healthy). Forty-five percent of the City's population is in the very low, low, and moderate income ranges (29%, 6%, and 10%, respectively). Generally;for sale housing in the City is out of the reach of the lower and moderate income households. The statistics indicate that at least 45% of City households must be renters due to income limitations. While about 58%of the City's housing stock is rental, not all of these rentals are affordable Multiple-student households can often pay more than other households because of the number or people pooling resources. Further, multiple tenants per household can drive up the cost of local housing beyond the range of seniors or young families. Apartments are likely to be the most affordable rental housing, yet they are what are being converted The Housing Element Update identified that in the year 2000, 6,600 households in the City were 1 overpaying for their housing(income compared to housing costs). That number has likely grown substantially given escalating sales and rent costs since 2000. While not conclusive,this data indicates that the City needs more apartments affordable to lower and moderate income households, not less. A vacancy rate higher than 3.5% would offer the City's renter population better choice. The City also needs more condominiums affordable for purchase by low and moderate income households: At this time in San Luis Obispo, condo conversions can help satisfy the need for lower cost for-sale housing, but at the expense of an even lower vacancy rate.They offer no net increase in available housing,instead substituting one form of tenure for another.. The Housing Element calls for the production of different housing types for different types of tenure and preventing the displacement of current occupants. Thus, when household income characteristics are considered along with the City's low vacancy rate,the result is consistent with the staff recommendation that the conversion limits not be increased at this time, and that conversions maintain existing affordable units as well as provide additional affordability per the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. cc: Ron Whisenand,Deputy Community Development Director Phil Dunmore,Associate Planner Mike Draze, Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Housing Programs Manager 0 Page 2 I Converted candotllmiunis,ottenmuch cbeaper thin Wows n the Same inatkEt,are the only O '^ '�i ro ter first home.tnSan Count} the median Price of a converted condo was Simow less than that of 4sgle-6nvly oars Emldiog a duDaMQtft lnfonnation Systems,a property m- "1At taice people nor- :. ���t Shc� num. bers dim bmces omeowrn- d_�- . '" W Malik Lewis, Wld2 C[t10U52IId5�}o- . mayor of the $an Drew o rents s'000 Clio where S' 1. tr[ualown are be- 4U Diego to Alexand[ia,V4 aregnapplurg"v hovwtD .19.3 go. cond, ® ttipushed out by ythe° :Marry M W '04 'os people are unable M buy and need nmtal hoiung a ig matiae<s that have few ,_mom , vacandes. ��m��m "Condominiumconver- Apartment dwellers --,ovvn�shi O pOitUni- By Aft [l ft,6 =AY both hopeful, fearful - p ris,M of the San Diego HOUSUNGmmissidn -&tt there are 000censs abotrt what it does to the available ByCharisseiGnes lyofIMW hounsmg." TODAYn a record 69%of households owned their Tens of thousands of ` hoyear,lower-cost rentals S aac- coidingw a studyreleased last month by Hary Uni- renoets around the nation s)ointCenter for Housing Studies.About43%of ate a : BUY COn�o units built in the past five years are renting for their atuvneats or move n bmlt bye t�'compared with 25%of the units out as a wave c b00ffi �oanveisiavLcpida ,' Some real estafle analyte � � are not 'ficardiyde Of 4- a-me M- L non 41gal Mb rof ova rt 'Thew no question converting renal units in large ®tis weir numbers td condommumownerdW In M- is Fft to and sold as cis is es- their Jnr p reduce the stock of'rental units,but it's not to re- %a w) t i;:duce it by as much as 6rstcast,"says Mark Obrfi>sky of liiimes are. s Marlaet tndy be_ ,>.dte I�aaiotial Mitzi Housing Council in Wasfiington,a beyond the means of CDOrmg down,3B , trade assodataon for the apartment renal ink D°At W Thous t may rise V on apartrnatts amt `that remain,they are Emly to off because many meitt units wee sold to mndo®umi dopers na- . # Fvonve ted condos return to the arazimqAaae as rentals. fionwide B m 2004 up from 7.800 in 2002,according to ;=Hessarn Na ofMamns&Mtllicf>ap a real estate As �'a Wewl�k firm hrvestin t limn m Encino CaM fume 1,at beast 43,900 units have been sdld.to S .testes Sm the optoadtnity tp bttX"ICs ' dnelopers do year,says Dan Fam1o.director ofmar- !;to be btnesuiial�there are to ket analysts for the.fink.There are about 19 mi�On people become "says DeFpr-• nattal apartments in the USA est, who is The canvasions are. most vvtth.a - gnwp to buy his damrri rapidly in btrt>galow unit in San Diego."Pye- rained,and Sotnthefn Caidaania Northern lritgtttia and the mtann Pm X78.That s a lot oftent money Pve thrown auvapc' . . _ '..0==4 d :tenaIx s say their lives have been 9 feel Let down.".says Weie Enos,6Z who bold to vauaue her 8 Cagan apart last week. 9 tater m is ebeog squeezed out so can people,Lt's not agood ke ." USA Today, July 7 choose: Ouyelr renters must �Ve are definitely concerned Apartments sold : di U ( as condos offer and Ions of rel American dream says' — or nightmare Baum drvis;ondm'11for ` Cite of Flouting in Alexandria, Va. Since November, applica- tions have been filed to convert � � DAY 2.365 rental units m"City. USATO J ' Hies what some cities are SAA!DIEGO_ f ;� doingto ease the crunch: theAlexandria ishis } terest-6ee loans oftermed apartment into a i ' i'� $40.000 to t with mod- F=fo aotndamimm�fDrsalea� .r r erabeincomeswlnowanttolhuy Sas a chance at the American S th&urdwhenitgoescondo. dream _ x.tt ►Clark county in Nevada is 9 ailed may man and dad allowing homeowners on lou and let them know I could `:`. f of 5.000 squae Leet or more to be a homeowner as here m build another structure that . says D1eForest ,� they covin rent bo people who ah coordhnatrt for a I are not W*members Bed hopes &Beyond stare,who r "^^ L - ►The SanDiego 6tYCouna7 and m��burgdow� -. =��,•� has set aside $19 million fir carry a mortgage for the loans to displaced rendes who first time.He expects to pay at earn earn the area's median income leastS300,000. of$64.000 a year or less.Dis- For Valerie Slran ele receive three mmauhs' rem.whhfi' they can atary scwpin ol principal in a dS poo ket of San Diego use for a dowyn�paayyment on a the ed Ct)RVe[Slal mlD vromseY SanCYHumre.(wlA YUDAY home or anotllCl rentaL ootdm of an apartment nom- In San Diego:W Barrow sits on the stairs leading to his condo,which he bought for$217.000. DeForest was worried when pp�kx where.75 of her students he learned five months ago that fivem®issomethinglessrosy. his bungalow CanmUlhlty was °new to e. Miami market has investors doing dips Ies�„be�e m� p to is here 'these are people deamt>g hotelmorns. tables"she By Matt Reed West Falco Beach to Miami and negotiate on- wand l do> a whole says. 'flrey cera barely make USATODAY Line.This yew the site will laundr Five auc- lot of mom he says But he the$900 to$1.000 rent. ... tions,simtlat w eBay. also saw a chmm to become a I'm worried about the chit- Converted apartments aren't the only hot ►Condo ftxom.This site lhelppssbuyers of homeowner_ dten.' spot in the nation's booming condommian cmbalt Won condos find secondary buyers Feel Barin 29,who amends Condo conversions such as mazket.ln rapidly�owmg South Florida crew so they an sell the condos at a rig herprice,or San Diego�University.paid these,in San Diego's strato- condos are traded almost tike a commodity "tip"dim. $217.000 in April for a convert- spheric housing market are Entrepreneurs have hundred two online In a flip,the first buyer pays a deposit and ed one-bedroom condo. He gatrhmg momentum in metro- earhanges where visioors can buy, seg and signs an with a developer m dose says he wable to buy crow odhan areas around the na- �p condos in a global madietphoe. on a ornnd when n is finished sanethaes a because off the relatively km tion in places such as Miami," "Condos are-more and more being bothxht year or two rtes As construction proceeds. o�of the condo and loans he Las Vegas Charlotte and Wash sights based an.price per aquae foot the condo's value rises:mw buyers want in obtained through progams for ftigM D.C., developers are and the view.'says Redhard Swerdlow,CEO of and the arjend buyer an sell the unit for a first-time home buyers. �yr� and apart- United States Condo Eorhange,or USCONDEX. . profit moments after dose*Sellers pay a 4% Mayor Mar.Lewis of El Ca- �Tttnldings= in the Miami area akare,devek�es have eornnhi i for helpp brokering a ffia Jar.a San Diego ssul��ree units as condominiums. proposed as many as 70.000 units m glossy Cando Flip fbhmder Mads 2�t says 8 housing, make The condos,often priced fir towers tobebuiltnthenerttwotofDur pahgany.wavktilaedayaadesot housing. welcomes convet- less than new condominiums The w aim to move them m col- deals when instant transactions happen on- cions.Conversions enable tesi- ar sioglefirafty homes, oiler �cp�oornrmsshass the way line. Florida law contracts and pa dents to qua dawn roots,and. scone ranters a flees ►USOOPIDFX�om ibis webst0e charges [rerworlc to be law recorded they also Increase tax revenue Ing chance at homeownership. developers$2.5W per building per month to for city services,be sem• T>amants; who ant scrape to- showcase existing and ptecolsCtrctton con- Reed reports daly for RDFjDATODAYinLid- Art Madrid mayor of neigh,- Bother a down payment or ob- dos.Nte>mat buyers can search listings Eton bourne,Fla. having La Mesa. isn't so sure tainmustmove conversions help his town.la `COIRtLS create oppor- Mesa ties the number of con- ftu for entry-level the nation's fastest-growing Converted condos are atnac- the nation's lowest apartment versions it will allow m the chases." says Gabe del Roof metro area Ten thousand W terve to empty-nesters who vacancy rates, con- number of apartments buitt in Communitym 13.000 apartments were con- want to downsim but they are cram azrang that the previous two years. No pyo �ps low- ver'ted to condominiums last most with first-time nmtas are being I&with fewm e con- and h doe-iamnoe fatrdites year in Clink County which in- homeparticularly fire- places togs past 'Men we also see the other dudes las Vegas teachers and others In the vllashbono area,the 01 Charcot we have a kgal and side These are thhe very low- The lower prices of convert- who,earn moderate mcames in vacancy rate for multifamily .moral resp ns1hility to make iooame individuals who have ed condos are a big draw for expensive markets says Walter rental units was 3.6% as of sure that me residents who've twhal4i lheern in that comb would-be home bar ery s Con- Nblony spolaesnhaih for the Chi- Jcily 1.accadmgto thhe Realtors lived here for yew and years fior a vhay time . 1>rey� v$bed condos in Das V tt asp cost t;Mfiased National Assoda goup.Tbe rate was 29%in Mi- aren't displaced just for the dontlhavemany opttoat" $90.000 to$150,000. me iron Of Realtors eau and 2.7%m San Diego.The Satre Of matey"Madrid says The tt F to coffin lush g than price of a new sk bur Some cities where condo. projected national average va- particobi y hot in las Vegas, By home these is S305= conversions are underway have ancy rate this year is 5.7%. P.Coriversiom spread,lA USA Today, JUIy 7 Sunday,May22,2005 :anraee eom res<ea�arn I r � I �.3 i I • i I . , ZEIp$tOVIDDI1WlT6iB�Lw�--}bo ' . TRZ"T TO OWNR$:A:meDo.ateoardbapertn WomnaadMlbh hapesewreralase beemne-IWM oJther hO*L-&d.ffUkS8Wooaaeretwsetmsdasi MV9M , I . i -Condo crazya . . a The'80s apartment-conversion trend resurfaces as developers.answer a demand for entry-level homes. r' $yMm�aaliosrresa - sey�alyBar$aedthemBilQCtebat. . y�ol�!T wby mtda ataodoemvaefm aad maim tmee ttma8 �' i vdmt,wpafaaaeeebatdtr ...V�n" �� ` I Mat M 1 33 i,. Y� t�o& g Wh vena me Tn} Swatb� m� a a ` ���ee WB ft reotedjdW Yf,QcWra AM=en fhc en✓eCM WWp't W Rae6 %moyi Y�ft tbtee"M whUe try to ybuy aa�hame. Methd/�nte�8e�etiya�d�d�9le�mJs PYom ID88MMZW1.8en h3ldaftertepeated�>odogblddingViBTB �M.rVw^,rr!^�"WoltE'WBrtLBQYN.�IIV®� w eWAW.O* Nem.1..a�mwl8&pmo am 'aaw aCya mom emtve�ame ffieesedt tbwowmrtI=too i wWrrr�r.w. a VWadro.rb'�"Ir"ateVer tmtoUnft WH—d=%rW—aed •. ted' ... -mramAi �9000.ValammW. _ TIffi>ff.0eto0e;theneWawnmsOfDO'eWoodland ' neleemcmveedaa8haysdonewWdlmSeo h9Tfs aempl�atoned t®9�am oflhet reNeal DbW to became of tbe>j1 56=pdae gap bpWm a IDI, the 1.518 rental wits beIDH roo0wated LD eoa9ersIm mit and a ngw-cmutrottloo,000dozotm' . ft,wleomdm*0 meetDosawbW ®d ftWbeiW&OTLiats$ofttobeablgtreW 1 mom per. dW od emdoo weIn the-. ... foomooft 4Y�W.imam�3serop =mWV{�i YY YO/V IlmV4Y�,®yYo�yB�`.. YY Y IDer oOerlbr>I8NM -®dm ngiltm,lss�mg1.188 aDDQO . noddaagaheadLOtpopalmtmdtmtheB80s,de- tnClozoMTTDeafle RhV9aldeaffiSwDtego. ye.I OMB m an 0--ld nun entu-16yel l=aa=rl btnaWmtdTomBaddelthe8®!9 ' bW!>a.tnamtoiendb!oomersby?+�Pg Imy affiomnec913aw1n•+athttbrtLebtyeraffi h1to 9Yro AndaChoa�oontefdom' tbeaonv~. •: d%t is reAml VA*fit I =11 1 1 RWVM One of DoW tenial was whethez her.mit dsmgtmne-pdae eppfedat>m and gm' m909 be dow to app ICiRli The demtmd mr aft ' LhewLfm4the pwat a moue-. able l oOft ha®oVeZ Ima helped Boamlaod amdm m®ddwesnodgasardmubigr apptcddemore-T>leWtbab IM ON ftr spmtneoL on*,=geoeem ftwm pWat7 b:stwmmlym%regmdlemorzbetbortW=con.. sw2eges t80.eaa to 410DAW per ma In Be=areas.' verdoos,sell Robert hi7dubem,depaty~emw- addcanmeCate.aedesa With]1e71lett ODI- mfstf)rthe�eAam.otRmitma WITH P88�B:Ddsoondo sorep7es,the. . IM Pot to Los Alamitos,VU hem sold eoneeedws Frcm March 2X2 to Wereb 2005.the PIedim price Md�ooNtaaat W4merOader,hasdot apaI WOU s date the eet Wft.'7lot'1lamtl bus been [seeCmmerdonsirveBq .agxlgwdensmdw=rW . LA Times, May 22 LA Times, May 22 16. ftv- fit g " • 8 k .@ ' _"R a see � P � FIB Hit iYY6 t; x His. hill.,' P1 rL it ran sly ` :t c RED FILED MEETING AGENDA JUL 19 2005 VATE 7 �OTEM # 62 SV 3'Ec Tc.�co1Jy/G(-AOj E Cci.040 0 S - c P" 2S4 n.ElaR. /n�gyu R� cc�viv c_iL rnEm:�6ER Srl9Nr ST.�IF/ I � _ 7 0 7.c-/E OLAj4Aa&R TNy_S 4761 R. / n-1 77t_.5//S PRa Ec 7 n-zy AfRE //V_ - YOO & COV /vC/L I f Sa Ew A A A EPc R 7._togGt3EA TN L PAR k/IVe; 4.0 7 !y?E- IM0 u E T R E Li-Ll G Re so c u 7/O.- S IIC A NA , SEc7 n 2 /VCS • S . w.fG /� w/ti Fl SSVR_E�/��PARfri/v c o T 5 . E 7AEPA//4 4 THE Ro PEk /c ya u Fa R yo ICOUN IL CDD D!R CAO ::IN DIR Li 1F CAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY PW DIR —QA I GRamA/%f Ll UL=hKlUhlU t if E-C F OEP FADS RE D I R ii CIV/L ENC, /�vE�R DIn IPic 7uR�5 �+T'r.9c.�1EA /O 37- � Sov�rrwQoA rOR . IISAN LyiS oB/SF�C�� Ctij .9'346 _ @50S- 440-oCj7 III Z of q o d �• i i. a 4,1 •,�1� '1. rt• rr . . � + .� •v. p s , yAL qVV ••� 1 e ` � t �� w-• •�J •- 1. •4 . a 1 _ rS ( rl �_ ♦ o S ° iil ,QTY.- 3ok +T9 0 CZ1on (� a �L . � y l.• .,y . y .Jp � n•�, a • tii �', 1 � ♦:• Ali.: j r w�`2•ik�Q� a. • � r . • y M.a h '•...• . �syn t"'• °.. i 3 of 9 t' t fib. .�1.,;�•,:•, �'- � fir•'�.� •\H'- ''v. it �. '�. cel x N� .i. � 4. q,��}:• i • Y " LIQ♦- 7;! G t •t fir G•F /, � Irl," f lz V -, � ♦ Yt J • ,. """111 Z. Y •\ �f` „ '. 1 '� ��n1 y`a' ,�^Fa f e�f 'V� r^ �i' f, f,•oN od tft 1 •� - � •.�.� �. 0`�♦.�' i ?'F F� \'•�,, •1{�r r... �Ji:,�.`C'!�'r'0 ,` e,'�"•�t1 r. tAy�. .11111R1 •��yj� , 11 1'• + J .�::•tn• '.n tF; ti:k ,y�(,• k fr, • '.1 } }•r '/,!{`'�i 'r•%RS -w ,�/t1r �• , f !fl''. �.(tilY ♦. R 1 . � ♦ f. , r +�� ♦ �IV tt>f..2•t.' 14116 J� 6Q r it J .,' •i T' . •. '\• 1 ' • ., �,i �.J t,♦��r7 1♦ir j{�,✓ tt IN �R' ` .♦V,P tt+3,' 'A♦ Gr,- 1•r fry•, �r'� ' ♦ ` 1 w[•: '� � 1, '+� J dw' t rar• Y'• ,ter wa`,1.1 t _ cf � - `� • ♦ .♦ `.A. It 1• .` J '1• '.•}�V ''!! Qt•t J' 1� {J J p 4 C:AdOL 14.0 91 g 40 06 46 Yz a r � ° • o ' y HSI ��•Jµ•�_ �'� ���. �, 'yi. p'r.�. . 1 N �A c � a �c� c • fP ' �s �f{ a'y-ti�C�rn Eli. �y„#1 �.' 1 f, • ��`" . '• 1.1 •a �. 9;� 0 •}'. J. ('] � . .�` 'AW 11 1 'df'��� .w�' . - t .. _d ��`ti � � I,v �Y �gt�°� '�,,. J4`• ,v �., � p _a ��c C �` '�1 ,Y, _" oa 'y 7 �• .E r • �r+ • °.t. _�?iv `ii O� ``c�'E `# fi6 � Aw ate G J r�p't y . S ,, �? .�:fl_;'i �`• ,f+�' a .i•r �a _ ..ojj w + ��. :ut.i.#!`` ' � '�°, .. - �¢ Nom•, iu{ r. a - ,•l._ '�o, :•% ��' .,a'.:�. . � f+,, � ` 4' i,+i vd• a' { iaa �"v atr a.•�� U 0 � qC.' �'�• fi ti • ♦ _. �. 4l� `J ` y� j.�" G, N •.1 1. ,� , ,°�. - � i� r • • y •�� a. .� yA 0' 'moi.. � P u G _eo , J wOtl :7 a, sVn f�{y uS T • t ' "',f e�ej+ � I i Y -'. TJ ,r a °�G I o� w.a ..} Jy# + �A , ..a"�j. ,-cam e �p� � ,j� ♦� ,?� dS�r �• .,•.� w1�, i q�r'� ��i ;+c �V o y ., Q . 4' A _^S.✓ J.+�yi. ,'! ��� ,c ;9E •J o y 1•�v v � 4� �r c� - �.' ����'Kms •' •'41 ' • r �' #nq; �(1 i c.. °r` �y el or 40 O �. ,�tF"7,'1y,:i�� • � 0� o � .° -f b 'f � y � � ,,t• ' ',c•'! _l�r�a � ,` R o pAv Q oiay ° ° t � o l ° QOl • G •� .1 � .0 d o � oa v 4 t r�•9`I oDo as co N 2 S - 06- AVRIV wooA Vi'LGAc�E p Rriwc, 0o7 F-A14LURC' '• i `� '� x . TK��p�S.�Y �d�4vtiN't'� .• .. ` �', E'u�gp�-�.IJ,.� is7'".'L .. }r.G .y��D., o ' ��`, �r1 .'�✓ti ".YTi c ..,� -' 1 . ,1.�tr�h yeti , ✓✓µ �.�,�,? 'o .z+ e [ �`�` •moo`- _ o � rJ_ � �_ �r♦tet ° QnV� � �-e�.o., - •� oG-. o'c o � �v('V!":+k•.7Y:��L a o •o�� T♦ o' o o o � �n�=b��� moo..- n an...��..Q.�o�09'ga'G'� ^:F.T♦„ � ���� � � ,d'� " C ., . 4k�' GD, 11 J qa o .♦o � o d roi c -oo J OJ. �x8.- D. 199 .6 ...A o� poB < ♦ o,. O•,-O� c 61; sry eo 9 ° o• o oLp" t.�f�,' � O' co Jyt.fI°. � `o oe ao' . o°m o !e oG o - - c °d'- o 4♦ 1 ca �`� moomObo ooa_O oro U^ - Ilk d° °' o �O• o Q> oo'� �j°. 8 b c., o 00 0 8 o o O'tl_ ,Q �e O 4 Jp O °G�QpO i'V.� ,;o yk'_ > O b RO S J •,..co,d ��6�a ° ,CC G}''� e o ab0C_b`8o o d n ,�lp 0 o` /yp f O O U •' Q Oo ' Oo^ �oK� ao• AJ • _a� � c � o. o � j- i'.' �• � rel .�^ I• ;'. e o o° , ;fi ,• ' ` S iC.` +F f / -• ��� �.. Eo ry4 i.o .-6;0' Y7 °,«`° o A qbg • g kr S �j{• '�s Yy l4 iE It ° J o M + o •�: , J qo° ° J Lf :o \t •1 j V � .� l •� 11•�Mlr � -`,�' r.�'Y'°"',, q o o..a °'0An ki V •� (�t�� +�` `3 �1 4 t i .d ' ^�� 8 ��'•!K •°Y` �` _A v b �off, o r�•� ♦ �•.�� a eft:^� � +T � °� � ..�y��.. � e o °o � ° t...k. �4,J •1 ( p,'I;rl• �• f;1��r n °F.i e o PVP \ R �'q, y -i .s. V 1; •.�� •yt PQ ° •' ,�• Ill ^`p... N .' d i � rt ... J° - '/ D 2b" . FA lk y "•tiff �r Y 47�. �h `.° � � ° 9. p fJ c.. +� y1116, y ' .. :., 1.. � °I •.11l Q° o °�'� °� � . ' o Aon^.`� o. t ' }}� •1 1 y h J th �J •1 t i ��p a � o o �� IL • { t- f�.�(',yp a 5 ' .t +• I' •mob q -C '�• °6b ` p�' ` • �, _� �-!''e"•T' ��nr. y �Sl. a.c�•� yRI.'o"{�` �•SR'°•d� o., ^ pct' d i r [ �J µ V of a0.a el'.i•;a. ,_ � o a .,�.�� :1 - �< .+,1�` ,� p'��°• • •xi � � Nit? QL, �� te 'n �� tip .�� �• • °ft w 1•�� 'Y;ti ♦p, , WA Up c 9 0 S S`J •l •�� fs/ h.• � � ' M I \O " ,r lo N � lby"f• � •y.0. ^p •..i• •�V t^:.c 'I : ,. .�04 y� •j. -r ? • r �' y» b •of dv:- ' •\ .t�t� t. .m T aGc . . fwA jpj�, ,r ?.,y .f�� . �t .a•0�� � "=c�ti �o�nD0 V�'2Ny''(�i 'y: r T'c 1 1r 01 d J�tr} iii �•,-'Vr y� , It i � _,\ a � l�•Q � / C fir' V t( ` !� < s ,.,,0''��pp *�4j'}x�V >�'d'^E��.�., 4 ` +Q.�,,"�r�"•L tt � ° ep','O �p,t >aN •+fly'' "fir _ ♦ it t r1hr.' ��" r - ' ,7V r�• -.htii 1*1(� a � fffWWW1S' o )• ��itT,l. lam' ;^:` '- ` ' iD Jcr1y.C! )k t9x{(y� rypyciy.o V� �pt4AWe hCG ly Ioll �91��`1G ;;J f..���� 4':YYY•a••>� `Q f� t ° r' r' 4 00 J •� � 1S � ° ;� � � �1,. ''� ' o'er 3 :;R , Y �� il�r F•J�x� b [� `�. � 'a.'rP�� t'�[,y/ry�p�'� 1���j" '� }C • ✓+o el • t� b J✓ e° _ ,o o O - ` o 00 a Yo o`19 , ° c p am i c 'Q ° l ° - •p 0 AlK ,. �� _ tib. •�:� t�3w � � ;� -. Ar Lie ,.ttp � 1 If r' pt'r 40 1P. r- Now So 70 yyq _ f m-7 LO r '. � 1 co ! d � P _ Aa „• 0 r J► � t 1 � p O i 1 ��t111F�. Q 4 � i e of y u, I �• S � - .� Y ' -=i"'"`-F• ,`moi 4 F � T• 1 T�1/" •' 't �I Jv I J �I � I , U � s •ti �-�is � :�:�,D"- =i 4 S r st / S :%met '- • � =�'�" `- 7_1 i _ rJ• "r r S•`S Wow ��.til.,•• .fy;` 7. ,t "' > - ' i •4'1 _.4 jv i tet'' "•�i:�.