HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1992, - COMMUNICATION 1 & AFFIVAVIT OF PUBLICATION In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
No. 29052
CITY
CLERK ATTN KIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ,,,�go CM of
ss. �r san tuts oaispo
County of San Luis Obispo CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday,August 18,1992
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the on Tuesday, August 18,
1992, the San Luis Obispo
City Council will hold public
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not hearings beginning at 7:00
p.m.In the Council Chambers
of City Hall,990 Palm Street
interested in the above-entitled MATTER on the items listed below.
Hearings will be heard in the
order shown on the agenda.
The is
I am now, and at all times embraced attend uan�d comment to
Council may. also discuss
other hearings or business.
in the publication herein mention was, the principal clerk items before or after those
listed. If you challenge any
one of the proposed actions
of the printers and publishers of the SAN LUIS OBISPO described below in court,you
may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone
COUNTY TELEGRAM-TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general else raised at the public
hearings described in this
notice, or In written corre-
circulation, printed and published deal}, Sundays ex- spondence. delivered to the
City Council at,or prior to,the
public hearing.
ce ted, at the Ci of San Luis Obispo in the above The reports, including rec-
P City P ommendations by staff, will
be available for review in the
City Clerk's Department on
named county and state: that _ N.0.T10E the Wednesday before the
meeting. For more informa-
tion, please contact the city
Clerk's Department at 781-
7103 or visit us in Room#1 of
City Hall.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PROCEDURES to consider an
ordinance adding a category
at which the annexed clipping is a true printed copy, was of aesthetically insignificant
published in the above-named newspaper and not in any
projects,
g acorrespond ngg
supplement thereof — on the following dates, to-wit: Reanges t Guidelines.Architectural
ew PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
8/8 -SOUTH HIGUERA STREET-
to consider a Planning Com-
mission recommendation to
approve a request to rezone
_ the Walter Center(3190-3240
South Higuera Street)from O-
S(Office-Special Considera-
tions) to O-PD (Office -
Planned Development)to ex.
that said newspaper was duly and regularly ascertained pand the types of uses el-
and established a newspaper of general circulation by lowed.(45 min.)
Decree entered in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo *1541
County, State of California, on June 9, 1952, Case #19139under the provisions of Chapter 1, Division 7, Title of theGovernment Code of the State of California.I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
REZONING - R 27.92 - to
(,C PQ consider a Planning Coto ap-
o ` pion recommendation to ap-
prove a request to amend the
ow
(Signature of Principal Clerk) zoning regulations to allow
certain retail and office uses
In the C-N zone(40 min.)
9 2 /s/Pam Voges,City Clerk
Date 8 8 19 Ang.8,1992 63052
i
i
II
mh`.
Q m
x
CD N
cr
o:
0.. o C
co
,n
ZZ (�
:
AGENDA
Gh,
c =1
AMnn ❑ Fn
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council Members [Y CY'cDDDtR
Lr 13 FIN.D11
FROM: Nick Neuburger, General Manager, The Villag /AC1+0 ❑ RRECH F
LL'�7 «RIG. E) FW DDL
❑ POACH
DATE: August 18, 1992 ❑ MCRFMAT.IFAM ❑ RBC DIR
SUBJECT: Participation in the Section 8 Assisted Hou �g PrograW_LDi
Executive summary of Decision Not to Renew Assisted Sousing Contracts
Tropicana Project of SLO purchased The Village on October 11, 1990 from
Valley Federal Savings who had foreclosed on the prior owners. The
former owners were in bankruptcy with an occupancy rate of
approximately 40%, half of which were Section 8 tenants. Prior to
negotiating a purchase price we checked with both the city and the
Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to determine the
conditions surrounding the conversion from student occupancy to
seniors. No conditions existed that would mandate the owners to house
Section 8 persons. This directly reflected the price which was paid
for the project.
For several years we continued to voluntarily participate in the
Section 8 program. In 1991 we began a very successful leasing
campaign. We have filled the majority of the complex and have had to
place people on a waiting list. We have had people on our waiting list
for many months and today have 21 people on our waiting list who have
signed a reservation form and are prepared to move into The Village.
We have not been able to move these people in because the units were
occupied by Section 8 tenants.
On August 5, 1992 we mailed letters to our Section 8 tenants informing
them that we would not be renewing their housing contracts at the
Section 8 rental rate; a copy of the letter is attached. There are
fifteen persons affected by this decision and their leases expire over
the next eleven months. The decision was based on business
considerations because since April 15, 1992, The Village has been in
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Many factors influenced the decision to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection but foremost was our inability to refinance the project when
a note became due and a very expensive default rate kicked in. Most
important to the project's ability to get out of bankruptcy is its
capability of increasing its income.
The difference between the income from Section 8 units and the rate
which we are able to place tenants in the units for today, is $425 per
month per unit. This equates to $76,500 per year.
Please understand that we have not evicted any one and that the Housing
authority has assured us that there is ample housing available. We are
working closely with the Housing Authority and we will continue to work
with the tenants to help them find new housing. We have received an
abundance of calls and information packages from complexes that accept
Section 8 tenants and whose managers are eager to have new residents.
AUG 18 1991
CITY COUNCIL
eAkl I nic nm�n^ nw
AT SAN LUIS OBISPO
Retirement Living At Its Best
55 N. Broad Street - San Luis Obispo, California 93405
August stn, 1992 Phone (805) 543-2300 • (800) 676-8424
^F2^ ^F3^
55 Broad Street, Apartment #^F1^
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Dear ^F2^,
You are probably aware of the change in the rental rates at The Village.
The new rates will be effective on September 1st, 1992 for all residents
not on a lease. They will become effective for all residents on leases
upon the expiration of their lease.
The decision to raise rents was a business decision. The rental rates at
The Village must be at a level that works for both the owners and the
residents. Current Village residents have experienced little or no rate
increase for three years. Meanwhile, our utilities, food costs and taxes
have continued to escalate.
For the past few years, we. have been providing services which exceed the
norm for the rental assistance program, and have done our best to keep
rents stable. However, the income that we receive from the "Section 8"
units does not even cover our interest costs and the costs of the services
provided. Therefore, we will not be renewing your lease which terminates
on ^F4^.
We have notified the Housing Authority of our decision, and they are ready
to provide the assistance you may need to locate suitable housing. Please
contact your housing specialist at 543-4478 to find out how you may go
about locating alternate housing.
A meeting will be held at 10:30 AM on Monday, August 10th, 1992 in the
exercise room at The Village. Representatives of The Village and the
Housing Authority will be present to answer questions. Members .of your
family are welcome if you would like to invite them to this meeting.
Thank you for being a part of The Village Community. I hope that your
residence here has been an enjoyable one and that your new home will
present a stimulating environment that matches what you have experienced
here.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
The Village at San Luis Obispo The Housing Authority of the
City of San Luis- Obispo
Nick Neuburger George Moylan
Executive Director
MEETING AGENDA
DATE /8- w T
• ❑ Fr,
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council Members UrWH Q'cDDIX&
L-V)cAo ❑ RN.D1R.
FROM: Nick Neuburger, General Manager, The VillagF4 /A O ❑ FMECHEF
VEY ❑ FW DWL
DATE: August 18, 1992 CLERK/ORIG. ID POL[aM❑ MGMT.TEAM ❑ RMDQL
SUBJECT: Participation in the Section 8 Assisted Hou �ig P ogra0 1
Executive Summary of Decision Not to Renew Assisted Housing Contracts
Tropicana Project of SLO purchased The Village on October 11, 1990 from
Valley Federal Savings who had foreclosed on the prior owners. The
former owners were in bankruptcy with an occupancy rate of
approximately 40%, half of which were Section 8 tenants. Prior to
negotiating a purchase price we checked with both the city and the
Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to determine the
conditions surrounding the conversion from student occupancy to
seniors. No conditions existed that would mandate the owners to house
Section 8 persons. This directly reflected the price which was paid
for the project.
For several years we continued to voluntarily participate in the
Section 8 program. In 1991 we began a very successful leasing
campaign. We have filled the majority of the complex and have had to
place people on a waiting list. We have had people on our waiting list
for many months and today have 21 people on our waiting list who have
signed a reservation form and are prepared to move into The Village.
We have not been able to move these people in because the units were
occupied by Section 8 tenants.
On August 5, 1992 we mailed letters to our Section 8 tenants informing
them that we would not be renewing their housing contracts at the
Section 8 rental rate; a copy of the letter is attached. There are
fifteen persons affected by this decision and their leases expire over
the next eleven months. The decision was based on business
considerations because since April 15, 1992, The Village has been in
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Many factors influenced the decision to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection but foremost was our inability to refinance the project when
a note became due and a very expensive default rate kicked in. Most
important to the project's ability to get out of bankruptcy is its
capability of increasing its income.
The difference between the income from Section 8 units and the rate
which we are able to place tenants in the units for today, is $425 per
month per unit. This equates to $76,500 per year.
Please understand that we have not evicted any one and that the Housing
authority has assured us that there is ample housing available. We are
working closely with the Housing Authority and we will continue to work
with the tenants to help them find new housing. We have received an
abundance of calls and information packages from complexes that accept
Section 8 tenants and whose managers are eager to have new residents.
LCEI VE®
AUG 18 199"L
CITY COUNCIL
scN I Inc naicon rn
r
. f
r r
DBISPO
Retirement Living At Its Best
55 N. Broad Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93405
August 5th, 1992 Phone (805) 543-2300 • (800) 676-8424
^F2^ ^F3^
55 Broad Street, Apartment #^F1^
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Dear ^F2^,
You areprobably aware of the change in .the .rental rates at The Village.
The new rates will be effective on September 1st, 1992 for all residents
not on a lease.. They will become effective for all residents on leases
upon the expiration of their lease..
The decision to raise rents was. a business decision. The rental rates at
The Village must be at a level that works for both the owners and the
residents. Current Village residents have experienced little or no rate
increase for three years. Meanwhile, our utilities, food costs and taxes
have continued to escalate.
For the past few years, we. have been providing services which exceed the
norm for the rental assistance program, and have done our best to keep
rents stable.: However, the income that we receive from the "Section 8"
units does not even cover our interest costs and the costs of the services
provided. Therefore, wewill not be: renewing your lease which terminates
on ^F4^:
We have notified the Housing Authority of our decision, and they are ready
to provide the assistance you may need to locate suitable housing. Please
contact your housing specialist at 543-4478 to find out how you may go
about locating alternate housing.
A meeting will be held at 10: 30 AM on Monday, August 10th, 1992 in the
exercise room at The Village. Representatives of The Village and the
Housing Authority will be present to answer questions. Members .of your
family are welcome if you would like to invite them to this meeting.
Thank you for being a part of The village Community. I .hope that your
residence here has been an enjoyable one and that your new home will
present a stimulating environment that matches what you have experienced
here.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
The Village at San Luis Obispo The Housing Authority of the
City of San Luis Obispo
Nick Neuburger George Moylan
Executive Director
y ,9 ITEMU
r Q Q¢ city of sAn hAis OBISP&
0
J " OFFICE OF THE MAYOR •990 PALM STREET
!�! S O Post Office Box 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100•8051549.7111
COMMUNICATION
DATE: August 12, 1992
TO: Council
FROM: Penny Rap a
P-41*r
REQUEST: Council Agendize The Village P.D. Changes
The article in the T-T (see attached) regarding the notice to The Village residents with
subsidized rent, confirmed by a conversation with one of those tenants, I believe should
be looked into by the Council.
Attached is the information from the P.D. file which discusses this issue as part of the
approval.
I request we place this on our next agenda to discuss.
Thank you.
PR:cm
Attachments
COPLESTO:
❑•Desoto Adan ❑ FYI
B'CDD DM
❑ FIN.DR
5�►CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
A77URNEy ❑ Fw D1R
� ❑ POLICE CH.
❑ MCMT.TFAM ❑ RECDIR,�
❑ CRFADFUE ❑ UnLDIR
Irene Albin, 75, said she doubted
whether the Village was losing any
San Luis Obispo County(Calif.) TELEG: money on her or her subsidized
friends.
Albin came to San Luis Obispo after
leaving her husband in Montana.
"I was with him for 25 years and I
just got tired of him," Albin said. "I
In
Subsidized. st got up and walked out"
Two of her friends,who didn't want
their names used, said they thought
they'd be at the Village for the rest of
seniors may their lives. They are outraged.Neu-
burger has told them they must leave.
"I have all my friends here,"one of
have to move Albin's friends said. "I have no car
and no pots and pans.It would cost a
lot of money to go buy those.It's just
Bankrupt facility says senior abuse is what itis."
The three women complain the
it cant pull through former owners of the Village had
promised to provide subsidized hous-
o n their low rents mg in order to get the permit to
switch from serving students to
By Gardiner Harris serving seniors.
Telegram-Tribune "They used us and now they want
to get rid of us,"one said.
A bankrupt San Luis Obispo hous- Pam Ricci,an associate planner at
ing project wants to move out 15 the city, said there was no such deal
elderly residents who can't afford the between the city and the Village's
rent, but the threatened seniors are former owners.
fighting back.
The village at San Luis Obispo has Ricci's assurances do little to as-
been in bankruptcy since April. Its suage the affected seniors.The subsi-
owners — who bought the project in dized residents have called this news-
1990 out of bankruptcy court — paper,the local television station,City
couldn't find financing for a second Hall and elsewhere to lobby against
mortgage that came due. their eviction.
In struggling to get out of Chapter Neuburger is beginning to feel the
11; Nick Neuburger, the Village's heat.
manager, decided the project could "This project is in bankruptcy,"
no longer afford to house 15 people Neuburger asserts, "and it just
who receive federal housing assist- doesn't make sense to keep losing
ance. money on these people."
Rents for the complex normally run : Neuberger has asked the residents
$1,075 per month, but the project is to leave as their rental contracts
getting only$635 a month for each of expire over the next several months.
the subsidized residents,according to George Moylan, director of the
Neuburger. Housing Authority, said there's little
Of that total, the residents them- he can do. The city can't force
selves contribute about $310 per Neuburger to continue to house the
month. The Housing Authority of the subsidized residents,although he can
City of San Luis Obispo chips in the help them find other housing.
other $325 per month, using money "Of course if they want to get
from the federal Department of Hous- sewing rooms, a swimming pool,
ing and Urban Development transportation,meals and other activ-
A subsidized resident at the Village ities,that's going to be difficult to find
now.gets a one-bedroom apartment,. because the numbers just don't work
two meals a day, transportation financially,"Moylan said.' .
around town and access to a swim-
ming pool, craft room, woodshop,
recreation room, library, TV room
and sauna.
Neuburger said all those services
cost more than $635 per month to
deliver.
"The bottom he is that this place is
not a run-of-the-mill apartment com-
plex," said Neuburger. "I don't want
to sound like a money-grubber,but I
can't afford to be a philanthropist
either."
MEETING DATE: 6-25-86
city of San Luis OBISPO
WAAMM do PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 4
BY: Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner FK
SUBJECT: FILE#
Amendment to final development plan to allow change in occupancy of Centrepointe
Apartments located at 55 Broad Street from student to senior (55 years old and older) and
the 61 Broad Street Apartments from student to unrestricted.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend the City Council concur with the negative declaration on environmental impact
and approve the planned development amendment based on findings and subject to conditions
recommended by staff.
BACKGROUND:
Situation/Previous Review
On January 4, 1965, the City Council approved the preliminary overall planned development
plan and precise plan for Phase I of the planned development. Precise plans for Phase 2
and Phase 2 and Phase 3 were approved on February 7, 1966 and January 6, 1970,
respectively. Development of the subject site with existing buildings and improvements
was approved as part of the Phase 2 precise plan.
The precise plan for the site was designed and approved for student occupancy. The
applicant is proposing to amend the final planned development plan to allow other than
student occupancy of the units in the two apartment complexes.
Data SUMMaTV
Address: 55 & 61 Broad Street
Applicant: RPI-XXV (Jeff Modic)
Representative: Rob Strong and Rod Levin
Zoning: R-4-PD
General Plan: High density residential
Environmental Status: A negative declaration on environmental impact was granted by the
Community Development Director on June 11, 1986.
Site Descriotion
The site is located on the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and Broad Street. It is
presently developed with two large apartment complexes. The complex named Centrepointe
contains 111 units and the complex called 61 Broad Street has 51 units. In addition to
the buildings which house the units, the site is developed with parking lot areas that
_ contain a total of 295 parking spaces, two swimming pools, tennis courts, and
landscaping. Old Garden Creek flows through the site in an open channel. No significant
changes to existing site conditions are proposed with the subject applications.
Surrounding land uses include the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center to the north,
single-family homes to the east and south, and apartments to the west.
EVALUATION
1. Consistencv with General Plan: The applicant's proposal to change the occupancies of
the two apartment complexes is not in conflict with any of the policies contained in
the general plan. None of the elements contain a specific policy that mandates that
large apartment complexes within close proximity to Cal Poly be reserved for student
occupancy, although these complexes have traditionally been occupied by students.
PD 1266
Page 2
In terms of general plan consistency, the real issue is not the type of occupancy
(student vs. senior), but whether or not a demonstrated housing need is being
fulfilled by that occupancy. The proposal would provide housing for seniors who
comprise a growing percentage of the population and need affordable and conveniently
located housing. This is consistent with housing element goals and policies. With
the indicated support of the Housing Authority to have several of the units available
to seniors under a rental subsidy program, the proposal would be consistent with
policy to provide such assistance programs to those segments of the population in
need (see attached letter from A.R. Chubon).
2. Displacement of Students: The precise plan for development of the two apartment
complexes was approved 20 years ago. Cal Poly student enrollment totals, city land
use patterns, and the rental housing market have all changed in the last 20 years.
When the apartments were approved by the city they were designed as off-campus
dormitories. In light of the original intent of constructing the apartments to
provide housing for students, the main concern would be that proposed occupancy
changes do not adversely affect the supply of housing available for students.
As the initial study discusses, students have broader choices in terms of type and
location of housing than ever before. More units are available on the city's rental
market for two primary reasons:
A. A large number of rental units have been constructed within recent years; and
B. The majority of Diablo Canyon construction workers were laid off and have left
the area.
Because of the increase in the number of units available on the rental market in the
city, the large apartment complexes located close to campus have seen a decline in
total occupancy during the past school year. With more variety in type and location
of housing, students are more dispersed throughout the city than ever before. Even
lower occupancy levels are expected for the 1986-87 school year. There appears to be
a trend among students, especially older students, to be more autonomous. Many
students prefer not to live right next to campus.
The numbers of first- and second-year students as a percentage of the overall Cal
Poly student population has also declined somewhat. This can be attributed to
limiting entering freshman to certain levels to keep within allowed total student
quotas. There are increased numbers of older.students which can be attributed to
junior college transfers and an increased tendency for students to take more than
four years to complete their undergraduate degrees.
The Centrepointe complex is rather unique from the standpoint that it has congregate
dining facilities for its residents rather than having individual units which contain
their own kitchens. This type of living arrangement is attractive to a rather small
segment of the student population (mostly entering freshmen) and is one of the .
primary features which makes the complex readily adaptable for senior housing. Since
relatively fewer younger students are seeking housing, the Centrepointe complex has
experienced a pronounced decline in occupancy. The off-campus dorm environment is no
longer as attractive to students because of broader housing choices.
ER 29-86
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The site is located on the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and Broad Street. It is
presently developed with two large apartment complexes. The complex named
Centrepointe contains I I I units and the complex called 61 Broad Street has 51 units.
In addition to buildings, the site is developed with parking lot areas that contain a
total of 295 parking spaces, two swimming pools, tennis courts, and landscaping. Old
Garden Creek flows through the site in an open channel. No significant changes to
existing site conditions are proposed with the subject applications. Surrounding
land uses include the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center to the north, single-family
homes to the east and south, and apartments to the west.
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plansng d Goals. The proposed change to the occupancy of the
Centrepointe complex from exclusively students to senior citizens and the 61
Broad Street complex from students to unrestricted is not in conflict with any
of the policies contained within the city's general plan. None of the elements
contain a specific policy which mandates that large apartment complexes within
close proximity to Cal Poly be reserved for student occupancy. However,
apartments closest to campus traditionally have been occupied almost exclusively
by students. From a land use standpoint, such occupancy is predictable and
logical. Students want to live close to campus for convenience purposes and
other city residents do not generally want to live in areas of student
concentrations.
The applicant's proposal is consistent with city housing goals and policies. It
provides housing for seniors who comprise a growing percentage of the overall
population and need affordable and conveniently-located housing. Also, given
the unique characteristics of the complex (Centrepointe) with its congregate
dining facilities, it is readily adaptible as a senior complex. Because of
this, and its apparent dwindling lack of appeal to students, the proposal would
be consistent with the Housing Element policy which calls for conservation of
existing housing with the least possible displacement of current occupants.
Obviously, if students are not choosing to rent the units, they will not be
displaced. With the indicated support of the Housing Authority to have several
of the units available to seniors under a rental subsidy program, the proposal
would be consistent with policy to provide such assistance programs to those
segments of the population in need.
In terms of general plan policy consistency, the real issue is not the type of
occupancy (student vs. senior), but whether or not a demonstrated housing need
is being fulfilled by that occupancy. Since the appeal of the off-campus dorm
environment of complexes like Centrepointe appears to be dwindling and students
are able to find housing elsewhere in the city, the proposal does not raise
policy issues.
,uNNN4a----�cr-
--+y, •TCkT�r A " vn V.Wnhsr'1 W4.a`Pw,3 a.+'Y�F.w C. 45_Rl ��S'+.• - �
oun
s� c nut ¢ -DRI.
N-
`��.GS:Is,'
=OB
�-
Executive Director-Secretary
A.RICHARD CHUBON
May 12, 1986
Planning Commission. _
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Centerpoint - Conversion to Elderly Housing
Planning Commissioners:
Our Housing Authority, at the request of Vestcap Financial Group, has reviewed
the concept of converting the Centerpoint student housing complex to elderly
housing. The present "soft" student housing market has triggered the project's
owners to consider this conversion effort.
As I understand it, conversion would occur in two stages involving 111 units in
the first stage and 51 units in the final stage. The first stage would consist
of a congregate housing program for elderly. This is a program which would pro-
vide elderly with full meals and other services in addition to housing. Congre-
gate housing for the elderly is not a new concept. As our elderly population
increases, congregate elderly housing complexes have become increasingly in
demand in many communities. In our own community, we have very limited experi-
ence with congregrate housing. While there is likley some need for congregate
housing, no studies that I am aware of have examined this need.
There is, however, well documented need for the more conventional type of
affordable housing for low and moderat2 income elderly. There are currently
more than 250 elderly on our Authority's housing assistance waiting lists.
Additionally, most other elderly complexes in the City and the surrounding area
have a two to five year waiting period.
The successful conversion of Centerpoint to elderly housing will depend on how
affordable the rents are following conversion. In my opinion, the converted
rents will need to be attractive to that portion of the elderly population in
need of housing assistance. A portion of the converted units could achieve
affordability through participation in our Authority's Section 8 Housing
Assistance Program. The limited resources of this program, however, would
restrict initial participation to not more than 20% (23 units) of the converted
units. Additional" participation could occur over time for perhaps another 20%
to 30% of the units. These units would address the need of elderly for housing
assistance. Our Authority is prepared to work with the project's owners in this
regard.
.2r
muu«Daus
OPPNNTYNT _
J
Planning Commission
May 12, 1986
Page 2
About 50% of the first stage converted units would remain without housing
assistance. The conversion rent levels and costs of services i.e., meals, will
determine the attractiveness of these unassisted units in the elderly housing
market. These units will need to be competitively priced. Ultimately, it is
the elderly market's acceptance of the unassisted units which will determine the
success or failure of the conversion. The project's location in relation to
shopping, health -care, public transportation, and many other services desired by
elderly will be an especially positive factor, but rents and cost of services
will be the key factors contributing to this project's success.
I would be happy to answer any questions from city staff or the Commission in
this regard.
Respectfully,
a,P
A. R. CHUBON
Executive Director