Loading...
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