HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/1992, 3 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNER WITHDRAWAL FROM PARTICIPATION IN A PROGRAM PROVIDI IIIh�INIIIIUIIIIIIIII�iII�II� r c a MEETING BATE:
ity
O S
Ilf�ull � dn ..A1S QBiSpo ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 3
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; n o
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner pf�
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission's action to deny an appeal of the
Community Development Director's determination that a Planned
Development Amendment is not necessary to allow property owner
withdrawal from participation in a program providing rent subsidies
for housing in the senior housing project known as the Village,
located at the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and Broad Street
(55 Broad Street) .
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the
Planning Commission's action to uphold the Community Development
Director's determination.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
On September 16, 1992 , following a public hearing, the Planning
Commission denied an appeal filed by Roger Picquet of an
interpretation made by the Community Development Director. The
Director's determination was that the property owner of the Village
senior apartment complex did not need to file a Planned Development
Amendment in order to withdraw from a Section 8 rental subsidy
program' that has been assisting some senior residents. The
Director's determination was based on a lack of specific (or
implied as contended by the appellant) conditions requiring such a
program.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the appellant and several
project tenants spoke in favor of the appeal. The property owner,
project management and several tenants spoke in opposition of the
appeal. The Executive Director of the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority noted a lack of approval conditions requiring
participation in a subsidy program or provision of affordable
housing at the project. The Commission was concerned about the
residents that would need to relocate, but did not feel that
conditions of the planned development approval to establish the
senior complex (PD 1266) mandated the property's owner
participation in a rental subsidy program.
On September 21, 1992 , an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision was filed by Roger Picquet. The Planning Commission
report prepared for the September 16, 1992 hearing is attached.
The report provides background information on the earlier planned
development approval and describes staff's assessment of the City's
���7il�l�►IIIIIjI�lbI1� city of san Js osIspo
Amohma
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
PD 1266 (The Village)
Page 2
I
power to mandate continuation of the rental subsidy program at the
project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the draft resolution, upholding the appeal and requiring
the property owner to file a planned development amendment
application in order to eliminate the rental subsidy program
at the Village senior housing complex.
II
2 . Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attached: Draft Resolutions
Appeal to City Council received 9-21-92
Planning Commission Follow-up Letter
Planning Commission Minutes of 9-16-92
Letter from Village representative Nick Neuburger
dated 9-16-92 (copies circulated at P.C. meeting)
9-16-92 Planning Commission report and attachments
i
I
i
i
I
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REGARDING RETAINING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
AT THE VILLAGE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
LOCATED AT 55 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after
consideration of public testimony, PD 1266 conditions of approval,
the appellant's statements, and the Community Development
Director's determination, determines that it is not necessary for
the property owner of the Village to file a planned development
amendment in order to withdraw from participation in a Section 8
rental subsidy program at the senior housing project, based on the
following finding:
1. The original conditions of approval for Planned Development
PD 1266 did not mandate that the property owner of the
complex participate in low income or rental subsidy
assistance programs.
2 . The City cannot require continued participation in programs
voluntarily entered into by property owners at the Village.
SECTION 2 . Action/Condition. That this Council hereby
denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, upholding
the Community Development Director's interpretation.
On motion of
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote:
3-3
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1992.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Diane Gladwell
APPROVED:
City Ad inistrative Officer
i At r e
. Community Deve pment Director
3-�f
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING RE.TAIN.ING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
AT THE VILLAGE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
LOCATED AT 55 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after
consideration of public testimony, PD 1266 conditions of approval,
the appellant's statements, and the Community Development
Director's determination, determines that it is necessary for the
property owner of the Village to file a planned development
amendment in order to withdraw from participation in a Section 8
rental subsidy program at the senior housing project, based on the
following finding:
1. The property owner's choice to participate in the Section
8 rental subsidy program for several years, following
discussion of the availability of such a program during the
hearing leading to application approval, implies that it is
a part of the project description requiring a planned
development amendment to eliminate program participation.
SECTION 2. Action. That this Council hereby upholds the
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, reversing the
Community Development Director's interpretation.
On motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3 's
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1992 .
Ron Dunin, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk Diane Gladwell
APPROVED:
City Adm nistrative Officer
C' y o r n
Community Deve o ent Director
3��
LAW OFFICES
-ROGER LYON LYON & PICQUET
1104 PALM STREET TELEPHONE
J
ROGER P .CAR (805) 541-2580
TIMOTHY J.CARMEL POST OFFICE BOX 922 TELECOPIER
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 (805) 543-3857
September 21, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
Dear Clerk:
I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's decision of September 16, 1992, that a new Planned
Development, or Amended Planned Development, application is not required in order for the
Village, 55 North Broad Street, to eliminate its subsidized housing program for seniors.
This appeal is based upon the fact that the owner of the project is changing the land use at the
site by proposing to delete the program. Under Chapter 17.62 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code, such a change in land use requires a new Planned Development.
Further correspondence will be provided prior to the Council hearing on this matter.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LYON & PICQUET
Roger 1?icquet
RP:ar � a� g33s�
SEP '- ' 1992
L;I i V GLENK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
3-7
aty of sAnluj s oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with thi appeals Procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 120 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappealsfromthedecisionof Planning Commission
rendered on 9/16/92 which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual
eltuation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
See Attached.
The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with:
on
DATE &TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant:
Nam97Me
Roger Picquet.- Lyon & Picquet
Representative
1104 Palm St.
Address
541-2560
Phone
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Calendared for. - — Copy to AdministimWe Officer
Copy to the-following department(s):
A. Jonas
P. Ricci
CLERK
3 �
��i����i►I�IIIIIIIIIIIfIIIIIII������11°°��►II Igl�l at Of SAn tuts OBISI)O
• y
990 Palm Street/Post office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
September 18, 1992
Mr. Roger Picquet
PO Box 922
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Appeal of Director's Interpretation
55 N. Broad Street
Dear Roger:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 16, 1992, denied your appeal and
upheld the determination of the Community Development Director that a planned
development amendment is not necessary to allow property owner withdrawal from
participation in a program providing rent subsidies in the senior housing project known
as The Village, thereby upholding the original conditions of approval.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk within ten days
of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the
commission.
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at.781-7168.
S'
Arnold B. Jonas, Direc
Community Development
ATTACHMENT: PD Amendment Approval letter dated 6-30-86
cc: Pat Smith
George Moylen, Housing Authority
Nick Neuburger, The Village
TO: Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo
itCEIlItu
FROM: Nick Neuburger, General Manager, The Village
HP 1 G i;12
DATE: September 16, 1.992
CRY OF SAV Ll:1S C9:SP0
SUBJECT: Participation in the Section 8 Assisted Housing Program
Executive Summary of Decision Not to Renew Assisted Housing Contracts
Background
Tropicana Project of SLO purchased The Village on October 11, 1990 from
Valley Federal Savings who had foreclosed. on the previous owners. The
former owners were in bankruptcy with an occupancy rate of
approximately 50%, 17 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 in PD 1266 that would mandate the
owners to house Section 8 persons. This directly reflected the price
which was paid for the project.
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. Today we 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 are 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 an economic business
consideration necessary to ensure the success of the project.
Please understand that we have not evicted any one and prior to our
letter of August 5th, I met with staff of the Housing Authority who
assured us that there was 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.
As recently as last Thursday the manager of California Manor in
Atascadero called me and informed me that they had 5 vacancies and
would like to send representatives, to The Village to make a
presentation to our Section 8 residents.
A ornative Housing Availabi• y
I wanted to make sure that adequate housing was still available for
those looking. On Tuesday, September 81 1992 the Telegram Tribune
"Apartments for Rent" section had 94 ads. Of the non-student
complexes, 16 out of 26 called accepted Section 8 tenants. Houses and
Condominiums were not surveyed, and they could certainly add to the
potential housing base if considered.
The brochure "Alternative Housing Opportunities" for Seniors listed 27
complexes of which 13 accept Section 8 tenants and 3 had apartments
that could be moved into immediately. While the others had no
immediate vacancies they are likely to have a reasonable turnover.
In short, on one day, we were able to locate 24 available apartments
for Section 8 tenants.
We have established that adequate affordable housing is available for
those tenants whose lease has expired. Now, what about the other
issues that need to be considered?
Imposition of Conditions Post Facto
The price paid for The Village was based on its potential income. This
was a reasonable act because there were no conditions at the time of
purchase requiring otherwise. To consider this appeal is to consider
imposing conditions post facto requiring the owners to rent to Section
8 tenants. This would change the value of the property substantially.
If we examine the basis for Mr. Piquet' s appeal, we will find limited
correspondence between staff members of the Housing Authority and the
Planning Department. Participating in the Section 8 program was an
issue that they were aware of and communicated about. The fact that
they talked about it does not form grounds a plan amendment as and this
issue did not appear in the conditions of approval.
Additionally, I believe a egregious wrong is being considered. If you
believe that a condition can be imposed after the fact on property, are
you also suggesting that other for-profit complexes come under review?
What about hotels and food stores; shall we have a two-tiered price
schedule for every aspect in our society based on the government's
definition of need?
We view this process as an- Eminent Domain issue without due process.
In essence what has been suggested by Mr. Picquet is that, lacking any
condition requiring the owners to house people below the rental rates
which they could otherwise receive, the government is imposing
conditions on the property without condemnation procedures or
compensation.
.2711
.:osts of Services Provide.
The real issue behind the petition is; should Tropicana Project be
required to provide services for compensation below their costs? It
is not logical to ask a private business to do that.
Subsidized food. Today The Village charges our Section 8 tenant only
$125 per month for food and utilities while the going rate for all
other tenants is $300 per month. We have continued at this rate
because we knew that the housing authority could not pay for food and
to charge more would place a burden on those affected. To the best of
my knowledge this rate has not changed since the project' s inception
even though the amount, and cost, of service has risen significantly.
For the period January 11 1992 through July 30, 1992 our dining room
has cost an average of $302 per person per month to operate.
other correspondence
The officials at The City of San Luis Obispo have been aware of our
intention to discontinue participation in the Section 8 program. When
The City required us to install a very expensive fire alarm system, we
asked for assistance on the financing in return for contracting to
provide housing for the "Section 8" program. They were not able to
make a reasonable offer at that time.
Additionally, prior to sending letters to our Section 8 tenants we had
a meeting with the Executive Director at the Housing Authority and his
staff which confirmed our earlier understanding that no condition
existed requiring continued participation in the program. At that time
we informed him of our decision and set up a meeting with his staff in
an effort to make the transition as smooth as possible.
Please understand that the decision to accept Section 8 tenants was not
one made- by the current owners. We have voluntarily participated in
the program. Economic conditions do not allow us to continue to do
this any longer and we must act so that The Village is preserved.
In summary
There is no condition requiring The Village to participate in any
Governmental Rental Assistance Program. Therefore, there should be no
action required to discontinue voluntary participation. As private
business owners, we have the right to make our project work. We have
made a great deal of progress so far, even amidst a difficult economic
climate. To take away our ability to be successful would be to do a
great injustice.
31/�-
1
\CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# J _._.__.
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR MEETING DATE: September 16, 1992
FILE NUMBER: PD 1266
PROJECT ADDRESS: 55 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Appeal of Community Development Director's determination that a Planned
Development Amendment is not necessary to allow property owner withdrawal from
participation in a program providing rent subsidies for housing in the senior housing
project known as the Village, located at the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and Broad
Street.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding original conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Situation
On June 25, 1986, Planned Development Amendment PD 1266 was approved allowing
a change in occupancy at the apartment complex known as the Village (formerly called
Centrepointe) from students to. seniors (a copy of approved conditions is attached).
Conditions of approval limited occupancy to residents that are 55 years of age or older,
set a minimum parking requirement and called for creation of a formal loading area at the
main entrance. There was no condition imposed requiring a minimum percentage, or
number of units, to be set-aside in the project for low income residents as rental
subsidies, or that the property owner participate in a rental subsidy program of any kind.
Several current residents at the Village that have been receiving rental subsidies through
the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program, administered locally by the Housing Authority,
recently were sent notices that their housing assistance payments contracts (leases)
would expire without renewal. The City and the Housing Authority are of the opinion that
the property owner is within his legal rights to terminate the leases of these tenants with
proper notice because there is no long-term, binding agreement that a rental subsidy
program be maintained at the Village.
The appellant, Roger Picquet, feels that, although it was not an outright condition, the
requirement for subsidized units in the project was implied by a reference in the initial
environmental study prepared for the project, and a letter received from the former
Housing Authority Director regarding the ability to provide subsidized units at this project.
He maintains that an amendment to the approved PD needs to be processed in order for
the project owner to stop participating in the rental subsidy program.
3 -13
PD 1266 (The Village)
Page 2
EVALUATION
It is unfortunate that the current property owner, Pat Smith, considers that withdrawal from
the Section 8 program is necessary to help ensure the economic viability of the project.
However, while sympathetic to the plight of the affected seniors, staff does not feel that
conditions can be implied where they do not exist. The letter from the Housing Authority
dated 5-12-86 (attached) discusses the ability to provide assistance to potential tenants
more from a project feasibility standpoint (Will senior housing be successful here?), rather
than a contractual commitment to provide subsidized housing. The mere fact that the
idea of subsidized units was discussed with review of the project does not establish a
project requirement. With project review, conditions may be discussed or programs
encouraged, but if they are not specifically made part of the project description or a
condition of project approval, they do not become an obligation of the project. In the case
of the potential rental subsidy program, it was not even an important consideration or
topic of discussion when the PD amendment was reviewed.
Although moving can be difficult and trying, the Housing Authority Director feels that
alternative housing situations can be found for the affected seniors.
ALTERNATIVES
The commission may either deny or approve the appeal. Denial of the appeal would
uphold the Director's determination that a PD Amendment does not need to be processed
for the property owner to terminate the rental subsidy contracts with existing project
tenants. Approval of the appeal would overturn the Director's determination and require
the property owner to seek a PD Amendment in order to terminate the rental subsidy
contracts. The commission also has the option of continuing action on the appeal if they
feel further information or analysis is necessary for them to render a decision.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding original conditions of approval.
Attached:
Vicinity Map
Appeal letter form Roger Picquet dated 8-24-92
Letter from Arnold Jonas to Roger Picquet dated 8-21-92
Letter from Roger Picquet to Pam Ricci dated 8-11-92
Letter from Housing Authority dated 5-12-86
PD Amendment approval letter dated 6-30-86
Excerpts from staff report and initial environmental study for PD 1266
3��
G-N l� 'H-5
�C_ N _
W0 o 0000 0
_r - p
f. ROU1.GE07
... . ; u _ N O +y ..
oll
RAMONA DR. s
w.. ,c .r-c"E,
c:~ a 010 0 0 0 010 0 0
L•l•.M 'bt66��T.k.:. b.�S.�#� �e�� 1M. '�LeZ+.ML 3>�
....... ' 3(E%:x ' 'Scr SNCLi. ay" s r 1• w ... _
W ¢r MEINECKE
;aFxS RPML'f'�.r'So' w¢;e# 40.1 .n._
z suru�.. 4 .;�ss'`vN"r a"i .,Ebt O ° ° Owl
x r ¢
La
&� O O }� O
R_4_ mow= 0 o Q
� M
O
i � R0io 0E3
o o o
I 'x .......'
�. ;
wpm .co�o�-�
0;! 0 2]
i•l�u f r•' r �`�. T. RLI c2 0 RLJ
O m 711=
Tr
0 a_s MURRAY
0 lo o 01€-
Q :�,�
"•• W jSERRANO OR. p LR
\ 0 "-
VICINITY MAP T PD 1266 NORTH
55 BROAD STREET
A
1
LAW OFFICES
LYON & PICQUET TELEPHONE
ROGER LTON IIOA PALM STREET (905) 541.2560
-reLECOPIER
ROGER PICOUET
TIMOTHY J.CARMEL POST OFFICE BOX 922 (903)543-38373837
SAN LUIS OSISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406
August 24, 1992
RECEIVED
AUG 2 41992
cmr OF SM was OstsPo
COMMUN)rrDEVELOPWNr
Arnold Jonas
Community Development
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Planned Development Amendment for The Village Proposal to Delete a Rental Subsidy
Program
Dear Arnold:
I hereby appeal your administrative decision that a Planned Development Amendment is The
required in order for The Village management to delete the rental subsidy program b
grounds for my appeal are set forth in m letter of August 11, 1992, and will be amp y
later correspondence.
ming up October
please expedite this appeal as several of the residents have their contracts co
1, 1992.
Sincerely,
LYON & PI Q
Roger i uet
RP:ar
cc: Mayor and City Council
George Moylan, Housing Authority
��! ���16�u91G��1��ii�i�uG'�!'!��!''+���'►�I City Of Ste' tuis OBISPO
Fob
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
August 21, 1992
Roger Picquet
Lyon and Picquet
P.O. Box 922
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Re: Subsidized Senior Housing at The Village, 55 N. Broad Street
Dear Mr. Picquet:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of August 11, 1992 , expressing
concern for the impending change in availability of assisted rental
housing for some senior citizens residing at The Village. Your
interest in this situation is commendable. The provision of an
adequate and affordable supply of housing for this important
segment of our citizenry is of concern to city government as well.
Your letter indicates that you have reviewed Community Development
Department files for an application relevant to The Village,
Planned Development 1266, which was approved in 1986 . That approval
allowed a change in tenancy for the apartment complex at 55 North
Broad Street from exclusively students to exclusively senior
citizens. Since the establishment of the senior housing complex,
the Section 8 housing subsidy program has been available for a
portion of the residents. For economic reasons, The Village
management has now chosen to cease further participation in the
program.
However, you contend that several factors preclude the property
owner from acting unilaterally to withdraw from the subsidy
program. As a consequence, your position is that City approval of
an amendment to the planned development applicable to the property
is a necessary precedent to termination of the subsidy program. You
cite three reasons in support of that conclusion: 1. ) The applicant
described and represented the project as having 23 units available
for low-income seniors; 2. ) The applicant solicited and received
the endorsement of the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority;
and, 3 . ) The Negative Declaration of environmental significance was
based, in part, on the fact that the subsidy program was consistent
with City policies for promoting assistance to needy citizens.
Stimulated by your inquiry, I also reviewed the record of PD 1266,
and discussed the matter at length with the Community Development
Department staff member who managed the processing of that
application. My investigation revealed the following facts: 1. )
Project descriptions from the applicant (or those contained in
staff reports) do not contain statements that subsidized housing
3�7
units would be a part of the project; 2 . ) Meeting minutes of public
hearings on this matter do not contain any discussion of
for, or the requirement of, subsidized housing units; 3 . ) There are
no conditions of approval adopted for this project that require
participation in a subsidized housing program of any ype; andr4 . )
The staff member in charge of processing the application
that the focus of the review was on the conversion of the complex
from student housing to a combination of senior and unrestricted
occupancy, and that the housing subsidy was not a primary issue of
concern.
The potential for housing subsidy at this location was briefly
mentioned during project review (in the environmental analysis as
conforming to General Plan policies) , and in a letter from the
Housing Authority expressing a willingness to provide section 8
certificates at this location. However, subsequent participation in
the program was voluntary on the part of the property owners and
does not form the basis for a binding commitment to the City.
Thus, I am unable to agree with your conclusion. I feel that City
approval of PD 1266 contains no requirement that the project
dized units .
establish, or maintain, any specific number of subsi
Therefore, there is no obligation for the current property owner to
obtain City approval prior to withdrawing from the section 8
program. To come to a different conclusion would require a
speculative interpretation of peripheral material related to the
application.
incefely,
old B. Jon s
Community Development Director
c: Nick Neuburger
,3�/�
LAW OFFICES
LYON & PICQUET
ROGER LYON TELEPHONE
ROGER PICOUCT 1104 PALM STREET (605) 541.2560
TIMOTHY J.CARMEL POST OFFICE BOX 922 TELECOPIER
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 (605)543.7657
RECEIVED
August 11, 1992 AUG 1 11992
Cfry OF UN LUIS CeSpo
Pam Ricci. Asst. Planner
Community Development
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: . Requirement for Amendment to Planned Development 1266
("The Village," 55 N. Broad Street)
Dear Ms. Ricci:
I represent a resident of the above-subject project who is very concerned about the announcement
by the owners to discontinue its housing subsidy program. As .you are aware, the housing
program has been an integral part of this project over the last six (6) years. In fact, the number
of units under the program has been as high as 40+. After a review of the facts and
circumstances involved in the original approval of this project's conversion from student to
senior housing, discussions with a City Housing Authority representative and my own research,
it is my opinion that this proposal is a significant change to the project and an amendment to the
Planned Development is required (along with appropriate environmental review).
The project, as described and presented by the applicant in 1986, included as a significant
component the fact that 23 units would be made available for low-income seniors. The applicant
solicited and received the endorsement of the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority (see
Executive Director, Rich Chubon's letter of May 12, 1986) in obtaining City approval. The
negative declaration environmental determination (ER 29-86) was based, in part, upon the fact
that the rental subsidy program would be consistent with City policies to provide such assistance
programs to those segments of the population in need. Obviously, changing the project to delete
this component needs appropriate City review of consistency with the General Plan, Housing
Element, zoning ordinances and other policies and programs. I do not contend that this program
was the primary factor in the City's decision to grant the Planned Development. It probably was
9
Pam Ricci
1266
August 11, 1992
Page 2
intended as a supplement to the basic concept of senior housing. Nonetheless, it was a
sienifican factor in the decision-making process and may not be eliminated without due
consideration.
Of course it would be in.the owner's economic interest to discontinue the program, but that
factor is only one to be considered in the Planned Development Amendment review process.
The impact on our Community's deserving senior ci+izetts; who moved to this project assurcd
of a secure home in their retirement years, is another. The City should ensure that the process
is followed which allows a balancing of these factors to arrive at a fair and just result.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
LYON & PICQUET
cam`
Roger is et
RP:ts
cc: City Council
John Dunn, City Administrator
Arnold Jonas, Community Development
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
George Moylan, Housing Authority
s wO
-•.ar:.:.-'._. . ._ f.,__./::..:'::,:_ _ _ _ - �.1� r-�c.�a-r_.^.'-�....;iru•+•.aiFkainr'v��_ •�`�
'T•i_ ,Y aal1 �.1lrt._a•.- � �`:.�^--•:._. •' '■■■y.- rw...nn.� =.+.:
,�'.�..v�.=.��ve^•sirs=s..i0+'��:• -y::.a.���,s-s•iY.F�r_." �.�y���,�!C
- �-p R3- BUIS11�OBIS
o . . 80
Executive Director-Secretary
A.RicsiiCan 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 moderate 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 20Z (23 units) of the converted
units. Additional participation could occur over time for perhaps another 20Z
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.
`/
- �aau.auras � �,
OIIO�TY��TT
Planning Commission
May 129 1986
Page 2
meals, Will
About 50% of The conversion reatvlevels�aadscostsdofeserviin ceshi e•out hous housing
assistant housing
determine the attractiveness of these unassisted uni=iced.thUltimately, it is
market. These units will need to be competitively p
the elderly market's acceptance of the unassisted
units
inwhich lrelatitn to the
success or failure of the conversion.transportation, and many other services desired by
shopping, health care, p but rents and cost of services
elderly will be an especially positive factor,
will be the key factors contributing to this project's success-
will
would be happy to answer any questions from city staff or the Commission in
this regard.
Respectfully,
A. R. CHUBON
Executive Director
V ��
��� a►�uii�l6�ullulf'�I"� O SAn WIS OBISp0
ty
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 8100
June 30, 1986
Mr. Jeff Modic
RPI-XXV
c/o Vestcap
1610 Oak Street, Suite 204
Solvang, CA 963
SUBJECT: Planned Development PD 1266
55 and 61 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Modic:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 25, 1986, approved
your request to amend the final development plan for the above
properties to allow senior housing in addition to student housing,
subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. Facilities exist which are suitable for occupancy by senior
citizens.
2 . The proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety, and
welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the
vicinity.
3 . Senior housing is appropriate at the proposed location and
will be compatible with' surrounding land uses.
4 . e proposaT-is i -cbliformance with the general plan.
Conditions
1. Occupancy of the Centrepointe Apartments shall be restricted
to residents that are 55 years of age or older.
-- 2. A minimum of 78-auto parXing spaces and 4 bicycle spaces shall .
be provided on the site of the Centrepointe Apartments at all
times.
3. A passenger loading zone shall be identified at the
Centrepointe Apartments main entrance.
4 . Occupancy of the 61 Broad Str=eet Apartments seshall of not be
population
limited to a particular agegroup
(unrestricted) .
3-a23
Mr. Jeff Modic
June 30, 1986
Page 3
4 . A minimum of 109 auto parking spaces, 5 motorcycle spaces, and
5 bicycle spaces shall be provided on the site of the 61 Broad
Street Apartments at all times.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City
Clerk within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any
person aggrieved by a decision of the commission.
If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci of our office.
Sincerely,
K2.0
Ken Bruce
Senior Planner
KB:bee
cc: Rob Strong
Rod Levin
MEETING DATE: 6-25-66
� VIII► � city O� San 11:+15 OBISPO ITEM NUMBER: 4
S PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF REPORT
Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner FK
SUBJECT: FILE M
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 Summary
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.
v��J
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 cif 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 arc 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 111 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 cast and south, and apartments to the west.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community_ Plans and 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.
MEETING AG[ 1
DATE10-6-0- ITEM#= nano„ ❑ m
RLC;d1VF[ g=w �Q C�DDIRLJ FIN.D!ROCT 5 lyyC ITCP,>E, ❑ CHW
October 1,, 1992 fia'cz�uc� r �
CITY COUNCIL i� ❑ MGMZTE LI Q RECDfR
SAN LU LS OBISPO, CL h ®'CZL .n ,
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members: �i,
I AM VERY OPPOSED, at the former City Zltorney Roger Piquet, helping
the freeloaders (fifteen plus) people who have been living ath the
"VILLAGE" compound to be continuing with their subsidized rents by
the Housing Authority.
It so happens that "Roger" has his mother as one of the fifteen (15 )
or so to be moved - and he has a great interest at heart in helping.
It has been my experience and knowledge - that many of these folks, in
order to get all out of the public coffers (endowments) , do everything
legally to qualify to live off of the taxpayers and place all their
assets in the name and or names of their children to do so. It is people
like me and many others that are taking care of professional people that
are retired who have intelligent educated sons (or children) to help them
"reap all the benefits" from the tax paying hard working people.
If you can't afford "steak" you don't buy steak. These people want the
best for the least and some of us at the complex are getting our rents
raised at the expiration of leases in order that the owner can meet his
obligations and come out of bankruptcy.
THIS WHOLE EPISODE has been underhanded, and if Mrs. Piquet Oidn't have
an attorney son FOR FREE - they would all have already moved into lesser
quarters.
If Roger Piquet is so intereted in digging up legalities for his mother
and her low-cost paying companions to remain at low-cost for eternity,
would these people be fighting so vehemently.
Is it fair to "others" that qualify and do not have the high style life
that these free-loaders have. How did Roger get his mother there in the
first place? As CityAttorney and knowing "ALL THE ANGLES".
The public (taxpayers) of this area are anxiously awaiting how much more
the out-of-towners "freeloaders" come into our beautiful little City and
want to continue their style of living at the back of the hard working
tax paying public locals.
Respectfully submitted with interest,
Interested Taxpayers/Taxpayer
Those who are low in income and paying full price at the village resent. the
"goings on" of the fifteen or so (bunch that are not paying their fair share.
All are registered voters waiting for a verdict by the electorate.
AETiNG AGENDA
DATE A0 ITEM 9=
LAW OFFICES
ROGER LYON LYON & PICQUET
ROGER PICOUET 1104 PALM STREET TELEPHONE
(805)541-2560
TIMOTHY J.CARMEL POST OFFICE BOX 922 TELECOPIER
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 (805)543-3857
October 6, 1992
RECEI2' m
HAND DELIVERED f' LUIS
199
C K
S1 P0,CA
Mairu: ;� Council COFFSTO
c/o City Clerk ❑'DmatesAchm / ❑ Fn
City of San Luis Obispo �� 6d' �DI>z
�l
CAO ❑ MN.MX
990 Palm Street ACRO ❑ FWaiMF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �rr Kra ❑❑ ��al
❑ MCMT.TEAM EJ REC DIX
Re: Appeal - The Village (Item #3, October 6, 1992) ❑ CREADFU ❑ D
V11— rf_ '
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
In 1986 the owner of The Village received a discretionary entitlement from the City in the form
of a planned development (PD) approval. As part of the original PD application the owner
sought and received the support of the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority for inclusion
of a Section 8 Housing Assistance Program. PD 1266 was approved with specific general plan
consistency findings which relied upon the Section 8 feature of the.project. In addition, the
environmental determination (Negative Declaration) was, in part,based on this Section 8 feature.
Since conversion from student to senior housing in 1986, the property owner has included a
significant number of Section 8 units in the project. In fact, without the Section 8 program, the
financial viability of the project.would have been in jeopardy. From the very beginning of this
project, Section-8 tenants have been led to believe that their tenancy was desired and that they
were members of The Village Community. These tenants were never told that the management
reserved any alleged right to terminate the program at will. Indeed, tenants were often told that
their move to The Village would be their last.
I respectfully submit that the proposed deletion of the Section 8 component of PD 1266
represents a significant change in land use. Under existing City regulations either a new PD or
an amendment is needed for such a change of land use. There is no harm in requiring the
landlord/owner to demonstrate, through the normal review process and criteria set forth in the
City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other standards, the benefits to be obtained and/or
lost by such a proposal.
Mayor and Council
The.Village
October 6, 1992
Page.2
Please call if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
LYON P _
Roger P Ilet
RP:ts'
COPIFSTO: �
7•tx ActicmJ ❑ MMEETIN��G � _/� AGENDA3
Vf�i0 CDDDiIL Di �IIGII
AO ❑ MN.MIL
CAO [3 FIRE cHEF
Draft PC Minutes �=EY ❑ FW DOL
C�CLERK/ORtc. ❑ PouacK
September 16, 1992 ❑ MCMT.TEAM Cl RECDIR
BG � D
� 0,MA
L
Appeal of Director's Determination: An appeal of the Community Development
Director's determination that a Planned Development Amendment is not necessary
to allow property owner withdrawal from participation in a program providing rent
subsidies in the senior housing project known as The Village; 55 N. Broad Street; R-
4-PD zone; Roger Picquet, appellant.
Judith Lautner,Associate Planner, presented the staff report,recommending the commission
deny the appeal, upholding the original conditions of approval. RECEIVED
Chairman Hoffman declared the public hearing open. OCT b O P.rn
1992
ITY COUNCIL
ROGER PICQUET, appellant; 1104 Palm SANCLUISOBISR0.CA
Represent one or maybe more of the affected residents, I'm not sure. I have
had discussions l,- ith a number of persons who are affected by this proposal.
There a-re. a number of those people here tonight and I
believe there will be speakers other than myself.
It is really one of process not the merits on whether
a il.... •.i 1 - :.1-ii •l.. 1 ra_.� il•.) h -ri I at,C 1.}CIIG
Vi iiUL hE pi liyi viil Uu4ii� �u aLGy 01 c Lr �iJJL ,L j -ru. in;:, t� .� -
with some of representations of staff in the report. It is not my position
that were �'irnpliedi
10)
made an error. What I am suggesting is that it was a voluntary prograrn,
optional, for the owners to institute Section 8 housing. They chose to
institute it. In fact, from 1966 to present there hawbeen a
number of different percentages of section 8 housing in this program. At
one time only 50 units rented in the entire project and over 40 of them were
filled by Section S. So the Section 8 program was not mandated by the
condition of approval, it was optional. But it was a feature that was
addressed by the proponents �rrho said '"This is trrhat ire %•,?ant to do. We
propose to explore and do this. " What I am proposing to you is that they
exercised that option, they placed into being that feature of the planned
development. From a land use perspective.that feature , is there o.)d
cannot be terminated without going through the review process the City has.
The issue before you tonight is not wha44r• or not the program ought to be
continued, it is whp-Aer- or not the applicant ought to go the process of a
planned development amendment before the program is modified.
I think I have ariuded to why it was a significant
feature. It was used by the developer to sell the overall program to the
City. This is what they did by getting the letter from the Housing Authority.
They irnplemated it and they used it for years,relying heavily on the Section
8 administration and the people they moved in under this program. I don't
dispute that they have the right to corse to the City and ask for modification
of the program. But my point is that they have to ask.. That is a significant
feature of that complex.
It i_ ; ray , .-m h. i he present e y I-alki n�c
r�. Ili L r:t +LJ �Inat
Y� i1u.i �.nt tL4.r :Vi •�' U
14.r ~ri •..i 1.:Yl.M 411 LJ 1.l�
the project. your goal here tonight should be to make a
determination that that feature cannot be deleted without going through
the City review process rEQ.chtftg 'aA der-i5/on as -10 hoc
tlKwr gho4ld 6e curd ressed,
Have the owners, in the last two years communicated their plans tb t�,etenan�'s.
find it ironic that in this City if you voluntarily plant a tree in your
backyard and the tree gets to a certain height our regulations say you can't
cut it down without coming to the City for approval. 7h/-s /Qu is a 1%eeo9nif4tn4 t104Y
that tree has become important to the community fabric. I suggest that our
planned development land use regulatory mechanism gives you that same
authority and obligation with the respect to deletion of a program as
significant and important as Section 8 in this particular project.
• U
NICK NEUBURGER, General Manager at 55 N Broad ST.
Pnesen;A 4 rv/`i//L4 0of Md dP1JS/oil -/l7lLC'/A9 00%6eezS.
IN 1966 the village was converted from student complex to Senior complex.
The issues addressed and the conditions of approval
,ncl des an agerequirements 4"' adequate parking and
a passenger loading zone. These are the things that are
specified in the conditions of approval. Both the original o*-Piners and the
current owners have abided by the conditions of approval that were 6.dcpte4
at the time of the conversion. Economic decision 6 years ago voluntarily to
accept a limited number of residents at reduced rates. If this were an
important issue the City would have documented this with one of the
conditions of approval. In 1990.••1,•1,hen the Tropicana project purchased the
village each rentable unit ',•vas evaluated at the current market rate and the
documents at the-City Planning Department were examined closely to verify
the potential value and there were no conditions indicating otherwise. If
the village is to survive we must have the ability to receive market rates.
It is not reawrAile- to force the current owners to continue renting units at
half ra+es because the prior owners decided to have a sale. The rent from
Section8 units does not even cover cost of services provided. Section 8
urogram provides for low income tenants with rental assistan
apartments based on the private market model. The government does not
provide for what this complex offers. It is not resonable to ask a private
o,rr�er to pry°ridti: sQrvirer to tenants tn,ho cennot afford then. We. did a
survey of available of units which fit the criteria for Section 8 programs.
Found there were apartments available that would accept Section 8 tenants. we
Have handed out information on different complexes that accept 5ect,nn 8
tenants.
We have no long term contract with
the City to provide Section 8 housing. our response to the appeal concurs
with that of Planning. There is no condition requiring Section 8 program
participation so it sl-AaW not be necessary to make an amendment to the
approved plan to in order to withdraw from this program. If this appee-/
were approved vie believe this would be a case of reverse condemnation.
\Ple find limited communications
between staff members of the Housing Authority and the Planning Dept.
Participating in the Section 8 program was an issue they were aware of and
communicated about. The fact that they talked about it does not form
grounds for a 'P D amendment as this issue did not appear in the
conditions of approval. The real issue behind the petition is should
Tropicana be required to provide services for compensation below its costs.
•rU
It is riot logical to ask a private businessman or business to do this. The
issue of eminent domain should also be raised. How does the City intend to
compensate the owners for loss of income if such a condition were imposed.
There has been additional correspondence between City and owners. City
has been aware of their intention to discontinue participation in Section 8
program. When the City required us to install a very expensive fire alarm
system we asked via a letter, for assistance on
financing its installation. In return ; if there were low interest monies
available theA i•rould agree to provide Section 8 housing. The
letter recieved back was -thn+ +P+ls a��4rtgement u4% una«ep4&10le .
In summary there is no condition requiring the Village to participate in any
governmental rental assistance program. Therefore there should be no
action required to discontinue a voluntary program. As private business
owners we have the right to make our project work.
t
-r4.e. agreement between tenants and owners. saysnafter
one year it shall revert to a month to month tenancy and that the owner has
a right to terminate the contract.
QUESTIONS:
Commissioner Williams: You noted that the City has been aware of your
intent to discontinue the program. For hu`rr long?
hdfd: Since February. We sent a letter
We have communicated :.,•:ith City about this as %.%cell asymr. Moylan.
br1,
Commissioner Williams: I was just curious as to why if you had that intent
you did not make it known to the tenants prior to the letter you sent.
NN: There is never a good time.
SCOTT MCKECKNEY; 109 NAP,LENE WAY PISMO BEACH, CA.
Representing the people who live in the Tillage, primarily his mother who
has lived there for six years. rao not feel this complex is a luxurious one.
Was told originally when she applied for Secion 8 it would take 2 years to
find a place for her to live because the list was full of young mothers with
children. Then this complex opened up for seniors and she was moved in. 51-A
Was told there were 23 rooms for Section S. I feel she is being thrown
out for same reason that got her in, Secion S. Is acclimated to the life style
of the Village. It is close to shopping, has a eaininghall. My mother has
given up her car, does not cook any more, takes the Van that is available to
transport residents v.here they need to go. It is very difficult for her to
mode somewhere where these things are not available. Not many places for
seniors to go. Judson Terrance has a way+,n9 list of over a year. These
people cannot move easily. Only 5% of village is ace-Lgmal by Secion 8
people. Would like to see a natural attrition of these people.
MALVINA ROMERO; 3395 S. HIGUERA 066
I work as a therapist and a placement coordinator at the Mental Health
Department. I am familiar with problemsA finding homes for p��or, disabled,
low income people. I %,ras very happy %,-hen my momfound a home at The
`,tillage (Centrepoint), She was going to have security. Welcomed her with
open arrns,.tolds riould never have to worry about where she h&A to live
amain. Was not in writing, staff gave this impression. Good business is to
make money but if it had not been for the Section 0, housing this place
would probably he-in business today. Maybe the City could build project for
seniors to live. Hope they will alloy them to stay until they find a place to
live.
RUTH WILLIAMS: 55 N Broad
This is a wonderful place to live. Luxury living.
JULIE KLUVER: MARKETING COORDINATOR at The Village. I would like to
nive some backaround to tell about our facility and tell you the types of
efforts. we have made to help people find alternative housing. Our current
financial position is basically mandating us to try to get market rents for
the apartments. I think it is fair to ask for market rates when you have a
private business with all the operating coats. The Swernftnt program allows
only for apartment. WE offer extra services, Transportation, 2 meals a day,
fruit and beverages 511 day, medical emergency response system. Pay for
mos+"'of the utilities. Drastic difference in housing types. We are no longer
able to provide the types of services we offer at half of the cost that others
are paying. Also, it's not fair to ask the rest of the residents to pick up the
difference. Since we are a private business and entitled to fair rents, if you
decide vie should keep Section 8 tenants, maybe the City should pick up the
difference. 15 units out of 92 rented are Section 6.
Although it is difficult to move, I want Uou to know the concerted effort
Nick N made to find alternative housing for people.
Questions:
Commissioner Williams: How many units are there total?
JK: Total number of units is 115. Started out with 1 1 i but have split some.
Commissioner Williams: 15 of 92 rented units are Section1nits?
C61
JK: We have 92 rented units right now. The balance are used for office
space and resident managers.
HELEN FRANKLIN: 81 years of age. 55 N Broad
Brought up to live within own means. Should not ask others to help. If you
own property you have the right to market it for what you want.
I dont"t think it is right to ask other tenants to pay the balance for a few.
LEON GARRISON; 55 N Broad St.
Past president of resident's association. All residents are special people.
Two years ago due to i-,igh vacancy rate wondered if village could survive.
Needed Secion 8 tenants. Feel Housing Authority and City has a
responsibility to these residents. The management is good. Should be a
compromise. Hope things can be worked out.
GEORGE MOYLAN: 2684 Johnson Ave.
I want to be here as a resource person for you tonight because I am sure
there are a lot of questions. Unfortunate situation. People on both sides are
being hurt. Many mistatements on both sides tonight. This is a land use
issue and a land use issue only!. Emotional issue. Was not director at that
time but did research through former staff at Housing Authority,
newspapers, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that the original owner sold
the city a bill of goods. They wanted conversion. Was only hype.
Was not as nice as it is now.
New owners have fixed it up.
QUESTIONS:
Commissioner Cross: There has been some discussion that it is difficult to
find housing for Seniors on Section 8.
GM: That Awas one of the misstatements. Assist over 1200 people in SLO
CountyAver 300 of them are Seniors. This is o soft rental market. We
never thought there would be a real problem with relocation. The real
r"' r'V I'J111 Ir' .11'J ♦Ilr •_IIVIIIJ IIV"i r' t"_ Jllll_ .Ir"rV %V J , l l'_Lr. IIVL 11.'1111V11�J
provided with housinr, The federal goo. does not allot,! 1,c to participate in 7
the cost of transpoi ion and food. Only housing. It 5,. be difficult for
theni to make the transition.
Commissioner Peterson: On some of the other projects ,hie have had that
were affordable housing type projects there are conditions and things that
are built into them. Is that the case here?
GM: From my perspective that was not done here. Parkwood Village, the
Housing Authority issued the bond for the developer so he could get a lower
interest rate. And in turn we locked in 34 units for a 10 year period. This
does not have the same type of lock in units. With regards to the Citys
knowledge of this business decision. Disagree with (Vick a little bit. I was
involved in those discussions. The City has a rehab loan fund. When the fire
problems came up ('Alarm system) there was some discussion by staff of
the possibility of that money being loaned to the owner at low interest.
There ,Aras no notification by owners at that time that if they did not get the
money they would terminate. Section S contracts. In fairness to the owner
they have came to the Housing Authority about this. There is nothing in
their contract with Housing Authority to prohibit this. In August, they told
Housing Authority of their decision?wanted the letter sent out to have my
c•l natui c and OIOU i + tilcbl vrlttl ltri0iit5 40ilrig 'YYiL 1 u'rvt'Icrs) . I itU�e Lvri�
things vvere done.
After the first year they can do what they want with the 30 day notice
because it becomes a month to month lease.
LaLL+ner : Not a question, but I neglected to note that we did
have a resident call us this afternoon, not a resident of the village but
nearby, Mary Peed. She wanted the commission to be aware that she wanted
Section S residents retained.
ROGER PICQUET:
Like to clarify the issue. This is really an issue of process, not substance
of ,^rhether the program is good or not. Mr. Neuberger indicated that there
',eras nothing in their contracts that required the program go on. That is
correct. But that is the contract between the tenant and landlord. It has
nothing to do with this city's authority under the land use and planned
development. This is not a traditional program. Talking about the trade-offs
that go with any land use entitlement.
Commissioner Williams: Can you support this in court?
RP: I ani prepared to dig so. Certainly not a clear-cut case. If it were. we
would not have this difference of opinion tonight.
That letter
did not come in from the Housing Authority by coincidence. It was not put
into the file to pad the file. The staff did the analysis and relied on that .
It (analysis) talks about affordable senior housing. Comments and
references back to the Section 8 housing.
NED NEUBERGER: ihr Picquet alludes to the fact that we talked to every
one but the tenants. Prior to purchase of the project we did research as to
what the conditions actually were. We aren't mind readers. We don't know
what the intent'uf the body that processed the conversion %rras. This is an
implied condition that is not in writing. It doesn't make sense_ The
condition does not exist.
Questions:
Commissioner Hoffman: Perhaps you can clarify something for me about the
Section 8 program. The contracts involved. Are they between yourself and
the Housing A"uthority"?
NN: There are two kinds of contracts.
The initial contract provided by the Housing Authority.
states upon termination of the contract which was a l-year agreement, that
it reverts to a month to month agreement. That was bet preen the owners at
that time and the tenants. The Housing Authority additionally enters into a
contract with the owner of any property which accepts subsidised rent.
That says what the person is eligible for and what the Housing Authority
will pay o-wner.
There are different kinds of apartments available at the complex. There are
3 kinds of apts. 2 bedrooms, luxury, and economies. It is difficult to rent a
2 bedroom to a senior because typically there is no need. Had a lot of 2
bedrooms and if economics permits we. will split them and market them.
Econom' units rent for $875.
George Moylan: Two items that will help you. On the lease, contract issue.
There are t A,o documents. The lease which is between the mAtner and tenant.
The contract which is between the owner and Housing Authority. We can
only participate with federal dollars in the cost of housing. We cant pay for
food etc. Rent from Section 8 is $545. Issue is the food.
PAT SMITH: 5884TAMARISK, SLO
General partner in The Village. All Section 8 tenants are in the premier
units which rent for $1195. Only pay 5D,:A" of market rent. As a business
person I am aware of Section 8 program. Also rr•,.rner in Parkwood Tillage.
Contracted with Housing Authority to guarantee units there. imiestigated
files at city and talked to city staff to be knowledgeable about what we
,•rrere acquiring. There •,eras no condition for Section 8. We felt -rve could
charge market rents in the future when it became econrnonicaliy feasible.
Is not our intent to throw people out. We are under no contract with the
Housing Authority or the tenants other than a month to month lease. We feel
it is unfair post facto to even be dealing with this issue.
Public Hearing Closed
Action and discussion by Commission.
Commissioner Cross: What latitude do ?we have to impose new conditions,
or change conditions, r-R an A rtier%drnen+ is, re9uesi-ed?.
Clemens: . The municipal codes states that a -Aritten request for
amendments to a PD that have to do with changes in size, position of
buildings, number , area , configuation of lots, landscape treatment phasing
or the like can come before the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
But those amendments that talk about changes in proposed use, overall
density, overall configuration of the land use and circulation features have
to be accomplished by reapplication and submittal of a new pliminary
development plan.
Arnold Jonas: We would treat it like a brand new application and everything
is up for grabs.
Cross: Oriiginal application total units were 161. .The numbers seem to be
moving around. I don't know what they will be once they get through. Does
this create problems?
Karleskint: Were things changed without any PD amendments?
kautner; Don't have a clear answer on that. Roger reminds us that there was a
parcel map split of the two sections. The senior part and the other part.
The change from 1 1 1 to 115, 1 don't know how that arras arranged. I will
research it.
%G
Settle: I am corning at this a little differently. I don't think Staff is wrong
in their initial analysis. I think Roger feels that there is an expectation of
the 16eAP-�;+s poolded . of a PD feature was offered to
individuals and subsequently no%^; this is being changed. Inclination is to
uphold the appeal. Simply because I think it should be clarified because the
units have made modifications both structurally, internally. The owners
have a choice_, they can appeal this, hit litigation, or get it clarified. I will
throw a motion on the table to uphold appeal. Is there a second?
e rt,e+ion dies lacK o $ a. Second,
5et�le: The Pd features are something the attorney has made an arguement for.
There is a sufficent element of doubt to the validity of the Section 8
relationship- You didn't have to do something, but
you did it and sold it as a feature and now you want to withdraw it. That
creates a problem with tenants and city.
Hoffman: Is there a legal opinion?
Clenmens % I am troubled by the theory ofAvoluntary condition used later on
to become a mandatory con ition. It is a dangerous precedent. I am troubled
by the idea that a voluntary aspect of q proposal that government did not key
in on as being an important aspect to put in as a condition becoming a
hammer to hold over somebody and to deprive_ them of the - alp e. of their
land. The regulatory taking and the reverse condemation aspect is very
troubling to me.
Hoffman: 1 agree with counsel. I look at this as a voluntary feature such as
2 meals a day. Could we tell them that they now can't offer only 1 meal a
day. It is incumbent on this body to put into writing all of the conditions
that the owners have to abide by. If we made a mistake and didn't put those
conditions in, that is unfortunate and hope we don't make that mistake
again. I hope there is some way the property owner can help these tenants,
again on a voluntary basis.
I move to deny the appeal, upholding the original conditons of approval of
this property.
Fred Peterson: I second that motion.
Williams. I concur with C. Hoffman. I feel that it is unfortunate that this
has occurred. If the condition had been in the original document I would
have supported it. But it wasn't there. I have read through this.over and
over again and I can't find anything that supports it.
Cross: I don't have Much to say. I would like to say this was a condition
but it +rrasn"t a condition. We got ourselves in trouble here. There is a
lesson this commission has to learn. If it is important enough we have to
put it in.
Peterson: I concur with previous commissioners. I have read through
everything, a condition was never put in. In response to Nr. Picquets
statement that the new management should abide by pl,avl"s managements
decisions. If I had-stuck to my predassors decisions I wouldn't have made it
30 daysrn mLj 6usiness
Senn: I have seen no reason to uphold the appeal. The current owners
researched in good faith what the conditions were. Secondly, it is a
dangerous precendent to imply a further governmental regulation.Because of
the, ecomonic imnact, the b�,rsines;s owners could sue the Cita. Third, the
Housing Authority agrees with staffs recommendation. Fourth, it is very
clear that the leases have expired. My biggest concern is that if we were to
irripose this kind of requirement on this property owner you would have a
great reluctance by property owners to cooperate with Section o" housing.. I
think to do so is sending a message to people who are willing to work with
Section S today that you better be careful in the future.
Karleskint: I support the motion. I feel badly for the people affected but
the written contract is very plain tLa see. We can't impose a condition later
because it is implied. ,
Vote:
Karleskint, Hoffman, Senn, Peterson, Cross, Williams: aye
Settle: no