All Forum Posts by: Christopher L.

We live in Burbank and have done a live-in rehab of a triplex that was in really rough shape at the time we bought it. Having worked with the City of Burbank permitting office a few times now, I honestly can't really complain too much about the process. The first time we pulled permits it was for a bathroom and kitchen remodel that we DIY'd. The city worked with us through the entire process without any hassle, and scheduling inspections was something I could do the night before I was ready for them to come by. Looking back I consider the entire experience pretty painless.

The second time we had to go to them it was a bit more complicated. We were taking advantage of their >500 square foot house additional allowance by adding a master suite to the main unit. We had our contractor draw up the plans and work with the permitting office, so I don't have a first hand account of any difficulties. Plan check did take a while longer than we expected, a little over 3 months if I remember correctly. Our contractor was complaining about how annoying Burbank can be, but we still went from plans to completion in just about 6 months. 

My advice would be: if you are able to find a reasonably priced duplex in this city, I wouldn't let the permitting office be the reason you let it go. And if for some reason you do decide not to move forward, please send it to me :)

 I don't believe they named the actual credit union on the podcast so unfortunately I can't be of much help with this.

Hi all. As multifamily investors here in SoCal we've been recently inspired by episode 288 of the podcast to start looking around for better lending products in the area. The guests on that podcast had mentioned they've found a local credit union who offers tri/fourplex loans at 90% LTV.

Perhaps we won't be so lucky here in the Long Beach area, but I'm curious if anyone happens to know any local lenders who have offerings better than the standard 75% LTV? Thanks!

I should clarify that I've been contacting him daily since the 7/15 deadline we gave him, not daily since June.

My wife and I are house hacking in Burbank, CA and have run into an unusual situation with a tenant that we're not sure how to handle. He and his family have been renting from us for two years without issue, their lease having rolled into a month-to-month agreement after the first year. In that time rents in the area have increased significantly, so in June we gave him a 60-day notice that rent will be increasing and we will be asking them to re-sign a 1-year lease (our feeling being that switching to annual leases will allow us to better automate annual rent adjustments and provide us some assurance that we won't be looking for tenants in the winter months). We told them that they could think it over but we needed an answer no later than 7/15.

Unfortunately, (or perhaps, as expected) we are now past the 7/15 deadline and they still have not responded with a clear decision. We are contacting them daily explaining that they either need to sign the new lease or make clear their intentions to vacate, but they are still delaying. My concern is that we will hit the end of the lease with no signed lease and no clear idea how to proceed.

So I'm opening it up to the group here. How should we best proceed going forward? What could I have done better to prevent this ambiguity? Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

I replied to the private thread, but just in case I will respond here as well. We have refinanced our multi a few times using a mortgage broker. PM me and I can share his contact info.

 Huge help, thank you! I will talk to my lender.

Thanks @Chris Martin. I hadn't considered just keeping it as is and renting them that way, I guess it makes sense. There are very few condos in this part of the city as single family homes are still very affordable.

@Andrew Johnson right now they are condos, but the property is still being rented out and operated as an apartment complex. Vacancy is only at about 10%, which is high for the area but the building isn't empty. I haven't had time to dig into the permitting of the conversion but my understanding from the seller is they did everything with the city's permission.