My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
031610
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2010 11:03:34 AM
Creation date
3/12/2010 11:03:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/16/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mayor Hosterman said this is her discretion and it is her standard operating procedure and to <br /> answer to Ms. Ayala's question, she asked staff to explain the review and appeal process for <br /> the potential 51 custom home lots for Oak Grove. <br /> City Manager Fialho said the item being referended is the City Council approval of the <br /> development plan for Oak Grove. The Council also approved design guidelines for 51 custom <br /> homes. The description of how those homes would be approved and subsequently appealed to <br /> the City Council, as described by Ms. Ayala, is accurate. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan questioned who has discretion of having a house approved in the City. <br /> Mr. Fialho said initially the Zoning Administrator, which is basically the Planning Department <br /> who can approve a house which is consistent with the guidelines. It can be appealed by the <br /> Planning Commission, the public or City Council, which is consistent with every other Zoning <br /> Administrator approval. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Mr. Fialho that all 51 houses can be approved by a <br /> Planning Department staff member if not appealed. <br /> Councilmember McGovern noted that if someone wants to have a say in any of the houses <br /> approved, it must be appealed. Mr. Fialho said the Council approved design guidelines along <br /> with the Oak Grove project. The parameter by which a Zoning Administrator can approve a <br /> custom home has to be consistent with those design guidelines. If a member of the public, <br /> Planning Commission or Councilmember feels different about that approval, they would have to <br /> appeal it up through the public process. <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> 8. Public Hearing: Further consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial <br /> of an application for a vesting tentative map regarding the conversion of the Vineyard Villa <br /> Mobile Home Park and approval of a settlement agreement <br /> Former City Attorney, Michael Roush, stated the Vineyard Villa Mobile Home Park is a 208 <br /> mobile home park in which residents own their own mobile homes, and the land upon which <br /> those homes sit are owned by a park owner. <br /> Two or three years ago, the property owner submitted an application to convert the park from a <br /> rental property to one in which residents would own their own lot. This is sometimes called a <br /> conversion, and for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act, the lots would be considered <br /> condominiums. The conversion would not require any physical change to the property and it <br /> would not immediately change the senior status of the park nor would rents be changed <br /> immediately because of the rent stabilization agreement in place. <br /> He said the conversion of rental mobile home parks is governed by the Subdivision Map Act and <br /> Government Code Section 66427.5 and this law has a couple of provisions which have been the <br /> subject of legal challenge and legislative action. But, essentially, there are two requirements- <br /> that the applicant submit a survey of support of the residents and that the applicant submit a <br /> report on the economic impact of the conversion on the residents. He said there was some <br /> debate as to what both of these terms mean and when the Planning Commission considered <br /> the application in February 2009. On appeal, Council considered the application in May and <br /> August 2009, and based on the law, had concerns as to whether or not the application had to <br /> City Council Minutes Page 3 of 8 March 2, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.