08 - Laserfiche WebLink

K. The Reddys and the Ruby Hill Owners' Association are in disagreement about: the approved design of the Reddy residence compared to the as-built residence; whether Mr. Townsend provided any on-site approvals for modifications; whether exterior color and materials and landscaping were properly submitted to the Architectural Design Committee, which disagreement is summarized in a list of forty seven (47) items in the as-built condition of the residence which allegedly deviate from the approved plans, attached as Exhibit B; as well as whether there has been encroachment by the Reddys onto adjacent private property. L. The Reddys and the Ruby Hill Owners'Association attempted to resolve their differences regarding the approved design and as-built condition of the Reddy residence through the Reddy's appeal of the Architectural Design Committee's determination that the as-built residence did not conform to the approved design to Ruby Hill Owners' Association Board of Directors, which denied the appeal and upheld the Architectural Design Committee's determination that was followed by unsuccessful mediation. M. The Reddys then sought judicial relief through a motion for a preliminary injunction, filed with the Alameda County Superior Court. The motion for a preliminary injunction sought a legal determination that the Ruby Hill Owners' Association, in its failure to allow occupancy of the Reddy residence, breached its contract with the Reddy's, and sought to compel the Ruby Hill Owners' Association to approve the as- built condition of the Reddy residence, thereby allowing the Reddy's to occupy their residence. The court ruled in favor of the Ruby Hill Owners' Association in Case No. HG13671895. In doing so, the court stated: "Indeed, it is not clear that ROHA has even prohibited Plaintiffs from occupying their residence. Instead, it appears that Plaintiffs are required to obtain an occupancy certificate from the City of Pleasanton (the "City"), not from RHOA." N. The Reddys now seek a temporary certificate of occupancy from the City to allow the Reddys to move-in and occupy their residence while the issue of the differences between the approved design and as-built condition of the Reddy residence, as well as the alleged encroachments and drainage issues with adjacent property, are resolved through a City design review process. O. The City is willing to grant the Reddys a temporary certificate of occupancy only if it has a written and financial guarantee that the Reddys will modify the as-built condition of the home, if needed, to comply with any final decision through the City design review process, as well as a determination regarding the alleged encroachment. 3