08 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Chief Building and Safety Official refused to issue the FCO absent the final approval by the RHADC. The applicants filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction against the Ruby Hill Owners' Association (RHOA) on March 29, 2013, whereby the: "Plaintiffs seek an order requiring the Ruby Hill Owners' Association (`RHOA') `to perform such tasks as necessary to allow [Plaintiffs] occupancy of their home until resolution of this action on the merits." On May 23, 2013, the Court ordered that: "The Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs Anil Reddy and Divya Reddy (`Plaintiffs) on March 29, 2013, is DENIED.10" The Court identified in the ruling that the applicants had not exhausted their administrative remedies prior to filing their motion for a preliminary injunction and that the City of Pleasanton is the only party which could issue the FCO for the Reddy's project. Because the RHADC would not issue an approval letter based on the seven items requiring correction, the City could not issue the FCO. As a result, the City agreed to process the design review application submitted by the Reddys in an effort to assist the parties to resolving the remaining issues. The Zoning Administrator normally acts on design review applications for custom homes. Given that the issues of the applicants' home are its compliance with the RHADC's approval and, therefore, with the RHADG, the inability of the RHADC and the applicants to reach agreement on the remaining design issues to bring the home into compliance with the RHADG, and the sensitivity of the Ruby Hill community regarding this application, staff has forwarded the Design Review Application to the Planning Commission" for its review. Temporary Occupancy and Application for Design Review The applicants applied for and were denied a permit for Temporary Occupancy (TCO). The applicants appealed the Chief Building and Safety Official's position to the City .Manager who agreed to issue a TCO, allowing the applicants to occupy the residence after they agreed to submit an application for Design Review Approval to the Planning I Division and to deposit the sum of $80,000 $100,000 (MP) with the City to correct the remaining items identified by the RHADC as not complying with the RHADG. The applicants submitted the cash deposit and the Design Review application and were issued a TCO to occupy their home on June 28, 2013. 10 Exhibit D, Denial of"`Motion for Preliminary Injunction,' filed by Plaintiffs Anil Reddy and Divya Reddy (`Plaintiffs')," dated May 23,2013. 11 Section 18.20.0106.of the Pleasanton Municipal Code(p.523): "The zoning administrator may refer any of the above items to the planning commission for review and action." Item 6.a., P13-2028 Page 6 of 31 December 11, 2013