PC 06/27/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 27, 1984 Page 8 Commissioner Innes addressed the amount of assessments and vote made by Stoneson. Mr. Stubbs indicated he couldn't speak to the total amount of money. Chairman Doherty asked since the litigation was filed in January 1981 if any continuances had been requested by Stoneson. DRr. Stubbs said not to his knowledge. At this time a recess was announced so that the recording secretary could get a replacement for a cassette tape which had broken. The meeting resumed after five minutes. Mr. Stubbs then continued to address the Commission. The difficulty in a lawsuit, he said, is discovery, the finding of facts, and, following this lengthy process, the time an issue goes to trial in Alameda County is approximately 24 months. An 'At Issue Memo' must first be filed with the court. That hasn't been done yet in this case. He .doesn't. knovv why it hasn't been done but there are many other attorneys working on this matter. Commissioner Innes wanted to know why BSD didn't include the 27 units in the assessment. Mr. Stubbs said he had no idea. Stoneson has no control over this matter. They are Class "B" voters and could only vote for or against the proposed assessment. They could not vote on other issues. They do not participate at the homeowners' meetings. Mr. Perkins, spoke again, stating he is just one of the 150 people who own homes in the Stoneson Development and is not the president of the homeowners association and feels very strongly that something should be done. The damage to their units will be felt by them for a long time. Commissioner Innes asked Mr. Perkins if he was the spokesperson for the homeowners. Mr. Perkins indicated he is not but he is the spokesman for the picketing people standing outside of the 24 units. He felt the attorney of Stoneson can speak easily of the matter inasmuch as he is not emotionally involved. It is hard to be non-emotionally involved when it is your home which is effected. He stated that their attorney has indicated they are trying to get a settlement agreement before going through the entire court system. He stated the roof repairs should be made, claims paid so that everyone can go on with their lives. At the very least they would like a condition put on approval of the proposed use permit relating to this situation. Stoneson is not putting up a dime on this assessment. The assessment will apply to class "A" units and Stoneson's units will not become class "A" until they have been developed and sold. They feel very strongly that there is a moral and ethical issue at stake. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Doherty announced there would be discussion amongst the Commission members and there would be no more public input unless requested by the Chairman or his colleagues. Commissioner Innes felt the Commission has heard legitimate complaints by the citizens of the development relating to various problems. After hearing the rebuttal and all other testimony, he suggest that the City Attorney forward a transcript of the minutes to the DR.E and State Board of Contractors for their consideration in this case. He asks that Mr. Harris have the building department review the constructioin drawings on these new units very carefully and that they exercise extreme care when signing off building permits. He suggested that BSD look at their language concerning the assessments on the townhomes. Perhaps the bylaws should be reviewed. He expressed extreme sympathy with the homeowners and their past problems. A conditional use permit application, however, doesn't relate to the past development.