Laserfiche WebLink
REPORTS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY <br />-- Condominium Moratorium/26-unit Project on Division Street <br /> Mr. Levine presented his report (SR 81:25) dated January 22, 1981, regarding <br /> this matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Harry Fish, 743 Camino Ricardo, Moraga, stated he had reviewed the City <br /> Attorneyvs report, and asked whether or not the City has a legal responsibility <br /> and if the City had treated him fairly. He stated that the moratorium was adopted <br /> on December 22, 1980, and that he had already notified his tenants on December 10th <br /> of his condominium conversion plans. He stated the City had accepted his plans, <br /> therefore he did not feel it is fair to be included in the moratorium. <br /> <br /> Mr. Walker presented a letter from Ms. Laura A. Phillippe, 829-C Division <br /> Street, emphasizing the shortage of rentals in Pleasanton, especially for senior <br /> citizens, and expressing her concern for those who Could afford to pay a reasonable <br /> rent but are not able to buy a condominiumconversion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift reviewed the three condominium conversion projects that are included <br /> in the moratorium: Mr. Fish's 26-unit project on Division Street; the 73-unit complex <br /> on Santa Rita Road near Century House; and a 6-plex complex on Sonoma Drive. He <br /> stated the 6-plex project application was received very late, but the other two <br /> projects were accepted before the moratorium was adopted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Levine explained the basis for the current moratorium as being a land use <br /> matter and the interim holding pattern is to carefully study land use regulations <br /> that the Council has concerns about. He added that the moratorium could be extended <br /> an additional eight months for this purpose, if necessary. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Butler asked if Mr. Fish's position had changed in the last two <br /> weeks with regard to the status of his project as Council considered it. The City <br /> Attorney advised that the tentative map would not become final for sixty days after <br /> approval by State law, therefore the moratorium ordinance was in effect before Mr. <br /> Fish's tentative map could have been filed. The State law provides that there is no <br /> vested rights unless there has been a final discretionary approval and substantial <br /> expenditure made based on that final approval. The facts in Mr. Fish's case do not <br /> meet the standards for a vested right. <br /> <br /> After considerable discussion, it was moved by Councilme,m, ber Wood, and seconded <br /> by Councilmember Butler, to deny Mr. Fish's request to exclude the 26-unit project <br /> on Division Street~onthe moratorium ordinance, and to refund the filing fee if so <br /> desired by the applicant. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> Draft Ordinance to Extend all RAP Permits for a period of 12 Months <br /> Mr. Levtne presented his report (SR 81:24) dated January 22, 1981, regarding <br /> this matter. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that <br /> Ordinance No. 959, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, <br /> extending Residential Allocation Program approvals slated to lapse on or before <br /> July 22, 1981, for twelve months, be introduced. <br /> <br /> 10. 1/27/81 <br /> <br /> <br />