Laserfiche WebLink
Item 6e(1) <br />Amendments to Chapter 18.06 and related sectors of the Pleasanton Municipal Code <br />regarding Second Units to eompl.y with AB 1866which requires ministerial approval of <br />second unit uses. (SR 03:148) <br /> <br />Item 6e(2) <br />Amendments to Sections 19.44.040(b)(1) and 19.44.120 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code <br />waiving the in-lieu park dedication fee for second unRs, nursing homes and senior <br />care/assisted living facilities. (SR 03:149) <br /> <br />Michael Roush presented the staff reports on these items. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky related the experience of an individual who recently tried to get a <br />secondary unit approved. He asked why deed restrictions were required for secondary units. He <br />did not see the necessity of having requirements regarding parking for secondary units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated secondary units are treated differently than normal single-family <br />residences. The concern is that if someone sells the property and does not fully disclose all the <br />restrictions, the new purchaser could violate some condition and be placed in a difficult position. <br />The rationale was that if there were a recorded restrictive covenant, any future purchaser would <br />be on notice of the restrictions. In the long run, it was deemed to prevent future problems. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky was concerned about complications that could arise if the ordinance is <br />changed and there are deed restrictions on record based on the prior ordinance. He felt the <br />restriction should be worded to follow whatever ordinance is currently applicable. <br /> <br /> There was discussion regarding what type of deed restrictions could be recorded and the <br />desire to be more generic. <br /> <br />Ms. Hosterman asked what the negative would be for not having a deed restriction? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said if a person purchased a house with a second unit, the purchaser may not <br />be specifically aware, for example, that owner occupation is required in one of the two units, or <br />that there are certain parking restrictions. He presented a possible scenario. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala pointed out that secondary units have been encouraged by Council and seems <br />to be fulfilling some of the needs for rentals. She believed the generic deed restriction made a lot <br />of sense. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush agreed a generic restriction subject to the current ordinance may be more <br />workable so a purchaser is aware of restrictions and would be referred to the Planning <br />Department for details. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky objected to the forced survey of rents for secondary units. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 22 06/03/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />