CCMIN010306 - Laserfiche WebLink

is stated that the HOA Board's architectural position is not to approve any requests for canvas or metal patio covers? Mr. Iserson said the CC&Rs referred to these development standards. He did not believe the CC&Rs specified that the awning could not be canvass and must be wood. The CC&Rs delegate to the Architectural Review Committee the authority to approve requests based on whatever criteria and standards it has for such structures. Mr. Sullivan asked if an appeal process was available to the Rosepark property owners if the HOA Board of Directors did not approve something, such as a request for a canvass or metal patio cover versus going to the City? Mr. Roush said normally if there was a decision by an architectural review committee and the homeowner was not satisfied with it, the homeowner had recourse with the courts to ask the court to review the decision to make sure it was not arbitrary or capricious, which is similar to the type of review that courts may do of City Council decisions to make sure it is not being totally unreasonable about its decision. He noted there is interpretation associated with CC&Rs, design reviews, and design standards and courts give deference to reviewing bodies. Mr. Sullivan asked if the applicant's battle would be easier if the City changed the PUD to allow a retractable canvass awning? Mr. Roush did not believe that would be the case. He pointed out the City and the Rosepark HOA Board of Directors are separate independent reviewing bodies and the City regulations may allow something, but for whatever reason when the developer put in the CC&Rs it may have wanted stricter standards than the City's. When a homeowner buys into the property, it essentially buys into this scheme and just because the City might allow it, it does not mean that the CC&Rs or the reviewing body of the HOA would necessarily allow it. Mr. Sullivan wondered why the applicant wanted to pursue this if the CC&Rs do not allow it. Mr. Roush said under the existing PUD, even if the CC&Rs allowed it, it could not be done which is why the applicant needed a PUD modification to allow a retractable canvass awning from the City's point of view. Mr. Brozosky believed the Rosepark HOA had established a precedent. He wondered why the applicant could not wait until the members of the HOA took a vote to determine whether it wanted to change its CC&Rs and then the PUD could be modified; otherwise it sets a law in place that could not be implemented based upon other jurisdiction in this area. He asked staff if this was correct. Mr. Iserson said the HOA Design Committee did reject the proposal. The applicant has the right to make an application to the City to modify the PUD, which he has chosen to pursue and is one of the steps that needed to be taken. Mr. Brozosky asked if this particular application changed the PUD for all lots within the Charter Oaks Development? Mr. Iserson said no. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 10 01/03/06