CCMIN051804 - Laserfiche WebLink

In order to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest, Deborah McKeehan, City Manager, recused herself from participating in this issue. Mayor Pico turned the meeting over to Vice Mayor Ayala. Councilmember Campbell asked legal counsel to clarify the need for a 415 vote on this matter. Michael Roush, City Attorney, said that the item before Council this evening is a decision on the Council's part whether it wishes to have staff bring back a formal ordinance dealing with the moratorium. Depending upon the scope of the moratorium, it might influence whether or not the Mayor and Councilmember Brozosky may participate in a subsequent discussion if there is majority support to bring back the ordinance. In order for this matter to come back to a Council agenda, it will take a 2/3 vote. Mr. Campbell asked if the Council vote needed to be a 2/3 vote in order for Council to authorize staff to bring back a moratorium prohibiting land use approvals pending the General Plan Update? Mr. Roush said yes because staff is only asking if there is direction from Council to do this. If there is that direction, and assuming that three or four of the councilmembers could participate with the actual ordinance itself, it would take a unanimous vote of the Council to adopt the interim ordinance. If all five councilmembers can participate, then it will take a 4/5 vote to adopt the interim ordinance. Mr. Roush presented the staff report. Ms. Ayala said she was interested in any other legal advice that legal counsel could provide. Mr. Roush said that any time a Council adopts a moratorium, it is a serious and significant step because, essentially, Council is making a finding that there is a serious threat to the public's healthy, safety or welfare, and by reason of that, development approvals will have to stop. Staff would need, however, to continue processing land use applications, as the moratorium does not stop the processing. The moratorium only stops the approval process because Council has made a finding that until whatever is being studied with the General Plan update, Council does not want to see any further land use approvals go ahead. These approvals could potentially impact the very thing that Council is studying, therefore, State law allows Council the discretion to hold up these approvals until it completes this process. Ms. Ayala asked if Council were to use the same argument as the Planning Commission did - that the welfare of the residents of Pleasanton, especially those neighborhoods that could directly be impacted by some of the large development projects that the community has raised concerns about -justify a moratorium, and could Council make that link with the information provided in the 2003 Baseline Traffic Report? Pleasantun City Council 17 05/18104 Minutes