CCMIN092005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Certainly an alternative would be to bring back a moratorium on these until the City decides on this issue or wait until it is reviewed with the Housing Commission and Planning Commission and return a report back to Council and recommend whether or not a moratorium would in order at that time. Mr. Fialho stated that he would recommend the later because Council would not lose anything by placing the issue on hold in the interim while the Housing and Planning Commission's weigh in on the issues following Identified issues: (1) consistency with state law; (2) clarifying its relationship with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; (3) defining and articulating what a conversion process might look like; (4) the criteria by which a conversion process would take place; (5) a discussion about tenants rights; (6) General Plan polices; and (7) an explanation or definition as to what affordability would be in those conversions. Mayor Hosterman said she incorporated these items into her motion. Mr. Roush said staff discussed what would occur if the Council gave this direction. If the applicant wanted to proceed, he could do so and the City could not stop the application. In light of Council discussion, applicants generally understand where the Council is at and act accordingly. The City cannot prevent the application from proceeding, but staff can encourage the applicant to wait until this item is further clarified before proceeding. Mr. Brozosky asked if the City legally has to process the application. The City has several current applications before Council on subdivisions for housing projects where Council has said that it would like the applicants to wait until the General Plan is completed. Mayor Hosterman said she was asking for Mr. Clark's indulgence in advance in order to allow getting through this process. She had no interest in banning his ability to move forward as it is his prerogative. Mr. Sullivan did not support staff's recommendation as it had been written. He supported Council's discussion and the City Manager's summarization. He requested a summarization of tonight's comments be reflected in the staff report to the Housing and Planning Commissions. He supported Option 3 and if officially the City is unable to delay the matter then staff could recommend that Council not proceed. Mr. Brozoskyasked Mayor Hosterman if her motion included Mr. Sullivan's request. Mayor Hosterman said her motion did not reflect the noted requests, as she believed Council is walking a fine line because Council can make findings for setting parameters for condominium conversions under the Subdivision Map Act. She believed it was unconstitutional to restrain alienation of real property and she did not want to send the wrong message to the community. Mr. Brozosky requested making a substitute motion. Mr. Sullivan requested a friendly amendment to the motion that the City suggest to the applicant that he place his application on hold until the City completes this process, which may take 90 days. Mr. Fialho informed Council that the process, which includes review and consideration by two commissions and staff, might take up to six months. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 17 09/20/05