Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Hosterman believed this was a complicated issue and is one in which Council <br />needs to be careful in setting a policy. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky again requested making a substitute motion if the original motion was any <br />different than that of staff's recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho said the distinction is that staff is asking by way of policy. a request for <br />individual developers and applicants to place their requests on hold. Staff's recommendation <br />was to postpone the processing of the application. <br /> <br />A substitute motion was made by Mr. Brozosky to direct staff to pursue Option 3 <br />include placing on hold the processing of all applications related to condominium <br />conversions. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho confirmed the substitute motion was to place on hold the processing of all <br />applications related to condominium conversions. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky said that was correct. The substitute motion should also include a review <br />and consideration of the matter by Housing and Planning Commissions including all comments <br />made by Council at its meeting and then return to Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho believed that the motion rather than a policy statement should include <br />directing property owners to wait out the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky preferred staff's recommendation. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman requested input from the City Attorney regarding the message that <br />Council will be sending the community and the potential illegality of this type of motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush suggested returning to Council with a moratorium ordinance at its October 4 <br />meeting to essentially defer processing condominium conversions applications until the <br />Condominium Conversion Ordinance is amended if there was a second to the substitute motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman asked if this type of moratorium could be challenged in court. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said it could. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan said from a practical standpoint, there is no difference in what Council is <br />discussing and what applicants present. The community watching tonight's meeting would most <br />likely come to the conclusion that if they submitted an application it would not proceed so why <br />spend the time, effort and money. Eventually if Council decided to adopt a moratorium based <br />on the outcome of the Housing and Planning Commissions review, Council could take that step. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman asked if there was a second to the substitute motion? <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if staff was recommending what Mr. Brozosky indicated. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho said no. The intent of the language in the staff report was not to suggest a <br />moratorium. The intent was to convey to the community that potentially as these applications <br />are presented they be delayed in order to allow staff an opportunity to work through the Housing <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />09/20/05 <br />