pages: CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf, 27
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 27 | The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the issue tonight is whether or not to agree to a 60-day tolling period. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is trying to understand the reason for the tolling period request and whether there is an ability on the part of the City's partner to cure the deemed default her understanding of Section 3.2.5.1 is that the developer shall use best efforts to submit all required supplemental information sufficient for the entitlement application to promptly be deemed complete by Alameda; inquired whether the City deemed the application incomplete. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the Notice of Default sets forth the analysis and reasoning; stated SunCal can be asked whether they feel capable of curing by the deadline; the City's position is that SunCal is clearly capable of curing; the Notice of Default is very specific about the problem with the OEA and what needs to be done to be in compliant with existing law. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ENA states that the developer may include: General Plan amendments, Zoning amendments to the MX Mixed Use zoning, and other entitlements and approvals the developer may request for the project site; inquired whether said action has occurred. The Planning Services Manager responded the OEA includes a submittal for a MX amendment and specific plan for the site; stated neither submittal can be processed under the current City Charter and would require another initiative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittals cannot be processed because of non-compliance with the Charter provisions or because the submittals do not include a request to deal with some General Plan and Zoning amendments or other entitlements including the Density Bonus Ordinance passed in December. The Planning Services Manager responded General Plan, Rezoning, and Master Plan amendments were included; stated the problem is that the submittals cannot be processed because of inconsistency with the City Charter. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that ENA does not allow for a second initiative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the typical process that the Community Development Department goes through when reviewing and considering non Measure A Compliant submittals; referenced the Francis Collins' project. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 2 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |