pages: CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-01-06 | 13 | Tube; outlined other benefits, including Clement Avenue extension and park funding; expressed concern over the message that rescinding would send to businesses, investors, developers and the neighbors; outlined work done by the neighborhood group; stated finding ways to address traffic concerns, including the Council Referral raised by Councilmember Daysog [paragraph no. 15-031], would be a less draconian way to allow the project to move forward; expressed concern over potential litigation; urged moving forward. *** (15-024) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue after 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing after 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear Mayor Spencer's rationale for placing the matter on the agenda. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that his biggest concern is the project in the context of the Northern waterfront available land inventory; questioned what would happen if the Density Bonus was applied to all available land; stated the 2,245 housing units in the Housing Element would increase to 3,736 units if the Density Bonus is applied; the Encinal Terminals units would increase from 234 units to 398 units under the Density Bonus; to ensure the West End is not gridlocked, he would like Council to direct staff to review placing a moratorium on Density Bonus projects until the numbers are understood and adjusted; the matter is critical for Alameda Point Site A; when he reads the Density Bonus ordinance, there is a list of items that must be in place prior to granting the Density Bonus; the requirements are to protect the City and to ensure the affordable housing is delivered in the best configuration; permits will not be issued until the affordable housing agreement is signed, which accomplishes something similar to the Density Bonus requirements; he would also like Council to direct staff to complete an analysis of the Density Bonus and Planned Development ordinances to clarify language; technically, the notion of a repeal places a halt, but would not stop everything; however, the legal restraints of noticing and the required meeting for a second reading are the same as adopting the ordinance on December 16th; therefore, he will not support the repeal; the staff review should completed before future projects; that he is interested in Councilmember Daysog's referral; all traffic demands, including Alameda Landing, need to be addressed; data needs to be generated; there will be future votes on the Del Monte project; expressed concern over a homeowners association overseeing the assessment funding that would be used to run the shuttles. Councilmember Oddie stated the reason for the repeal is not known; provided an overview of the number of people supporting and opposing the project; stated the repeal risks damaging the City's reputation; investors want certainty; expressed concern over Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 6, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf |