pages: CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-01-06 | 14 | the message that would be sent; stated that he had an opportunity to weigh in on the process and does not need a second bite at the apple; people have concerns, which he shares, especially about traffic; Councilmember Daysog's referral is a positive step for the Council to take responsibility for traffic; the risks of repeal do not outweigh the possible benefits. Councilmember Daysog stated people are right to be upset about the project being approved on December 16th, which was not right; people are also right to question affordable housing and traffic issues; Mayor Spencer rightfully raised the repeal to hear community questions and concerns; however, his bigger concern is the possibility of litigation; the City needs to be clear when reaching a Development Agreement; that he has raised the concern in the past, specifically with regards to the Mammoth Lakes case; entering into a contract with a developer is high stakes; evaluating the upside benefits against the downside risks means, at best, stymieing the project for the new Council to weigh in and possibly reduce the number of housing units; the benefits have to be contrasted against the downside risks; the downside risk of greatest concern is a lawsuit similar to Mammoth Lakes; outlined the Mammoth Lakes case; stated that he believes the downside risks of rescinding are far out of proportion in an unfavorable manner to the City relative to the possible benefits; traffic issues will have to be addressed outside of the project. Mayor Spencer stated there was a short window for the new Council to hear the total project; moving forward, Alameda can do it better than having late night decisions and special meetings; good questions have been raised about what the application should look like to gain a Density Bonus; that she agrees everything required was not done; the Council should move forward together; multiple projects will be coming to Council; clarifying the Density Bonus is very important; Councilmember Daysog deserved an opportunity to explain his legitimate concerns regarding transit to the new Council; the State tells the City how many housing units it has to build; the City has to decide what the housing will look like and how to move forward; that she will support the project and looks forward to doing it better; the Council is going to ensure ordinance requirements are met and projects are reviewed in totality; the December 16th vote had legal ramifications; the new Council needed to hear the matter to determine whether future votes on the project would be supported in good faith or whether there were unanswered questions that the new Council did not have the opportunity to address; the new Council plans to address concerns when considering Councilmember Daysog's referral and by looking to staff to completely meet all requirements; expressed concern over late night meetings; stated there are ways to work better; concurred with the League of Women Voters' concern about transparency; stated voting at 2:30 a.m. is not transparent. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of not repealing the December 16th decision [not adopting the ordinances] and giving direction to staff to return an evaluation of the Density Bonus Ordinance within 45 days, relative to the Planned Development and associated ordinances to allow the Council to provide direction; also within 45 days, having staff return with a moratorium on any new Density Bonus applications until the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 6, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf |