pages: CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-03-10 | 9 | protections Vice Mayor Matarrese continued: with the projections that were included in the original ordinance. The City Clerk continued: that are specific to grant the affordable housing; the application would include a financial report that the concessions sought will result in affordable units and provide the same protection [as the current ordinance]. Councilmember Daysog stated his interpretation of the motion is that reporting should be done as part of the density bonus program; some of the reporting has not been done; his interpretation of the motion is the City would be requiring all of the reporting that is indicated under the density bonus as a necessary part of the application and approval process, not something that can be done afterwards. Councilmember Oddie stated the motion seems to be another way of stating the three proposals in the staff report [phased projects; incentives and concessions; and waivers], except waivers were not mentioned; the evidence, site plans and drawings are to be provided. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he separated out the drawings because said issue is most prominent in the phasing; that he is looking for the protections and the evidence that the concessions are needed to provide the developer with the funds to build affordable housing and the pro forma prior to granting the density bonus. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the direction is number 2 of the staff recommendation [incentives and concessions], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he believes so. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion does not include number 1 or 3 [phased projects, and waivers], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is opposed to number 1 and 3 [phased projects and waivers], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he called out what he thinks is most important. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the motion would put the City in a legal conundrum with the State; stated the requirements are on the books, but were not done for the Del Monte project; his interpretation is the motion is to have the requirements met on the front end of the project. The City Attorney responded that she takes the direction to mean that Council wants staff to try to clarify the density bonus ordinance so that everyone understands it, and the way staff is interpreting it, more clearly; Vice Mayor Matarrese's suggestion will be reviewed as part of the process. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 8 March 10, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf |