pages: CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2018-09-04 | 16 | chances of private investors being attracted to a project is to reduce the project cost; the City's tendency is to increase the cost due to multiple requests; the City tries to get the as many public benefits as possible without over-burdening the project so that private investment becomes hard; only private investors can guarantee that the housing portion of the project would move forward; the amendments and Master Plan show the City wants the project to move forward and wants private investors to invest in infrastructure because the Tidelands land is not as useful to the City unless they do; the amendments clarify the objective of Phase 1 including the Tidelands; Fortman Way is integrated with the project; there are no barriers between the two districts. Councilmember Matarrese indicated that he would like to make a motion. Mayor Spencer stated there is already a motion on the table. Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the Planning Board has considered potential issues with the road and how it might interact with the broader plan. The Assistant Community Development Director responded whether to move the road to the center was the main issue discussed at the Planning Board; staff recommended moving the road to the middle. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Council could conditionally approve the plan. The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the Master Plan cannot be conditionally approved; the last four pages of the Master Plan contain descriptions of approvals that required before the Developer can pull a building permit. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the Council votes no, nothing will be built; sending the item back to the Planning Board would only be a delay tactic; she is in favor of PLAs but recognizes that both parties must work together in good faith; she is concerned if further delays are created, nothing will be built. Councilmember Oddie inquired how long the delay would be if the item is sent back to the Planning Board then returns to Council for approval. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the item could return back to Council by November. Councilmember Oddie inquired if there would be any legal implications in delaying approval. The City Attorney responded it is impossible to confirm; stated the City does not want to encourage legal action; without further work on the actual design and layout, there is little the Planning Board can review and does begin to look like a delay of the project; urged caution in requesting further Planning Board review. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 September 4, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf |